Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The land of the free. Fact or meaningless rhe

GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 11:07:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The land of the free. Fact or meaningless rhetoric?

Rhetoric is described as language that is not honest, sincere, or meaningful.

I am French. French has no word that equates to freedom or free will as understood by the English. This makes freedom and land of the free pure rhetorical statements and basically a dishonest statement. These terms are ideas or a reality that are impossible to have.

Freedom and free will then just becomes something that I would name as liberty. Liberty is described as permission especially to go freely within specified limits. That says to me that we are only free to follow the rules of society and those in power.

That being the case, is land of the free a true and meaningful expression?

Would it be more accurate to say land of liberty to follow the rules?

Free will is defined as freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.

Free will translates to being your own master and not having your will hampered by any outside influence not of your choosing.

Does any law or divine command negate free will, freedom of choice and the notion of a ---- Land of the free?

Regards
DL
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2012 12:42:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The term comes from the star spangle banner;

"O! say can you see by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?"

It comes from a poem about the battle at fort McHenry, in the war of 1812.

Freedom refers to liberty; liberty is freedom from an arbitrary exercise of authority. In America no man may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 12:07:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2012 12:42:07 PM, DanT wrote:
The term comes from the star spangle banner;

"O! say can you see by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?"

It comes from a poem about the battle at fort McHenry, in the war of 1812.

Freedom refers to liberty; liberty is freedom from an arbitrary exercise of authority. In America no man may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.

So it is said. And the process to strip is in place.

Is being able to buy a president something that deprives others from the liberty and freedom from an arbitrary exercise of authority?

Damned right it does.

Welcome to life in an oligarchy.

Regards
DL
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 12:17:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The biggest lie that people believe is tbat they have to obey the government.

Don't obey them, avoid them. Yeah, it might be a minor inconvenience at times, but it would be that way with or without the state. The state is an ilusion. Anarchy!
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 2:49:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Of course philosophical concepts of free will are not the same as political freedom. The motto of the French Republic is "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" (Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité). It's understood.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 3:21:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/8/2012 2:49:22 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Of course philosophical concepts of free will are not the same as political freedom. The motto of the French Republic is "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" (Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité). It's understood.

Yes. The French know it. Many English Americans do not.

Regards
DL
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 3:39:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/8/2012 12:07:56 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 5/6/2012 12:42:07 PM, DanT wrote:
The term comes from the star spangle banner;

"O! say can you see by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?"

It comes from a poem about the battle at fort McHenry, in the war of 1812.

Freedom refers to liberty; liberty is freedom from an arbitrary exercise of authority. In America no man may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.

So it is said. And the process to strip is in place.

Is being able to buy a president something that deprives others from the liberty and freedom from an arbitrary exercise of authority?

Damned right it does.

Welcome to life in an oligarchy.

Regards
DL

I don't know about the French President, but in America the President is not all powerful. The legislature, and the Judiciary both check the President.
The President cannot act without the consent of the legislature, and the Judiciary can claim an act of the President unconstitutional.
"Buying a president" is the simply buying a veto. Furthermore, Presidents are not bought, they are given campaign donations by people from all walks of life. Those donations are used for campaigns such as advertisements, websites, and tours.
The people vote for electors, and the electoral college votes for he President.

Even if the President was controlled by a small group of people, that would not make us an oligarchy, because we have 2 other branches of government, not controlled by a few.

The constitution established a long list of safeguards to our liberty.
We have a constitutional protection of our life, liberty, and property.

Furthermore, buying a president would not create an arbitrary exercise of authority; buying a president and ordering them to arbitrarily declare martial law would be an arbitrary exercise of authority.

(n) liberty (immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(adj) arbitrary (based on or subject to individual discretion or preference or sometimes impulse or caprice)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(n) liberty (personal freedom from servitude or confinement or oppression)
(n) oppression (the act of subjugating by cruelty)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 10:58:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
What can I say to arbitrary.

CIA, secret service and national security where even friendly flag ops can be arbitrarily done in secret.

Regards
DL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 11:13:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/8/2012 12:17:58 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The biggest lie that people believe is tbat they have to obey the government.

