Basic Human Rights

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

gaffo
Posts: 4259
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by gaffo »

henry quirk wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:12 am Browne's book

A good read, though idealistic.

Look here, from his book, found while I was refreshin' my memory with an on-line copy...

If you’re not free now, it isn’t because you haven’t done enough to change the world. Quite the contrary, it may be that you’ve been doing too much to try to change the world. The effort you’ve expended in that direction could have been used to provide freedom for yourself

True. You gotta take care of your business. Expecting, or lettin', the other guy to do it for you is a sure path to you bein' his bitch.


You don’t have to reconstruct the social order; you don’t have to overpower the villains; you don’t have to re-educate the world; you don’t need a miracle. You can have your freedom back any time you choose to take it.

This here is the idealism, the optimism, I find unwarranted. Reality is, men will organize and work to direct men. It's naive to believe you're immune to agents of state smashin' your door in and shootin' you in the head just cuz you're a free man. The whole damn point of the State -- any State -- is to deprive you of liberty and property. And it doesn't seem the State much cares if you live or die as it's takin' that liberty or property (it will take your life). To some degree -- out of a sense of self-preservation, if nuthin' else -- you oughta push back before it's 3am and you're havin' a fire fight in your livin' room with six SWAT (them in riot gear with auto-shotguns, you in your boxers with your weapon of choice).

So, yeah, if I can throw a stone in the pond with posts here or conversation there, posts and conversations that might get a couple or three folks thinkin' in different ways; if I can occasionally spike a tree or put sugar in a gas tank (literally & figuratively) to flummox local SOBs who believe themselves entitled to direct; if I find some person suited to act as an agent of chaos (like ORANGE MAN) who wants public office; if I can posit and argue for what I call a natural rights minarchy where statists are not welcome or nccessary, then absolutely I will post, converse, spike, sugar, elect, and posit & argue for.

These things and others are my investments toward my, and my kid's, future and all are variations on that Hebrew sayin' if you know someone is comin' to kill you, get up early and go kill them first.

I'm a free man and I aim to stay a free man.
I like your post - except the concept that The State by nature is bad (your solution is that there thus must be no state - so you are an idealistic as Browne - in assumig all folks without The State will be an Libertarian as you - and int instead just mob together and rob/kill our ass if they like what you got).

I affirm the need for a State is as a Government governs via consent of the governed.


--hell you sould more anarchits than me! and i'm the Liberal here!!!!!!!!

lol.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by henry quirk »

gaffo wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:15 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 11:56 pm
gaffo wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 11:47 pm i view them as more socialist
Well, that's wrong, clearly.
tricke down don't trickle.
What is this "trickle down" nonsense? There's no such theory.
Reagonomics - what we have had for now 45 yrs - and discredited in my eye as not working.

so tax the rich more! - back to where it was in the 1970's.
No, tax everyone less...like waaay less...like not at all.

People willingly pay for what they want and need. If they don't want or need it, they don't buy it. Taxes -- any taxes -- involve takin' from folks what they may not wanna give and spendin' that money on stuff they may not want or need.

It's theft.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22263
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

gaffo wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:15 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 11:56 pm
gaffo wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 11:47 pm i view them as more socialist
Well, that's wrong, clearly.
tricke down don't trickle.
What is this "trickle down" nonsense? There's no such theory.
Reagonomics
Point out the phrase "trickle down" to me in Regan's economics, please.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by henry quirk »

gaffo wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:22 am
henry quirk wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:12 am Browne's book

A good read, though idealistic.

Look here, from his book, found while I was refreshin' my memory with an on-line copy...

If you’re not free now, it isn’t because you haven’t done enough to change the world. Quite the contrary, it may be that you’ve been doing too much to try to change the world. The effort you’ve expended in that direction could have been used to provide freedom for yourself

True. You gotta take care of your business. Expecting, or lettin', the other guy to do it for you is a sure path to you bein' his bitch.


You don’t have to reconstruct the social order; you don’t have to overpower the villains; you don’t have to re-educate the world; you don’t need a miracle. You can have your freedom back any time you choose to take it.

This here is the idealism, the optimism, I find unwarranted. Reality is, men will organize and work to direct men. It's naive to believe you're immune to agents of state smashin' your door in and shootin' you in the head just cuz you're a free man. The whole damn point of the State -- any State -- is to deprive you of liberty and property. And it doesn't seem the State much cares if you live or die as it's takin' that liberty or property (it will take your life). To some degree -- out of a sense of self-preservation, if nuthin' else -- you oughta push back before it's 3am and you're havin' a fire fight in your livin' room with six SWAT (them in riot gear with auto-shotguns, you in your boxers with your weapon of choice).

So, yeah, if I can throw a stone in the pond with posts here or conversation there, posts and conversations that might get a couple or three folks thinkin' in different ways; if I can occasionally spike a tree or put sugar in a gas tank (literally & figuratively) to flummox local SOBs who believe themselves entitled to direct; if I find some person suited to act as an agent of chaos (like ORANGE MAN) who wants public office; if I can posit and argue for what I call a natural rights minarchy where statists are not welcome or nccessary, then absolutely I will post, converse, spike, sugar, elect, and posit & argue for.

These things and others are my investments toward my, and my kid's, future and all are variations on that Hebrew sayin' if you know someone is comin' to kill you, get up early and go kill them first.

I'm a free man and I aim to stay a free man.
I like your post - except the concept that The State by nature is bad (*your solution is that there thus must be no state - so you are an idealistic as Browne - in assumig all folks without The State will be an Libertarian as you - and int instead just mob together and rob/kill our ass if they like what you got).

I affirm the need for a State is as a Government governs via consent of the governed.


--hell you sould more anarchits than me! and i'm the Liberal here!!!!!!!!

lol.
*If believin' free men require no rulers makes me an idealist, then so be it. Nah, nobody has to be anything at all...that's what bein' a free man means. The whole point of the Charter of the American Free Zone I posted in the constitution thread is as insurance against the mob killin' and robbin' our asses.
gaffo
Posts: 4259
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by gaffo »

henry quirk wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:24 am
gaffo wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:15 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 11:56 pm
Well, that's wrong, clearly.


What is this "trickle down" nonsense? There's no such theory.
Reagonomics - what we have had for now 45 yrs - and discredited in my eye as not working.

so tax the rich more! - back to where it was in the 1970's.
No, tax everyone less...like waaay less...like not at all.

People willingly pay for what they want and need. If they don't want or need it, they don't buy it. Taxes -- any taxes -- involve takin' from folks what they may not wanna give and spendin' that money on stuff they may not want or need.

It's theft.
Taxation is not theft - in fact im willing to pay more from my own pocket than i am now. and i do not make much.

taxation serves to fund a legit gov to serve the society it governs over.

the only theft is the 1-percenters that got rich in americna and sen all there gains to tax havens in the caraban. that is theft/ they got rich HERE then send their money they got HERE over there THERE - fk that.

i know we will never agree on tis so this will be my last post onthis matter (welcome other sujects though - which we may agree on).

Trickldown is bullshit - no trickle. just poverty.
gaffo
Posts: 4259
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by gaffo »

henry quirk wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:32 am
gaffo wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:22 am
henry quirk wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:12 am Browne's book

A good read, though idealistic.

Look here, from his book, found while I was refreshin' my memory with an on-line copy...

If you’re not free now, it isn’t because you haven’t done enough to change the world. Quite the contrary, it may be that you’ve been doing too much to try to change the world. The effort you’ve expended in that direction could have been used to provide freedom for yourself

True. You gotta take care of your business. Expecting, or lettin', the other guy to do it for you is a sure path to you bein' his bitch.


You don’t have to reconstruct the social order; you don’t have to overpower the villains; you don’t have to re-educate the world; you don’t need a miracle. You can have your freedom back any time you choose to take it.

This here is the idealism, the optimism, I find unwarranted. Reality is, men will organize and work to direct men. It's naive to believe you're immune to agents of state smashin' your door in and shootin' you in the head just cuz you're a free man. The whole damn point of the State -- any State -- is to deprive you of liberty and property. And it doesn't seem the State much cares if you live or die as it's takin' that liberty or property (it will take your life). To some degree -- out of a sense of self-preservation, if nuthin' else -- you oughta push back before it's 3am and you're havin' a fire fight in your livin' room with six SWAT (them in riot gear with auto-shotguns, you in your boxers with your weapon of choice).

So, yeah, if I can throw a stone in the pond with posts here or conversation there, posts and conversations that might get a couple or three folks thinkin' in different ways; if I can occasionally spike a tree or put sugar in a gas tank (literally & figuratively) to flummox local SOBs who believe themselves entitled to direct; if I find some person suited to act as an agent of chaos (like ORANGE MAN) who wants public office; if I can posit and argue for what I call a natural rights minarchy where statists are not welcome or nccessary, then absolutely I will post, converse, spike, sugar, elect, and posit & argue for.

These things and others are my investments toward my, and my kid's, future and all are variations on that Hebrew sayin' if you know someone is comin' to kill you, get up early and go kill them first.

I'm a free man and I aim to stay a free man.
I like your post - except the concept that The State by nature is bad (*your solution is that there thus must be no state - so you are an idealistic as Browne - in assumig all folks without The State will be an Libertarian as you - and int instead just mob together and rob/kill our ass if they like what you got).

I affirm the need for a State is as a Government governs via consent of the governed.


--hell you sould more anarchits than me! and i'm the Liberal here!!!!!!!!

lol.
*If believin' free men require no rulers makes me an idealist, then so be it. Nah, nobody has to be anything at all...that's what bein' a free man means. The whole point of the Charter of the American Free Zone I posted in the constitution thread is as insurance against the mob killin' and robbin' our asses.
I'd like yo rad what you said on the Charter thread - can you porvide a link?

per the rest - ya and no - I'm not an island, i'm an antisocial social animal, so affirm the need for government - preferably a just one.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by henry quirk »

gaffo wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:34 am
henry quirk wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:24 am
gaffo wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:15 am

Reagonomics - what we have had for now 45 yrs - and discredited in my eye as not working.

so tax the rich more! - back to where it was in the 1970's.
No, tax everyone less...like waaay less...like not at all.

People willingly pay for what they want and need. If they don't want or need it, they don't buy it. Taxes -- any taxes -- involve takin' from folks what they may not wanna give and spendin' that money on stuff they may not want or need.

It's theft.
*Taxation is not theft - in fact im willing to pay more from my own pocket than i am now. and i do not make much.

**taxation serves to fund a legit gov to serve the society it governs over.

the only theft is the 1-percenters that got rich in americna and sen all there gains to tax havens in the caraban. that is theft/ they got rich HERE then send their money they got HERE over there THERE - fk that.

i know we will never agree on tis so this will be my last post onthis matter (welcome other sujects though - which we may agree on).

Trickldown is bullshit - no trickle. just poverty.
*Yeah, it is. If you wanna pay more, do; I don't and won't.

**There are no legit govs today, and mebbe there never were. As I say, free men require no rulers.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by henry quirk »

gaffo wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:37 am
henry quirk wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:32 am
gaffo wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:22 am

I like your post - except the concept that The State by nature is bad (*your solution is that there thus must be no state - so you are an idealistic as Browne - in assumig all folks without The State will be an Libertarian as you - and int instead just mob together and rob/kill our ass if they like what you got).

I affirm the need for a State is as a Government governs via consent of the governed.


--hell you sould more anarchits than me! and i'm the Liberal here!!!!!!!!

lol.
*If believin' free men require no rulers makes me an idealist, then so be it. Nah, nobody has to be anything at all...that's what bein' a free man means. The whole point of the Charter of the American Free Zone I posted in the constitution thread is as insurance against the mob killin' and robbin' our asses.
I'd like yo rad what you said on the Charter thread - *can you porvide a link?

per the rest - ya and no - I'm not an island, i'm an antisocial social animal, so affirm the need for government - preferably a just one.
*Which link are you lookin' for?
gaffo
Posts: 4259
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by gaffo »

henry quirk wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:47 am
gaffo wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:37 am
henry quirk wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:32 am

*If believin' free men require no rulers makes me an idealist, then so be it. Nah, nobody has to be anything at all...that's what bein' a free man means. The whole point of the Charter of the American Free Zone I posted in the constitution thread is as insurance against the mob killin' and robbin' our asses.
I'd like yo rad what you said on the Charter thread - *can you porvide a link?

per the rest - ya and no - I'm not an island, i'm an antisocial social animal, so affirm the need for government - preferably a just one.
*Which link are you lookin' for?
Charter of the American Free Zone I posted in the constitution thread - where is that thread so i can read it.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by henry quirk »

gaffo wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:50 am
henry quirk wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:47 am
gaffo wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:37 am

I'd like yo rad what you said on the Charter thread - *can you porvide a link?

per the rest - ya and no - I'm not an island, i'm an antisocial social animal, so affirm the need for government - preferably a just one.
*Which link are you lookin' for?
Charter of the American Free Zone I posted in the constitution thread - where is that thread so i can read it.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=32959

You know the one: we've been postin' at each other in that thread.
gaffo
Posts: 4259
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by gaffo »

henry quirk wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 1:00 am
gaffo wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:50 am
henry quirk wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 12:47 am

*Which link are you lookin' for?
Charter of the American Free Zone I posted in the constitution thread - where is that thread so i can read it.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=32959

You know the one: we've been postin' at each other in that thread.
oh that one! just posted 2 min ago. thanks for te heads up tough.
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

Gary Childress wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:22 pm
Age wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:27 am
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pm

When you say that there should be a basic human right to not be abused,
I do not recall saying this.

Did I say, 'There 'should be' a basic human right to not be abused'?

If yes, then where?

But if no, then does that make what the rest, of what you said here, moot?
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pmwhat is an example of "abuse" that you would categorize as defying a human right not to be abused?
An example of 'abuse' that I would categorize as defying a human right not to be abused is ANY 'misuse' of a human being.

But in order to KNOW what is the 'misuse' of a human being, one would have to, first, learn and KNOW what the 'purpose' is of, and for, the 'human being'.
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pm For example, if someone responds to something you say with mockery or derision, do you consider that "abuse" and therefore conduct that defies a basic human right not to be abused?
Not at all.
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pmOr are you referring to physical abuse such as being beaten or tortured? Or maybe if you give an example or two of the kind of "abuse" you are referring to (which is against a basic human right not to be abused),
ANY physical, emotional, sexual, or mental 'abuse' will suffice. Or, ANY other 'abuse' one can think of.

What does the word 'abuse' mean to 'you'?
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pmthen we could maybe better understand what you mean by a human right not to be abused.
Do you agree, or do you disagree, with:

Do not abuse each other?
Age, the way you word things sometimes tends to be misleading. When I look at your response to Henry above you say "Do you disagree with the basic human right to not be abused." it sounds as though you believe there already is or ought to be such a human right. If not, then you should use the word "a" as in "Do you disagree with a basic human right to not be abused?"
How many times do I have to tell you that I neither believe nor disbelieve ANY thing before it "sinks in", as some say?

If you answered the question,

Do you agree, or do you disagree, with;

Do not abuse each other?,
Honestly, then we can further discuss to SEE if the word 'a' or the word 'the' would be more correct in my response to "henry quirk".

Until 'you' answer my clarifying questions Honestly, only then we can Truly proceed further and forward.

Also, if you STOP making ASSUMPTIONS about what is "sounds like" I am saying, then you will become MORE OPEN.
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

Gary Childress wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:22 pm
Age wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:27 am
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pm

When you say that there should be a basic human right to not be abused,
I do not recall saying this.

Did I say, 'There 'should be' a basic human right to not be abused'?

If yes, then where?

But if no, then does that make what the rest, of what you said here, moot?
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pmwhat is an example of "abuse" that you would categorize as defying a human right not to be abused?
An example of 'abuse' that I would categorize as defying a human right not to be abused is ANY 'misuse' of a human being.

But in order to KNOW what is the 'misuse' of a human being, one would have to, first, learn and KNOW what the 'purpose' is of, and for, the 'human being'.
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pm For example, if someone responds to something you say with mockery or derision, do you consider that "abuse" and therefore conduct that defies a basic human right not to be abused?
Not at all.
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pmOr are you referring to physical abuse such as being beaten or tortured? Or maybe if you give an example or two of the kind of "abuse" you are referring to (which is against a basic human right not to be abused),
ANY physical, emotional, sexual, or mental 'abuse' will suffice. Or, ANY other 'abuse' one can think of.

What does the word 'abuse' mean to 'you'?
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pmthen we could maybe better understand what you mean by a human right not to be abused.
Do you agree, or do you disagree, with:

Do not abuse each other?
Age, the way you word things sometimes tends to be misleading. When I look at your response to Henry above you say "Do you disagree with the basic human right to not be abused." it sounds as though you believe there already is or ought to be such a human right. If not, then you should use the word "a" as in "Do you disagree with a basic human right to not be abused?"
By the way, how does one learn, and thus KNOW, one's True intention?

I have already informed you enough times what the answer is.

If you had been LISTENING, then you would ALREADY KNOW if I have been 'misleading', or not.
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

Gary Childress wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:35 pm
Age wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:27 am
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pm

When you say that there should be a basic human right to not be abused,
I do not recall saying this.

Did I say, 'There 'should be' a basic human right to not be abused'?

If yes, then where?

But if no, then does that make what the rest, of what you said here, moot?
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pmwhat is an example of "abuse" that you would categorize as defying a human right not to be abused?
An example of 'abuse' that I would categorize as defying a human right not to be abused is ANY 'misuse' of a human being.

But in order to KNOW what is the 'misuse' of a human being, one would have to, first, learn and KNOW what the 'purpose' is of, and for, the 'human being'.
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pm For example, if someone responds to something you say with mockery or derision, do you consider that "abuse" and therefore conduct that defies a basic human right not to be abused?
Not at all.
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pmOr are you referring to physical abuse such as being beaten or tortured? Or maybe if you give an example or two of the kind of "abuse" you are referring to (which is against a basic human right not to be abused),
ANY physical, emotional, sexual, or mental 'abuse' will suffice. Or, ANY other 'abuse' one can think of.

What does the word 'abuse' mean to 'you'?
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:38 pmthen we could maybe better understand what you mean by a human right not to be abused.
Do you agree, or do you disagree, with:

Do not abuse each other?
I agree that people should not be beaten or tortured. As far as "ANY" emotional abuse, that's a difficult thing to gauge.
If some 'thing' is 'emotional abuse', then what is there to 'gauge'?

Do you agree, or do you disagree, with:

Do not emotionally abuse each other?
Gary Childress wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:35 pm We all can suffer emotionally from things others say to us. There tends to be a natural inclination for humans to shape each other according to how each believes others ought to be. And that shaping sometimes takes the form of behavior that can be emotionally hurtful to various degrees. Also competitiveness can breed emotional hurt for those that lose at something. The idea of "micro-aggressions" comes to mind. I've seen the term used and abused when dealing with others. I don't think there can be a right against "micro-aggressions." If there were, we'd all be guilty of it just about all the time.
This is just an attempt at distraction, and/or a "justification" for your own, internally known, wrong doing.
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

gaffo wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:18 am
Age wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:39 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:45 pm

Okay. But on what would you base that right?

For there was surely a time in human civilization when there was no reasonable degree of healthcare for anybody...
If this was even remotely true, then how did human beings exist for millions of years, hitherto the day and age when this is being read?
don't play dumb Emmanual was correct.

man existed due to lviing to 30 at best and breeding more than dying from 2 million yrs ago to about 500 yrs ago.
How did HUMANS, and NOT just MAN, get to "30" without 'health care'?

When a baby/child is sick do mother's care for their health?

If yes, then in what period of human millions of years history did this 'health care' begin?

Could you and "immanuel can" be incorrect? Or, is this just not a possibility here?
Post Reply