NEUROSPORT

so do you see it as a need to balance human rights with social order?

or do you see no place for human rights at all ?

i think that we only need to protect human rights and social order will result automatically because any disturbance of the order will necessarily violate somebody's rights.

so for example we don't even need to write a law saying that all must drive on the right side of the street. you try driving on the left side - you run somebody over - and you find yourself on an electric chair. your brother will then think twice before driving on the left side of the street even though there isn't a single law regulating traffic.

you make the assumption that you know what means will lead to which ends. or at least you think you can figure it out by trial and error.

i say it doesn't need to be that complicated. instead of a guessing game let's make it a constraint satisfaction problem:


which is what the Fathers did with the bill of rights. they defined the ENDS rather than the means.

the ends being agreed on universally is sufficient for a framework for social order. the means can and should be decided on individual level because decisions are usually more efficient on that level than on state level.

NEUROSPORT

micro-managing from the top only makes sense if the person on the top is leaps and bounds more intelligent than the person being managed.

however when the person on the top is nothing more than average vote of the retards at the bottom - it doesn't work any more. because now you are just taking 300 million average intelligences and reduce them to one average intelligence - you reduce system efficiency by a factor of 300 million instead of increasing it.

do you know how fish forms schools when they swim ? and birds form flocks ? there are no laws telling fish what side of the street to drive on. and there is no NEED for any.

in september i drove my car all across America - 4,000 miles. speed limits in different states and on different roads varied roughly from 65 to 75 mph yet the cars always maintained 80 mph speed regardless of what state it was in. the only exceptions were NYC where the cars went SLOWER ( about 70 ) and LA where the cars went FASTER ( about 90 ). but that's because NY has traffic probably 16 hours a day and LA is mostly douchebags in porsches.

interestingly the speed limit in LA is only 65 but people drive faster there than in places where the limit is 75. that's because people in LA have more $$$ to burn on gas, brakes and tires.

moral of the story is people will ON THEIR OWN and INSTINCTIVELY settle on UNWRITTEN rules to go by, just like fish and birds do it. there is NO NEED in most cases for any state rules and any such rules will only INTERFERE with the NATURAL ORDER.

every once in a while you suddenly see people braking for no apparent reason then a minute later you see a cop sitting in the bushes with a radar then a minute later everybody speeds back up to 80 mph - IDIOCY !

Korimyr the Rat

Human rights are just more policies. If you ask three liberals to seriously define what human rights are, you'll get four answers and an impromptu street protest. Some "human rights" are good policies because they're cheap and they produce good results, like the freedom of the press and the right to keep and bear arms. Other "human rights" are mostly good policies because the State can provide blanket coverage in ways the market cannot-- like primary education and universal healthcare-- and they double as useful tools for social engineering.

And some "human rights" are just bad policies, like the "right" to an education you're intellectually or socially incapable of benefiting from, the "right" to incur 85% of your lifetime healthcare costs staving off the inevitable in your last eighteen months, or the "right" to march down public roads shouting, blocking traffic, and waving picket signs with offensive slogans on them.

The only real assumption I make is that society will survive, mostly because assuming anything else is self-destructive. As long as society survives, it is possible for it to be improved, and as long as society's goals are consistent with its means, improvement is inevitable. The problem is that in democracies, especially liberal democracies, society's goals are not consistent with each other-- and the majority of them remain unspoken.

The problem is, they defined a very limited system of ends in reaction to abuses against them carried out by their former government-- and did not consciously address either the practical or moral needs of society. Our nation has survived this long mainly because the State has ignored-- in some cases blatantly-- the limitations imposed upon it by the Constitution in order to fulfill its obligations to the people.

Everyone believes this, and it's a load of utter nonsense. It is not enough to say that we have a right to life, liberty, and property and then simply let individuals figure out not only how to secure their own, but how to defend their neighbors', rights. There must be an authority that defines what these "rights" means, and implements them practically in the law-- and that means that the authority is limited by their own subjective experience and biases in implementing the law.

__________________

NEUROSPORT

yes. maybe that is the problem.

they left way too much room for politics.

Constitution should have been about the same size as Bible.

and the first thing the Constitution should have said is that every person must be required to know the Constitution by heart otherwise he forfeits his citizenship.

and they should have never allowed for amendments. or at least made sure that amendments may only be passed unanimously AND with 2/3 majority public support.

perhaps they just didn't care what would happen 200 years down the line. perhaps they felt their ancestors didn't deserve to have everything handed to them on a silver plate.

the Fathers based their decisions on their knowledge of HISTORY. but at no point in history was there ever the kind of pussyfication we have today where not a single person is willing to move a single finger to bring about any change let alone a revolution. based on the history such and end was simply impossible for them to foresee.

Dav

I actually agree that penalties for abortion should be progressively harsher as the fetus develops; the latest-term abortions should be treated like murder. That's not to say I exactly agree with your solution though.

__________________
"You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down." - Ronald Reagan

earthworm

What a bunch of male bovine feces.
Mr Obama is trying to change things, if he does, even a little, it will be a miracle..
Many others have tried and have succeeded to a degree, which is quite the achievement.

NEUROSPORT

so genius how the **** are people supposed to know what the spirit of constitution is without reading it ?

let me guess - they should ask Obama ?

go drink some more Kool aid.

molten_dragon

Just out of curiousity, why does the average person need to know what's in the constitution. The average person rarely does anything that would require them to know what's in it.

__________________
If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

the makeout hobo

Am I the only one who sees Neurosport's obsession with lowering the age of consent creepy?

__________________
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

Korimyr the Rat

Probably not, but it's about the only thing I agree with him on.

__________________