Don't obey them, avoid them. Yeah, it might be a minor inconvenience at times, but it would be that way with or without the state. The state is an ilusion. Anarchy!

So is correct spelling, it seems.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 12:04:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 10:58:09 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
What can I say to arbitrary.

CIA, secret service and national security where even friendly flag ops can be arbitrarily done in secret.

Regards
DL

1st off, the government's role is to protect it's own citizen's life, liberty, and property; not that of foreign nationals.

Secondly constitutionally no government agency may arbitrarily exercise powers over their jurisdiction. If it is required that the CIA spy on a foreign nation, in order to best protect the life, liberty, or property of the citizens of the US, than it is not arbitrary to conduct such an op.

Furthermore the Secret Service is not the same as foreign secret service agencies. Their main role is to stop counterfeiting. It was only in later years that they were granted the additional task of protecting politicians and their families from assassination.
In addition CIA is prohibited from conducting ops on US soil.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 12:11:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 12:04:09 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/9/2012 10:58:09 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
What can I say to arbitrary.

CIA, secret service and national security where even friendly flag ops can be arbitrarily done in secret.

Regards
DL

1st off, the government's role is to protect it's own citizen's life, liberty, and property; not that of foreign nationals.

Secondly constitutionally no government agency may arbitrarily exercise powers over their jurisdiction. If it is required that the CIA spy on a foreign nation, in order to best protect the life, liberty, or property of the citizens of the US, than it is not arbitrary to conduct such an op.

Furthermore the Secret Service is not the same as foreign secret service agencies. Their main role is to stop counterfeiting. It was only in later years that they were granted the additional task of protecting politicians and their families from assassination.
In addition CIA is prohibited from conducting ops on US soil.

Until 2003, the Service was part of the Department of the Treasury. On March 1st 2003 the Secret Service, as well as the Immigration and Naturalization Service was absorbed into the Department of Homeland Security
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 12:43:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1st off, the government's role is to protect it's own citizen's life, liberty, and property; not that of foreign nationals.

Is this just something you've been told repeatedly and accepted as true, or a statement that you can ground morally? Is the life of, say, a Pakistani national actually worth less than the life of an American?
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 1:18:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 12:04:09 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/9/2012 10:58:09 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
What can I say to arbitrary.

CIA, secret service and national security where even friendly flag ops can be arbitrarily done in secret.

Regards
DL

1st off, the government's role is to protect it's own citizen's life, liberty, and property; not that of foreign nationals.

Secondly constitutionally no government agency may arbitrarily exercise powers over their jurisdiction. If it is required that the CIA spy on a foreign nation, in order to best protect the life, liberty, or property of the citizens of the US, than it is not arbitrary to conduct such an op.

Furthermore the Secret Service is not the same as foreign secret service agencies. Their main role is to stop counterfeiting. It was only in later years that they were granted the additional task of protecting politicians and their families from assassination.
In addition CIA is prohibited from conducting ops on US soil.

Officially perhaps.

Ever wonder why your state department calls off the DEA whenever they get to high up the drug kingpins?

If you believe what you said then that tricky Dicky scandal would never have happened.

Regards
DL
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 2:17:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 12:43:59 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
1st off, the government's role is to protect it's own citizen's life, liberty, and property; not that of foreign nationals.

Is this just something you've been told repeatedly and accepted as true, or a statement that you can ground morally? Is the life of, say, a Pakistani national actually worth less than the life of an American?

The Pakistani national has their own government to protect them. The US government is a representative of the US citizens. The US government serves the American citizens, not Pakistani citizens.
If the US government was to also serve Pakistan's citizens, they would not be able to properly protect US citizens.
The US government is voted into office by US citizens, the US government is funded by taxes placed on US citizens, the US government derives it's authority from the consent of it's citizens and the US government's role is to protects US citizens.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." ~ US Declaration of Independence
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 2:20:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 1:18:39 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 5/9/2012 12:04:09 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/9/2012 10:58:09 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
What can I say to arbitrary.

CIA, secret service and national security where even friendly flag ops can be arbitrarily done in secret.

