Numerical breakdown of the outstanding 2020 votes. (Don't be mad...but I think Biden wins)

[BSWPaulsen]

Oh I understand duty. You do not. You make up duties where they don't exist. And yes, people have a right to be racist. People also have a right to vote against a party they feel is racist against them. That doesn't make those people "anti freedom.'" People also have a right not to want their grandparents to die and to petition the government for temporary lockdown measures if they feel that's necessary to prevent their grandparents from dying. That doesn't make those people "selfish." People have a right to want to expand freedom by opposing the ever increasing police state being imposed in the name of "border security." It's funny that I always see people like you say "I am against the constitution free zone at the border" but never actually do anything about the constitution free zone nor do you ever petition the government to do anything about it either. I guess that's not your "duty."

Everyone makes up their own duty, because duty is self-imposed. It does not exist absent a will behind it. Just as you think I am "making up duties where they don't exist", so too does that criticism apply to every abstract concept (such as rights). Every single abstract concept we are discussing is made up by both of us in our minds and presented accordingly. Thanks to the wonder that is human language, we at least have an idea of what the other is trying to get across.

Lockdown measures that remove people's inability to make a living so that you might save Grandma is the very definition of selfish. Your line of argument is better expected from welfare advocates, because damnit poor people have a right to survive too.

As for why I don't do anything specific about the Constitution free zone on the border? I do not see a path of action that leads to a meaningfully beneficial outcome. There are problems with this country that I do not claim to have answers to, because I am very aware of the law of unintended consequences. I am not omniscient, I am a man.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

And for 100 years that "brute force" didn't include excluding Chinese or anybody else for that matter. It did include raising taxes and enforcing bankster debt. For the good of the citizens of course.

That the "brute force" did not elect to do so for 100 years did not mean the ability did not exist. From the very beginning, the "brute force" sure as hell immediately excluded certain groups from becoming citizens, and this was not done by mistake. That they elected to boot the Chinese later was because, by design, they reserved the citizen's right to do so.

 

[jmdrake]

That the "brute force" did not elect to do so for 100 years did not mean the ability did not exist. From the very beginning, the "brute force" sure as hell immediately excluded certain groups from becoming citizens, and this was not done by mistake. That they elected to boot the Chinese later was because, by design, they reserved the citizen's right to do so.

That the ability to do it exists doesn't make it right. Nor does it make the people who oppose that brute force wrong. You're the one bitching about people exercising their rights.

 

[jmdrake]

Everyone makes up their own duty, because duty is self-imposed. It does not exist absent a will behind it. Just as you think I am "making up duties where they don't exist", so too does that criticism apply to every abstract concept (such as rights). Every single abstract concept we are discussing is made up by both of us in our minds and presented accordingly. Thanks to the wonder that is human language, we at least have an idea of what the other is trying to get across.

Lockdown measures that remove people's inability to make a living so that you might save Grandma is the very definition of selfish. Your line of argument is better expected from welfare advocates, because damnit poor people have a right to survive too.

Only in your misguided opinion.

As for why I don't do anything specific about the Constitution free zone on the border? I do not see a path of action that leads to a meaningfully beneficial outcome. There are problems with this country that I do not claim to have answers to, because I am very aware of the law of unintended consequences. I am not omniscient, I am a man.

And some people don't see a path of action that leads to a meaningfully beneficial outcome to COVID other than temporary lockdowns. They aren't omniscient either.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

At this point it doesn't matter who wins. The machinery of democracy has been completely discredit in the eyes of at least 40% of the people. This is huge. And of course, the Dems don't understand why Trump was elected in the first place, so the issues that brought him to power are just going to exacerbate, and bring something much more monumental down the road.

The Democrats should really be careful what they wish for.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

That the ability to do it exists doesn't make it right. Nor does it make the people who oppose that brute force wrong. You're the one bitching about people exercising their rights.

The question of what is right and wrong does not matter if nothing is done about it.

I am fully aware they believe they are exercising their rights. After all, the people chose to elect the man that would give them the lock downs they desired. Their actions gave weight to their concept of rights. This very scenario highlights how fickle rights are and that they only exist insofar as they can be successfully defended from the interpretations of others.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

And some people don't see a path of action that leads to a meaningfully beneficial outcome to COVID other than temporary lockdowns. They aren't omniscient either.

Indeed. An excellent demonstration of how rights work. One's interpretation of rights only exists in any meaningful sense as long as it can be forcefully defended. Beyond that, whether they are negative, positive, or natural has no bearing on humanity's course of action.

 

[Ender]

Ah, yes, the "true freedom" to be found... nowhere among humanity except among those individuals that almost never come into contact with others of their species. The utopian Libertarian fantasy concept that has been stamped out by the Nation-States circling the entire globe. It'll work one day, I'm sure. It could not possibly be that the failures of the Articles of Confederation were due to some deficiency they possessed.

"True freedom" only exists among people that agree as to how the concept is actualized. Unsurprisingly, as humans all independently conceive of abstract concepts in their own way, it does not take long for friction to occur when enough people are present. Given the absolute failure of all of humanity to attain it beyond the smallest of scales, it is a good indicator that "true freedom" does not work for the species as a whole.

Rights do not come from the government, they come from a consensus of people or prevailing brute force that reifies a specific conception of rights into practice. As governments represent a "prevailing brute force", they tend to embody the conception of a particular population's conception of rights. Nothing more, nothing less. It is up to individuals whether they assume the duty to defend and uphold their vision of rights, but if they do not, then they do not exist. Asserting rights do exist when all practical evidence shows their absolute abrogation is to create Bentham's "nonsense upon stilts".

Rights come from the Creator- & not from tribes.

And, the Constitution was a Hamiltonian Coup to make a big & strong central government- worked out just as planned.

 

[jmdrake]

Indeed. An excellent demonstration of how rights work. One's interpretation of rights only exists in any meaningful sense as long as it can be forcefully defended. Beyond that, whether they are negative, positive, or natural has no bearing on humanity's course of action.

Rights come from the Creator- & not from tribes.

And, the Constitution was a Hamiltonian Coup to make a big & strong central government- worked out just as planned.

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.

Yes. We were created with rights. Meaning than in every human there is a desire for freedom. Fear clouds that desire whether it is fear of "aliens" or fear of viruses. Sometimes the fears are justified, often they are not. So there is antagonistic tension between the expressions of fear and the expressions of freedom. When someone doesn't share the same fears we do, we automatically think the problem is with them because we never want to cast the critical look at ourselves. Unscrupulous men exploit that fear. Those men are called politicians.

You are concerned about people who don't share your love of second amendment freedoms? Those people are scared of guns? One way their fear is exploited is by people pushing them to push for gun control. One way your fear is exploited is by people pushing you to exclude groups based on statistical norms. A non governmental way to effectively deal with both of those fears?

 

[BSWPaulsen]

Rights come from the Creator- & not from tribes.

And, the Constitution was a Hamiltonian Coup to make a big & strong central government- worked out just as planned.

Well, thankfully the Creator can redeem the rights of all those individuals that died from others forcefully subverting their rights. They can enjoy their rights in Heaven. Good for them.

Less sarcastically, the only time the Creator matters as it concerns rights is when a belief in said Creator creates in an individual the impetus to actually do something about their concept of rights. Beyond that, "nonsense upon stilts".

As for the "Hamiltonian Coup", it obviously served an effective purpose.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

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.

Yes. We were created with rights. Meaning than in every human there is a desire for freedom. Fear clouds that desire whether it is fear of "aliens" or fear of viruses. Sometimes the fears are justified, often they are not. So there is antagonistic tension between the expressions of fear and the expressions of freedom. When someone doesn't share the same fears we do, we automatically think the problem is with them because we never want to cast the critical look at ourselves. Unscrupulous men exploit that fear. Those men are called politicians.

It is a wonderful interpretation of rights from a Deist (others may say Christian) perspective. If you believe that is where they come from, then great. Practically? It only matters insofar as people agree with it and defend it. Others can come to their understanding of rights from different means of equal validity given the nature of abstract concepts.

The rest of what you wrote is reasonable in that you recognize there is an axis between freedom and fear in most people. However, in my experience, the vast majority of humanity prefers safe security over risky freedom. As it concerns the affairs within this country, risky freedom is always my preference. Concerning affairs outside the country? Human history and the phenomenon of Machiavellianism leads me to believe prudent caution is necessary. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[jmdrake]

It is a wonderful interpretation of rights from a Deist (others may say Christian) perspective. If you believe that is where they come from, then great. Practically? It only matters insofar as people agree with it and defend it. Others can come to their understanding of rights from different means of equal validity given the nature of abstract concepts.

The rest of what you wrote is reasonable in that you recognize there is an axis between freedom and fear in most people. However, in my experience, the vast majority of humanity prefers safe security over risky freedom. As it concerns the affairs within this country, risky freedom is always my preference. Concerning affairs outside the country? Human history and the phenomenon of Machiavellianism leads me to believe prudent caution is necessary. Different strokes for different folks.

I'm glad you understood what I was saying. Yes people have to defend freedoms. And it's important to get people to agree with freedom. I was editing while you responded so you might have missed this:

You are concerned about people who don't share your love of second amendment freedoms? Those people are scared of guns? One way their fear is exploited is by people pushing them to push for gun control. One way your fear is exploited is by people pushing you to exclude groups based on statistical norms. A non governmental way to effectively deal with both of those fears?



Yes getting people to agree with freedom is work. But the reward is worth it.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

I'm glad you understood what I was saying. Yes people have to defend freedoms. And it's important to get people to agree with freedom. I was editing while you responded so you might have missed this:

You are concerned about people who don't share your love of second amendment freedoms? Those people are scared of guns? One way their fear is exploited is by people pushing them to push for gun control. One way your fear is exploited is by people pushing you to exclude groups based on statistical norms. A non governmental way to effectively deal with both of those fears?

Yes getting people to agree with freedom is work. But the reward is worth it.

I have personal familiarity with trying to get people unfamiliar with guns to learn they are a good thing. Granted, this is only with Whites and Hispanics. Yes, I have been very successful with those willing to listen, but that may have a lot to do with my familiarity with the two ethnic groups. Yes, the reward is worth it.

Unfortunately, my personal experience is that a great many are also aggressively closed off from the subject because they want them outright banned. That is where the danger lies. When dialogue is impossible, conflict is inevitable.