• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Socialism could have succeeded?

Do you think socialism could have succeeded if capitalism wasn't standing on the way?

  • Don't know

    Votes: 3 3.8%

  • Don't care

    Votes: 3 3.8%

  • Absolutely

    Votes: 9 11.4%

  • I think it could

    Votes: 11 13.9%

  • I think it couldn't

    Votes: 16 20.3%

  • No way

    Votes: 37 46.8%
  • Total voters
    79
Khayembii Communique said:
Natural rights do not exist, the state is not founded upon natural right. I don't know why you have so much trouble understanding this.
Click to expand...
Answered like a good Pinko! I expected nothing less. And thus, again we have come full-circle........back to the most basic of fundamental differences between those of us who favor a free-market, capitalistic ideology and those who truly believe that Marx stumbled upon some great world-shaping revelation. Those who truly believe in the universal concept of natural rights and those who believe that all of these concepts are state-driven.
By the way, I never actually said that the state was founded upon natural rights, I simply suggested that the entire concept of "state formation" is flawed and illogical without believing that natural rights exist - if for no other reason than to try and control them and to "divvy them up" as they see fit.
 
Last edited:
Khayembii Communique said:
Natural rights do not exist, the state is not founded upon natural right. I don't know why you have so much trouble understanding this.
Click to expand...

Come on now, comrade, how about the right to live, the right to breathe, the right to think, etc.?
 
Come on now, comrade, how about the right to live, the right to breathe, the right to think, etc.?
Click to expand...

What does the "right to live" mean?

By the way, I never actually said that the state was founded upon natural rights, I simply suggested that the entire concept of "state formation" is flawed and illogical without believing that natural rights exist - if for no other reason than to try and control them and to "divvy them up" as they see fit.
Click to expand...

Too many pronouns.
 
Last edited:
I actually agree with KC. I do not believe in "natural rights" insofar as most people define them.
 
Gipper said:
I actually agree with KC.
Click to expand...
Well you are from Bama, so the color Red does suit you, lol.


I do not believe in "natural rights" insofar as most people define them.
Click to expand...

Which natural rights specifically, and to whom are you referring when you say "most people"? I don't do well with broad generalizations. :shrug:
 
Yeah but I'm born, raised, and graduated from Michigan. I'm as blue as you can get without legally being a smurf.

I just don't agree with "natural rights" as many define them.
 
Gipper said:
Yeah but I'm born, raised, and graduated from Michigan. I'm as blue as you can get without legally being a smurf.

I just don't agree with "natural rights" as many define them.
Click to expand...
Okay, so most people define them as the rights that ALL humans are born with, and the "experts" - we'll call them for lack of better terminology (notable philosophers, religious, and political leaders both past and present) seem to agree on a few, such as "the right to live", the "right to be free from forced servitude", the "right to own and defend your own property", and the "right to pursue what makes you happy."

So which do you disagree with? Keep in mind, I NEVER once said that these rights could not be limited by government nor taken away completely. You obviously get to keep them as long as they are within agreed upon legal parameters and you don't violate someone else's natural rights while exercising yours. I'm simply saying that they DO NOT HAVE TO BE EARNED (like a privelege) ....... they are INHERENT in being human and should not (as communists seem to believe) be divveyd up by the state based on skills, working status, or party loyalty IMO. :shrug:
 
Well, I don't mean I don't view them as rights in a "right vs. privilege" contrast, but I disagree with how they are interpreted and enforced. Too many people use these "rights " to infringe upon another's. Take "right to live" - a lot of people will take this and abuse it by suggesting that someone's right to live depends upon others. This is highly prevalent in arguments for and against entitlements or that Robin Hood adventure some people call "redistribution". These people will argue that a billionaire not giving all he can is denying another's "right to live".

Now, take the "right to be free from forced servitude". Ever hear the term "wage slavery"? This is some bullcrap that communists and their ilk like to use to justify their resistance to labor for another in exchange for means to survive. They say that "work or die is not a choice" and what-not.

So I'll elaborate - for what I think is a right and what you probably think is a right, yeah - I would agree that we have those rights as you listed. However, as many others would define, no I don't believe in those "rights".

That's the problem - interpretation.
 
Gipper said:
Well, I don't mean I don't view them as rights in a "right vs. privilege" contrast, but I disagree with how they are interpreted and enforced. Too many people use these "rights " to infringe upon another's. Take "right to live" - a lot of people will take this and abuse it by suggesting that someone's right to live depends upon others. This is highly prevalent in arguments for and against entitlements or that Robin Hood adventure some people call "redistribution". These people will argue that a billionaire not giving all he can is denying another's "right to live".