Regards
DL

1st off, the government's role is to protect it's own citizen's life, liberty, and property; not that of foreign nationals.

Secondly constitutionally no government agency may arbitrarily exercise powers over their jurisdiction. If it is required that the CIA spy on a foreign nation, in order to best protect the life, liberty, or property of the citizens of the US, than it is not arbitrary to conduct such an op.

Furthermore the Secret Service is not the same as foreign secret service agencies. Their main role is to stop counterfeiting. It was only in later years that they were granted the additional task of protecting politicians and their families from assassination.
In addition CIA is prohibited from conducting ops on US soil.

Officially perhaps.

Ever wonder why your state department calls off the DEA whenever they get to high up the drug kingpins?

You and Geo would probably get along very well.
If you believe what you said then that tricky Dicky scandal would never have happened.

Do you mean Watergate? He was impeached.
Regards
DL
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 3:50:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes. Because he was caught.

How many dirty tricks were not?

Even New York's building 7.

How in hell do you just pull a building without much preparation?

Impossible. U.S. building construction is not that shoddy.

Regards
DL
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 3:55:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 3:50:03 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Yes. Because he was caught.

How many dirty tricks were not?

Even New York's building 7.

How in hell do you just pull a building without much preparation?

Impossible. U.S. building construction is not that shoddy.

Regards
DL

Laws are broken, that's fact of life in any society. When caught the criminals who broke the law must answer for their crimes. It is fallacious to claim that because the US has instances of crimes, and that not all crimes are caught, that somehow the US is not free due to the existence of criminals. By that logic no society would be free.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 4:14:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 2:17:25 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/9/2012 12:43:59 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
1st off, the government's role is to protect it's own citizen's life, liberty, and property; not that of foreign nationals.

Is this just something you've been told repeatedly and accepted as true, or a statement that you can ground morally? Is the life of, say, a Pakistani national actually worth less than the life of an American?

The Pakistani national has their own government to protect them. The US government is a representative of the US citizens. The US government serves the American citizens, not Pakistani citizens.
If the US government was to also serve Pakistan's citizens, they would not be able to properly protect US citizens.
The US government is voted into office by US citizens, the US government is funded by taxes placed on US citizens, the US government derives it's authority from the consent of it's citizens and the US government's role is to protects US citizens.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." ~ US Declaration of Independence

The quote was tl;dr and I don't care who said what.

Your stuck describing things, think about things ought to be. This requires a moral framework, and no, quoting the founders doesn't help you.

"The Pakistani national has their own government to protect them. The US government is a representative of the US citizens. The US government serves the American citizens, not Pakistani citizens. "

As a descriptive function, true.

"If the US government was to also serve Pakistan's citizens, they would not be able to properly protect US citizens. "

So we have no responsibility to Pakistani citizens? They have their own government, after all. Because, obviously being born in Pakistan gives you less moral worth an American. Do Pakistanis have less moral worth than Americans?

" The US government is voted into office by US citizens, the US government is funded by taxes placed on US citizens, the US government derives it's authority from the consent of it's citizens and the US government's role is to protects US citizens."

I understand that, and I can say that my heart pumps blood and my lungs help me breath but I still acknowledge moral duties to other people. If we try and view this objectively it becomes apparent that the US is one country among many. It shouldn't make a difference the location of a person's birthplace, so you say the US government has a responsibility to protect its citizens and I agree. However, the US government with the resources that it has also has a duty not to hurt people of other countries under the justification that they are not Americans.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 4:45:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 4:14:59 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/9/2012 2:17:25 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/9/2012 12:43:59 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
1st off, the government's role is to protect it's own citizen's life, liberty, and property; not that of foreign nationals.

Is this just something you've been told repeatedly and accepted as true, or a statement that you can ground morally? Is the life of, say, a Pakistani national actually worth less than the life of an American?

The Pakistani national has their own government to protect them. The US government is a representative of the US citizens. The US government serves the American citizens, not Pakistani citizens.
If the US government was to also serve Pakistan's citizens, they would not be able to properly protect US citizens.
The US government is voted into office by US citizens, the US government is funded by taxes placed on US citizens, the US government derives it's authority from the consent of it's citizens and the US government's role is to protects US citizens.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." ~ US Declaration of Independence

The quote was tl;dr and I don't care who said what.

