View Poll Results: Do you believe in these ideals and how highly do you hold them?

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes i believe in them and they are supreme to me

    15 68.18%
  • Yes I beleive in them but they are in the background

    3 13.64%
  • No I do not believe in them.

    3 13.64%
  • I am progressive, these "truths" where then but we have evolved and have new truths.

    1 4.55%
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 48 of 48

Thread: Do you Believe?

  1. #41
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,422
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do you Believe?

    I tend to agree with Korymir here. Although my interpretation of the debate between rights and power would be summed up in the following...

    ..The rights of the weak are granted by the grace of the powerful.

    You have to obtain power, in order to fight power. You cannot remain weak, and expect to gain any rights for yourself, unless you are willing to depend on the good graces of those with power.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  2. #42
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 08:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Do you Believe?

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    ... and you cannot logically claim that you are violating a right for the purpose of protecting it.
    I wonder if the limiting of a right at times helps to preserve that right to the extent that it is not limited.

    In a simple world, rights could be absolute, but in the real world, it could be the limiting that makes the retention of the right possible. In such a situation, it would certainly not be illogical to "claim that you are violating a right for the purpose of protecting it".

    A concrete example would be taxation (abrogation of property rights) for the purpose of maintaining a military which then protects the property (enforcement of property rights) of those people who pay the tax. This would be the simplest dynamic. Another would be submitting one's will and personal power to a collective law enforcement for the purpose of preserving the greatest amount of self determination possible for each individual who so submits to such a paradigm. This is the dynamic of people forming a society which gives up some freedom precisely in order to preserve it.

    There are more complex dynamics even than this which involve the interplay of multiple interests and power centers, collective and individual action, altruism and greed. All these factors could have a bearing on how limited a 'right' ought to be for the practical purpose of balancing the right partially for the purpose of its own preservation and partially because it conflicts with other rights.

    The D o I seems to me an attempt to state what ought to be, rather than what was (or is). Some people believe there is a difference, and that might does not alter what ought to be. It also seems to be an immature attempt at that, and experience has revealed that things are not as simple as the founders perhaps thought or hoped they were.

  3. #43
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 08:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Do you Believe?

    It may be that the rights spoken of in the D o I cannot be inalienable, but that does not prevent a determination of what rights ought to be in a fair and just society. There may even yet be rights which are inalienable even if they are more nebulous, such as, perhaps, a right to a fair and just society.

    In answer to the OP and the poll: None of them fits for me. I think that truth may yet be found to be absolute, but that its discovery is a thing which evolves. Including the truth about rights.
    Last edited by Dezaad; 06-01-09 at 10:51 PM.

  4. #44
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    08-06-16 @ 04:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,668
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Do you Believe?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    I wonder if the limiting of a right at times helps to preserve that right to the extent that it is not limited.
    Certainly, and I can support such a thing. But for the person imprisoned or slain, their right to liberty and life is not limited, it is extinguished-- if a right can be completely terminated in one to protect that right for others, even with just cause, I do not believe that we can claim that such rights are inalienable.

    And I do not believe in these rights as ideals, either, because I believe that rights should exist for a purpose, in service to higher goals. The right to criticize the government exists to encourage good government, the right to bear arms exists to defend the nation, and the right to due process exists to ensure thorough investigation by law enforcement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    A concrete example would be taxation (abrogation of property rights) for the purpose of maintaining a military which then protects the property (enforcement of property rights) of those people who pay the tax.
    The problem is, when those taxes are also assumed to exist to protect life and liberty, they provide justification for taxation to provide any government service which can be argued to save lives or enhance freedom-- and any of these three rights can contradict the others.

  5. #45
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    01-08-16 @ 11:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,655

    Re: Do you Believe?

    I believe the "all men are created equal" refers to the fact that at birth we are all on equal ground. We know nothing, have nothing, and are helpless. We start on equal footing. No one person has any better chance of surviving than any other. From that point on things change. Parents, geographic regions, natural disasters, will all have an effect on what that person becomes, but at the point of birth we are all equal.
    The mentioned rights are and have to be inalienable. If they were not then there would never be justice. They refer to law in the absence of government. Those things are the rights that nearly everyone considers just, naturally. Without being told people understand that the taking of life, stealing and imprisoning people are wrong and a violation of another's self worth. We see it throughout history. If one person takes another prisoner, has the prisoner's rights been alienated because they are locked up? No the prisoner's natural right to freedom has been unjustly violated. It is because of these unjust violations that the government was originally formed.
    I do agree that people are far more likely to tolerate a familiar tyranny.
    From the ashes.

  6. #46
    Tavern Bartender
    #neverhillary
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    68,030

    Re: Do you Believe?

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    No, I do not believe in them.

    1- I do not believe that all men are created equal. This is not only not self-evident, but all available evidence is quite clearly to the contrary. No two men are equal in their strengths, in their desires, or in their potential-- and this dissimilarity exists from the moment of their creation to the moment of their destruction.

    Thus to claim that all men are equal in moral value is to say that moral value has no relationship with any other measure of value; in other words, it is to declare that moral value is utterly meaningless.

    2- I do not believe that men are endowed with rights, by their Creator or otherwise. Men are endowed with power, and it is by their power that they may secure rights; the more power a man wields, the more rights he may secure for himself. A man's rights exist in proportion to his power, relative to other mens' desire to exercise their power against him.

    3- I believe that government exists as an expression of power, and thus it is not instituted for any purpose save that which powerful men put it to. And, again, every man's right to alter or abolish the government he is subject to is strictly a function of his power to do so.

    4- The only point that I will agree with. Men are far more inclined to tolerate familiar tyranny, so long as it is bearable, than they are to seek an unfamiliar freedom from it. People start or join in revolutions for one of two reasons: unbearable suffering or unrestrained ambition.

    I make no moral distinction between the two.
    Total and utter bull****.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)

  7. #47
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    08-06-16 @ 04:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,668
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Do you Believe?

    Please, American, tell us how you really feel.

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    12-14-09 @ 05:19 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,772

    Re: Do you Believe?

    Quote Originally Posted by kamino View Post
    Ok so I am just wondering how many Americans hold these beliefs in the highest regard?

    Declaration Of independence

    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.

    If you mean is this a good contractual basis for the relationship of the governed to the governers?
    I say yes.
    If this is not the question, then I find the statement a little silly. What is it talking about?
    There is no universal morality and worth is subjective. If we are of equal worth in an objective sense, that worth is 'insignificance'.

    Without a context, a discussion about morality, ethics and universal rights is just a piece of paper with scriblings on it in the universe.
    Last edited by Real Talk; 06-03-09 at 03:27 AM.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •