NYC Soda Ban Could Include Frappucinos And Popcorn At Movie Theaters

teamosil · Jun 17, 2012

Henrin said:
I didn't say anything of other societies, did I? And there is plenty of representation in the constitution. There is property, there is the protection of life, and there is protection of speech for starters.

Many societies and political theories and whatnot believe in the freedom of speech, life and property, not just natural law ones.

Henrin said:
All possibilities in nature are rights unless they violate the rights of another. Other theories like for example religious ones, excluded possibilities because of religious beliefs, while I'm not excluding anything. Other ideas added things like services and contracts to nature to enable them some kind of togetherness, but in reality there is no togetherness in nature. Sure there is peace and sure there is destruction, but there is no togetherness that comes from nature itself. Togetherness comes from people, and people decide on these things, and no part of nature plays a part.

That just begs the question. How would you know what acts violate the rights of others unless you already know what things are rights? For example, if I assumed that the right to food was a right and that the right to property wasn't, then I would see people refusing to give food to others as a violating of the rights of other people. Any set of rights that you assume could satisfy your standard about things being rights unless they violate the rights of others. You're still just assuming a set of rights to start with based on your personal preferences.

Henrin said:
I don't care. I would destroy public education so your example means nothing to me. And things should be excludable and there is nothing you have said that makes me otherwise. You are supporting theft and it matters not what the benefits of that are.

If a political theory would be detrimental to society, no society would ever adopt it. It would be a worthless political theory.

Henrin · Jun 17, 2012

teamosil said:
Many societies and political theories and whatnot believe in the freedom of speech, life and property, not just natural law ones.

Fair enough, but do you believe the founders put them under those theories?

That just begs the question. How would you know what acts violate the rights of others unless you already know what things are rights?

I observe nature and the rules of "the realities of destruction, and consent in nature. The later governs the former and the former describes the basis of rights." I think I have said this.

For example, if I assumed that the right to food was a right and that the right to property wasn't, then I would see people refusing to give food to others as a violating of the rights of other people.

Food can't possibly be a right since you can't force anyone to do anything they do not desire.

Property is observable in nature and when those that own are forced to give up what they do not desire too consent is breached. Theft is destruction and breach of consent.

You can continue to ask any question you want but you will notice I'm very consistent.

Also, I think you should be aware that imperfection in the past of an idea doesn't mean the idea is bunk.

Any set of rights that you assume could satisfy your standard about things being rights unless they violate the rights of others. You're still just assuming a set of rights to start with based on your personal preferences.

I don't think you have proven that.

If a political theory would be detrimental to society, no society would ever adopt it. It would be a worthless political theory.

Hardly. Society has practiced dictatorships that have killed millions and it was adopted just fine by the people. People make all kind of mistakes and adopt polices that led to ruin over and over again.

teamosil · Jun 17, 2012

Henrin said:
Far enough, but do you believe the founders put them under those theories?

No. The historical evidence seems to indicate that basically maybe 25% of the founders were straight up natural law guys. They were all the Christian natural law variety- god gave us certain rights kind of stuff. But, they were not really central to what got put in the constitution. The rest of the founders basically threw them a rhetorical bone from time to time. Like the preamble to the constitution and the 9th amendment. But the substance of the constitution seems to be mostly driven by a strong belief in pluralism. Free speech, for example, is core to pluralism. If people can't speak freely, they can't represent their views in the system.

Henrin said:
I observe nature and the rules of "the realities of destruction, and consent in nature. The later governs the former and the former describes the basis of rights." I think I have said this.

Well, like I said, different people see different rights when they look at nature.

Henrin said:
Food can't possibly be a right since you can't force anyone to do anything they do not desire.

Property is observable in nature and when those that own are forced to give up what they do not desire too consent is breached. Theft is destruction and breach of consent.

You can continue to ask any question you want but you will notice I'm very consistent.

Also, I think you should be aware that imperfection in the past of an idea doesn't mean the idea is bunk.

You're just making that leap out of the blue. You're assuming it is true. That doesn't sound like the hard logical foundation you're characterizing it as.

Henrin · Jun 17, 2012

teamosil said:
No. The historical evidence seems to indicate that basically maybe 25% of the founders were straight up natural law guys. They were all the Christian natural law variety- god gave us certain rights kind of stuff. But, they were not really central to what got put in the constitution. The rest of the founders basically threw them a rhetorical bone from time to time. Like the preamble to the constitution and the 9th amendment. But the substance of the constitution seems to be mostly driven by a strong belief in pluralism. Free speech, for example, is core to pluralism. If people can't speak freely, they can't represent their views in the system.

Those 25% though seem pretty high on the list.

Well, like I said, different people see different rights when they look at nature.

That is not an argument.

You're just making that leap out of the blue. You're assuming it is true. That doesn't sound like the hard logical foundation you're characterizing it as.

I'm making no leap out of the blue. If I am, tell me how.

If food was a right would people not be forced to give others food? The answer is yes.
Is property observable in nature? Yes, it is.
Is food property? The answer is yes.
Is it a breach of consent to take it away? Yes, it is.