Now, take the "right to be free from forced servitude". Ever hear the term "wage slavery"? This is some bullcrap that communists and their ilk like to use to justify their resistance to labor for another in exchange for means to survive. They say that "work or die is not a choice" and what-not.

So I'll elaborate - for what I think is a right and what you probably think is a right, yeah - I would agree that we have those rights as you listed. However, as many others would define, no I don't believe in those "rights".

That's the problem - interpretation.
Click to expand...

Okay, thanks Gip. Now I see where you're coming from. For a minute there, I thought you were stepping "way out there" but I see for the most part we do both accept at least the "spirit" of natural rights. And I do agee that modern-day interpretation is a real problem. Damn! What went wrong and when? :lol:
 
Oh that's an easy one. Ever heard of that old addage about giving an inch?

I blame FDR. That "New Deal" was meant to be temporary, but by not repealing it when it needed to be, people got too comfortable. That was the pebble that started the boulder downhill.
 
Gipper said:
Well, I don't mean I don't view them as rights in a "right vs. privilege" contrast, but I disagree with how they are interpreted and enforced. Too many people use these "rights " to infringe upon another's. Take "right to live" - a lot of people will take this and abuse it by suggesting that someone's right to live depends upon others. This is highly prevalent in arguments for and against entitlements or that Robin Hood adventure some people call "redistribution". These people will argue that a billionaire not giving all he can is denying another's "right to live".
Click to expand...

I am a poor English speaker but seems to me that "right" and "entitlement" are two different things. The "right to breathe" means that nobody (human at least) can forbid you to breathe. If you don't want to breathe, fine, the choice is yours.
"Entitled" means someone (human at least) should provide for you, let's say, air to breathe. If you are an astronaut or a diver you may be entitled to air but only in the space shuttle or under water, not under the blue sky.

:)
 
Last edited:
Canell said:
I am a poor English speaker but seems to me that "right" and "entitlement" are two different things. The "right to breathe" means that nobody (human at least) can forbid you to breathe. If you don't want to breathe, fine, the choice is yours.
"Entitled" means someone (human at least) should provide for you, let's say, air to breathe. If you are an astronaut or a diver you may be entitled to air but only in the space shuttle or under water, not under the blue sky.

:)
Click to expand...
I believe you are pretty well on track. You may want to consider an "entitlement" as something we believe is "owed" to us. Something we "deserve" because of our current status or situation in life. Just a suggestion. :shrug:
 
Canell said:
I am a poor English speaker but seems to me that "right" and "entitlement" are two different things. The "right to breathe" means that nobody (human at least) can forbid you to breathe. If you don't want to breathe, fine, the choice is yours.
"Entitled" means someone (human at least) should provide for you, let's say, air to breathe. If you are an astronaut or a diver you may be entitled to air but only in the space shuttle or under water, not under the blue sky.

:)
Click to expand...

Except people CAN forbid you to breathe. Further, in the real world there are situations in which it can be justified to do so. So right, again, doesn't exist concretely.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Except people CAN forbid you to breathe. Further, in the real world there are situations in which it can be justified to do so. So right, again, doesn't exist concretely.
Click to expand...

Dude, someone can blow your head with a gun - that isn't impossible, it's just a crime. ;)
 
Crimes are violations of law, which are legislated by the state. A legal execution is not a violation of law.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Crimes are violations of law, which are legislated by the state. A legal execution is not a violation of law.
Click to expand...

Whatever, comrade, I made my point. I just hope that you stay away from power. :) Good day.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Crimes are violations of law, which are legislated by the state. A legal execution is not a violation of law.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

So whatever the majority believes, as evidenced by their laws, is right? Or should I say correct?
 
What point is that? And why would you be scared of me getting into power? Afraid I would execute innocent people? Afraid I would detain people without reason or due process? Oh wait that's all already happening. The state sure does a good job of protecting its citizens' rights!
 
I'm sorry, did I accidentally click the Philosophy fora instead of polls?
 
Khayembii Communique said:
What point is that? And why would you be scared of me getting into power? Afraid I would execute innocent people? Afraid I would detain people without reason or due process? Oh wait that's all already happening. The state sure does a good job of protecting its citizens' rights!
Click to expand...

So... if the majority creates laws based on their beliefs and they believe "x" obscene law is A-OK, it's right and/or correct?

I dunno about you getting into power.
 
Wake said:
So... if the majority creates laws based on their beliefs and they believe "x" obscene law is A-OK, it's right and/or correct?
Click to expand...



The majority don't create laws, the state does. Laws are not based on morality.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
[/I]The majority don't create laws, the state does. Laws are not based on morality.
Click to expand...

Laws are made by people whose beliefs are in the majority. The majority believes murder is wrong, so they make laws that declare murder is wrong.

Laws are based on morality, whether religious or secular.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom