One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Two Wrongs Do Not Make A 'Right'!
Page 1 of 2 next>
Dec 29, 2017 10:05:55   #
Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton
 
Who 'owns' you?

"Self-ownership means your body is your property. You can do whatever you want with it until your actions affect other individuals without their consent".

Sounds reasonable, right? 'You may not harm me'. 'You may not force me to act'. These are known as 'natural' or 'negative' rights. But what about 'positive' rights, such as education (FDR) and healthcare (BHO)?

"Forcing people to work against their will is called slavery. That is clearly a violation of self-ownership. That is the concept of positive rights. It requires an individual to act. Self-ownership means you have the right to not be forced to act against your will. These concepts of rights are contradictory. Both cannot exist". An irreconcilable contradiction that cannot be sustained. We either have 'negative' rights or 'positive' rights, but not both. How to decide?

"Therefore a right cannot be something that must be provided. It is the absence of aggression, not the presence of a good or service. You may not kill me, because I have the right to life. That concept stops aggressive action. You must give me food, because I have the right to eat. That concept allows aggressive action". Aggressive action, as a violation of 'negative rights', is wrong, but aggressive action is also a byproduct of 'positive rights', inferring that something is inherently wrong with the concept of 'positive rights'.

Do two 'wrongs' make a 'right'? You decide.

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/what-are-rights-do-rights-even-exist/

Reply
Dec 29, 2017 10:49:03   #
Kevyn
 
Larry the Legend wrote:
Who 'owns' you?

"Self-ownership means your body is your property. You can do whatever you want with it until your actions affect other individuals without their consent".

Sounds reasonable, right? 'You may not harm me'. 'You may not force me to act'. These are known as 'natural' or 'negative' rights. But what about 'positive' rights, such as education (FDR) and healthcare (BHO)?

"Forcing people to work against their will is called slavery. That is clearly a violation of self-ownership. That is the concept of positive rights. It requires an individual to act. Self-ownership means you have the right to not be forced to act against your will. These concepts of rights are contradictory. Both cannot exist". An irreconcilable contradiction that cannot be sustained. We either have 'negative' rights or 'positive' rights, but not both. How to decide?

"Therefore a right cannot be something that must be provided. It is the absence of aggression, not the presence of a good or service. You may not kill me, because I have the right to life. That concept stops aggressive action. You must give me food, because I have the right to eat. That concept allows aggressive action". Aggressive action, as a violation of 'negative rights', is wrong, but aggressive action is also a byproduct of 'positive rights', inferring that something is inherently wrong with the concept of 'positive rights'.

Do two 'wrongs' make a 'right'? You decide.

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/what-are-rights-do-rights-even-exist/
Who 'owns' you? br br "Self-ownership means ... (show quote)
This makes a powerful argument for a woman’s right to choose.

Reply
Dec 29, 2017 11:32:14   #
Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan
 
Larry the Legend wrote:
Who 'owns' you?

"Self-ownership means your body is your property. You can do whatever you want with it until your actions affect other individuals without their consent".

Sounds reasonable, right? 'You may not harm me'. 'You may not force me to act'. These are known as 'natural' or 'negative' rights. But what about 'positive' rights, such as education (FDR) and healthcare (BHO)?

"Forcing people to work against their will is called slavery. That is clearly a violation of self-ownership. That is the concept of positive rights. It requires an individual to act. Self-ownership means you have the right to not be forced to act against your will. These concepts of rights are contradictory. Both cannot exist". An irreconcilable contradiction that cannot be sustained. We either have 'negative' rights or 'positive' rights, but not both. How to decide?

"Therefore a right cannot be something that must be provided. It is the absence of aggression, not the presence of a good or service. You may not kill me, because I have the right to life. That concept stops aggressive action. You must give me food, because I have the right to eat. That concept allows aggressive action". Aggressive action, as a violation of 'negative rights', is wrong, but aggressive action is also a byproduct of 'positive rights', inferring that something is inherently wrong with the concept of 'positive rights'.

Do two 'wrongs' make a 'right'? You decide.

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/what-are-rights-do-rights-even-exist/
Who 'owns' you? br br "Self-ownership means ... (show quote)


And along with Kevin's comment, unemployment insurance. I don't want to go polish brass at the court house, just give me my unemployment I paid for.

Reply
 
 
Dec 29, 2017 11:40:56   #
JoyV
 
Kevyn wrote:
This makes a powerful argument for a woman’s right to choose.


I don't think anyone is against a woman's right to choose unless they believe a man has the right to rape women and to deny her birth control. How many pregnancies are because a woman was denied her rights to refuse sex. As for a person's rights, they end where another person's begins. If what you choose to do, harms someone else; should you be able to claim it is your right to choose whatever you wish? Return t the rape reference. Does a man have the right to have sex with a woman even when the woman does not want to?

Now regardless of the rightness or wrongness of abortion (which is what your post implies you are referencing; the law permits it. But even in the case of the rights in our Bill of Rights, such as the 2nd amendment; though a citizen has the right to bear arms, taxpayers are not required to PAY for his arms. Defunding abortions is NOT unconstitutional and does not infringe on the legal "right" to have one. It just means I don't have to pay for someone else to have one.

Reply
Dec 29, 2017 12:09:47   #
JoyV
 
Larry the Legend wrote:
Who 'owns' you?

"Self-ownership means your body is your property. You can do whatever you want with it until your actions affect other individuals without their consent".

Sounds reasonable, right? 'You may not harm me'. 'You may not force me to act'. These are known as 'natural' or 'negative' rights. But what about 'positive' rights, such as education (FDR) and healthcare (BHO)?

"Forcing people to work against their will is called slavery. That is clearly a violation of self-ownership. That is the concept of positive rights. It requires an individual to act. Self-ownership means you have the right to not be forced to act against your will. These concepts of rights are contradictory. Both cannot exist". An irreconcilable contradiction that cannot be sustained. We either have 'negative' rights or 'positive' rights, but not both. How to decide?

"Therefore a right cannot be something that must be provided. It is the absence of aggression, not the presence of a good or service. You may not kill me, because I have the right to life. That concept stops aggressive action. You must give me food, because I have the right to eat. That concept allows aggressive action". Aggressive action, as a violation of 'negative rights', is wrong, but aggressive action is also a byproduct of 'positive rights', inferring that something is inherently wrong with the concept of 'positive rights'.

Do two 'wrongs' make a 'right'? You decide.

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/what-are-rights-do-rights-even-exist/
Who 'owns' you? br br "Self-ownership means ... (show quote)


Interesting. This post gives food for thought.

When it comes to education, at first glance it seems public education is about making sure no child is denied an education. But in reality, it means every child MUST get an education. And that every tax payer must PAY for every child getting a public education. Not exactly the same thing. Now a child has no legal rights. It is the child's parents or legal guardians who have the rights. I believe most children, especially below junior or senior year of high school; would choose to not have to study or take tests if it were up to them. So even if it were not compulsory, it would not be the child who had the right to forego an education.

I don't know if it is the same in every state, but in my state a child can be taught at home. This is not subsidized in any way by either the local, state, or federal government. The only thing which is free of cost, is the state testing you are required for the child to take which is the same as the testing given in the public schools. You can choose whatever educational materials you want, but they are not paid for by the taxpayers.

Reply
Dec 29, 2017 12:13:15   #
Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton
 
JoyV wrote:
I don't think anyone is against a woman's right to choose unless they believe a man has the right to rape women and to deny her birth control. How many pregnancies are because a woman was denied her rights to refuse sex. As for a person's rights, they end where another person's begins. If what you choose to do, harms someone else; should you be able to claim it is your right to choose whatever you wish? Return t the rape reference. Does a man have the right to have sex with a woman even when the woman does not want to?

Now regardless of the rightness or wrongness of abortion (which is what your post implies you are referencing; the law permits it. But even in the case of the rights in our Bill of Rights, such as the 2nd amendment; though a citizen has the right to bear arms, taxpayers are not required to PAY for his arms. Defunding abortions is NOT unconstitutional and does not infringe on the legal "right" to have one. It just means I don't have to pay for someone else to have one.
I don't think anyone is against a woman's right to... (show quote)


Hi Joy, and Welcome, newbie!
Bravo! You just nailed the whole 'legal abortion' argument in a nutshell. Unfortunately, you nailed it in the direction of a complete cretin. Prepare to be bombarded with a whole litany of the most imbecilic propaganda and outright vitriol you have never thought could exist. On the other hand, it may not reply at all (we call it 'it', there's no indication whether this is male or female, or even human in origin). I'll be happy to cover your defense if you like, call it a 'house-warming' present. Besides. I do like tearing strips off it.

Reply
Dec 29, 2017 12:31:04   #
Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton
 
JoyV wrote:
Interesting. This post gives food for thought.

When it comes to education, at first glance it seems public education is about making sure no child is denied an education. But in reality, it means every child MUST get an education. And that every tax payer must PAY for every child getting a public education. Not exactly the same thing. Now a child has no legal rights. It is the child's parents or legal guardians who have the rights. I believe most children, especially below junior or senior year of high school; would choose to not have to study or take tests if it were up to them. So even if it were not compulsory, it would not be the child who had the right to forego an education.

I don't know if it is the same in every state, but in my state a child can be taught at home. This is not subsidized in any way by either the local, state, or federal government. The only thing which is free of cost, is the state testing you are required for the child to take which is the same as the testing given in the public schools. You can choose whatever educational materials you want, but they are not paid for by the taxpayers.
Interesting. This post gives food for thought. ... (show quote)


It's commonly called 'homeschooling' and it is, as far as I know, legal in every State, though some are worse than others to deal with. And you're absolutely right, homeschooling parents pay for all of their own materials and are responsible for the child's progress, which is indeed measured using standardized State test materials. In addition to the added expenses homeschooling entails, parents are still required to pay the property taxes that are used to fund the public school system even though their children do not attend public school. That's right, they are not only paying to educate their own children, but are being forced to pay for the education of other peoples' children in addition, meaning they pay twice.

How's that for 'positive rights'?

Reply
 
 
Dec 29, 2017 13:34:46   #
PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.
 
Dummy Boy wrote:
And along with Kevin's comment, unemployment insurance. I don't want to go polish brass at the court house, just give me my unemployment I paid for.


You don't pay for unemployment, the employer does.

Reply
Dec 29, 2017 14:05:25   #
Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan
 
PoppaGringo wrote:
You don't pay for unemployment, the employer does.


...so what, at the end of the day, it was paid for, so I'm entitled to it.

Reply
Dec 29, 2017 15:25:27   #
PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.
 
Dummy Boy wrote:
...so what, at the end of the day, it was paid for, so I'm entitled to it.


I never disputed that. How many 'entitlements' do you currently receive? How long has it been since you had gainful employment and not been on the taxpayer's dole?

Reply
Dec 29, 2017 15:32:45   #
Kevyn
 
PoppaGringo wrote:
You don't pay for unemployment, the employer does.
nonsense, he paid for it with his labor if he didn’t work the employer wouldn’t pay the insurance.

Reply
 
 
Dec 29, 2017 15:40:11   #
PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.
 
Kevyn wrote:
nonsense, he paid for it with his labor if he didn’t work the employer wouldn’t pay the insurance.


The employer paid him for his labor and the unemployment insurance. He paid nothing but, hopefully, his taxes, if he worked enough to owe any taxes.

Reply
Dec 29, 2017 15:55:41   #
Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan
 
PoppaGringo wrote:
I never disputed that. How many 'entitlements' do you currently receive? How long has it been since you had gainful employment and not been on the taxpayer's dole?


I collect: Zero entitlements.

I have been employed for 35 years, here and there. Collected unemployment for 11 weeks after I got out of the Navy. That was 25 years ago.

Reply
Dec 29, 2017 16:03:56   #
PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.
 
Dummy Boy wrote:
I collect: Zero entitlements.

I have been employed for 35 years, here and there. Collected unemployment for 11 weeks after I got out of the Navy. That was 25 years ago.


How do you subsist between 'here and there'?

Reply
Dec 29, 2017 20:28:13   #
Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan
 
PoppaGringo wrote:
How do you subsist between 'here and there'?


How do you use English to communicate? What planet are you from? I don't owe you my job history and I don't give a crap about yours, ya' jackass.

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.