Your stuck describing things, think about things ought to be. This requires a moral framework, and no, quoting the founders doesn't help you.

Why do you insist on claiming that an "is" is an "ought"?
You always do that.
If this was May 14, 1787 than it would be an "ought", but right now it's an "is".

"Ought" governments consider foreigner's rights? Yes, they "ought" to.
Are governments required to to protect the rights of foreigners? No, they are not.

This is not about what is morally correct, it's about the role of government. Assassinating a Democratically elected leader, in a foreign country, does not make this country less free.

"The Pakistani national has their own government to protect them. The US government is a representative of the US citizens. The US government serves the American citizens, not Pakistani citizens. "

As a descriptive function, true.

"If the US government was to also serve Pakistan's citizens, they would not be able to properly protect US citizens. "

So we have no responsibility to Pakistani citizens? They have their own government, after all. Because, obviously being born in Pakistan gives you less moral worth an American. Do Pakistanis have less moral worth than Americans?

Did not say that; I said out government has no responsibility to Pakistanis. If 100% of Pakistanis favor Democrats, and 65% of Americans favor Republicans, congress will have a republican majority.

" The US government is voted into office by US citizens, the US government is funded by taxes placed on US citizens, the US government derives it's authority from the consent of it's citizens and the US government's role is to protects US citizens."

I understand that, and I can say that my heart pumps blood and my lungs help me breath but I still acknowledge moral duties to other people. If we try and view this objectively it becomes apparent that the US is one country among many. It shouldn't make a difference the location of a person's birthplace, so you say the US government has a responsibility to protect its citizens and I agree. However, the US government with the resources that it has also has a duty not to hurt people of other countries under the justification that they are not Americans.

The role of the government is to protect US citizens. The government officials may choose to help foreigners, but US citizens come first, and the government cannot help foreigners at the expense of US citizens.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 4:52:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is not about what is morally correct, it's about the role of government.

It's one and the same. What do you justify role of government on? There is no other foundation.

If this was May 14, 1787 than it would be an "ought", but right now it's an "is"

I've always stayed in the realm of "oughts" in this discussion. I don't go from an "is to an ought" this is a philosophical distinction that I'm not doing right now. Lets not get bogged down in this and keep the discussion focused unless you take serious issue with this.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 5:00:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 4:52:10 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
This is not about what is morally correct, it's about the role of government.

It's one and the same. What do you justify role of government on? There is no other foundation.

If this was May 14, 1787 than it would be an "ought", but right now it's an "is"

I've always stayed in the realm of "oughts" in this discussion. I don't go from an "is to an ought" this is a philosophical distinction that I'm not doing right now. Lets not get bogged down in this and keep the discussion focused unless you take serious issue with this.

It's not an "ought" the role of all governments is by it's nature and history to protect the life, liberty, and property of it's citizens. Which is an "is", not an "ought".

If one was to establish a constitution for a new government, they may add additions to the natural role, and may create an "ought" to add to the "is", in regards to the role of government.

You always try to claim an "is" is an "ought", especially when the topic deals with governments, and rights.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 5:11:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 4:52:10 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
This is not about what is morally correct, it's about the role of government.

It's one and the same. What do you justify role of government on? There is no other foundation.

Morals are subjective; the role of government is objective.
I base the role of government, not on morals, but rather it's nature.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and if one based the role of government on a morals, they would find themselves with a hellishly oppressive government.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 6:22:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 5:11:16 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/9/2012 4:52:10 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
This is not about what is morally correct, it's about the role of government.

It's one and the same. What do you justify role of government on? There is no other foundation.

Morals are subjective; the role of government is objective.
I base the role of government, not on morals, but rather it's nature.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and if one based the role of government on a morals, they would find themselves with a hellishly oppressive government.

You base the role of government on its nature? I don't know what that means. If you believe that morality is subjective you've any legitimacy for government. Imagine these rights claims you've established, now if someone violates them but in their mind they were right in doing so they've done nothing morally wrong under moral subjectivism. You'd be prosecuting a man who had done nothing that was morally wrong on any universal level. These kind of rights would presuppose objective moral duties if they are to be legitimate.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 6:25:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's not an "ought" the role of all governments is by it's nature and history to protect the life, liberty, and property of it's citizens. Which is an "is", not an "ought".

It would seem to be that you're drawing on the philosophical is-ought gap, am I right? If so, you're doing it wrong.

You mean the proper role of government is protect life, liberty and property. Even if you say our current government is doing that, it's both an "is" and an "ought" i.e. government ought to continue protecting these rights. To hold a right is to be able to demand moral duties of people that are not subjective.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 9:24:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/9/2012 6:25:43 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
It's not an "ought" the role of all governments is by it's nature and history to protect the life, liberty, and property of it's citizens. Which is an "is", not an "ought".

It would seem to be that you're drawing on the philosophical is-ought gap, am I right? If so, you're doing it wrong.

You mean the proper role of government is protect life, liberty and property. Even if you say our current government is doing that, it's both an "is" and an "ought" i.e. government ought to continue protecting these rights. To hold a right is to be able to demand moral duties of people that are not subjective.

No no no. The role of the government is an is; it's unchangable, just as a animal cannot change their genetic nature neither can the government change it's social nature.

Government has always served the purpose of protecting the people's life, liberty, and property. Additional roles are sometimes added, and politicians don't always agree on what constitutes life, liberty, and property. For example the abortion issue, positive vs negative liberties, and communal vs individual property.

The role every government holds in common is the protection of life, liberty, and property.

The role of government is a "is", how the government carries out its role is the "ought".
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 9:32:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here is an anology. My task is to fill a glass. I ought to fill it with lemonade; instead I chose to fill it with urine.
My task was completed, but the method was not satisfying, and so the person who gave me the task decided to replace me.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 9:33:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The role of government is a "is", how the government carries out its role is the "ought".

You do realize your classical liberal conception of government is historically rather new? I don't know how these rights are inherently (descriptively) in the "social nature" of every government. Governments have ruled tyrannically for much of history. You do agree that laws and rights claims are based on morality?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 12:01:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 9:33:48 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
The role of government is a "is", how the government carries out its role is the "ought".

You do realize your classical liberal conception of government is historically rather new? I don't know how these rights are inherently (descriptively) in the "social nature" of every government. Governments have ruled tyrannically for much of history. You do agree that laws and rights claims are based on morality?

There is a major difference between a government's constitution and the government in practice.

The 6 constitutions are monarchies, tyrannies, aristocracies, oligarchies, republics, and democracies. All 6 forms of government aim to protect the life, liberty, and property of its people.

Monarchies are better in practice than tyrannies.
Aristocracies are better in practice than oligarchies.
Republics are better in practice than democracies.

There are also 8 main ideologies, socialism, nationalism, traditional conservatism, liberal conservatism, classic liberalism, anarchism, social liberalism, and populism.
Each one of these ideologies determines the direction of the government.
The traditionalist ideologies; nationalism, traditional conservatism, liberal conservatism, and classic liberalis; each favor traditional concepts of liberties, traditional views on life, and traditional forms of property.
The reformists ideologies; socialism, populism, social liberalism, and anarchism; each favor reformed concepts of liberties, reformed views on life, and reformed views regarding property.
The collectivist ideologies; socialism, nationalism, traditional conservatism, and populism; each favor collectivist views on life, liberty, and property.
The individualist ideologies; classic liberalism, anarchism, liberal conservatism, and social liberalism; each favor individualist views regarding life, liberty, and property

For example, a national-socialist may believe that killing 10% of the population to protect the lives of 90% of the population is justified. A national-socialist may believe violating the property rights of 10% of the population to increase the economic welfare of 90% of the population is justified.
A national-socialist may believe placing 10% of the population in a internment camp to grant more liberty to 90% of the population is justified.

Conservatives may see life as beggining the moment the egg is fertilized.
Progressives may believe in creating positive liberties.
Progressives may believe animals are not a form of property

I could go on, but I believe I made my point clear.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle