Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Texting and Driving is a RIGHT!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Absolutely!



    So her right to be free from the temporary state of pregnancy trumps the right right to life of another person? Think about that really hard.
    That is not the way I would argue it. A right to life is a negative right, not a positive one, unless there is a reason/obligation to make it so. That the helpless condition was created by her body (and usually consensual sex) creates a positive obligation that doesn't naturally exist.


    No, actually, they don't. There are laws against that, and they may be ticketed, fined, and possibly even lose their license. Especially if their reckless operation of a vehicle injures or kills another person, or places them at risk of injury or death.
    License. So triggered.

    In the case of your really really bad analogy - it's already settled. The reckless operation of a motor vehicle on public roadways is most certainly illegal.
    Directly threatening behavior is a aggression.
    The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

    sigpic

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
      In the Stateless world with everyone a libertarian (who upholds the No-aggression principle), all major roads can be owned by an individual or a group. It's possible that texting is prohibited on some roads but not others.
      Sounds good, but you know what would happen? The rich people would end up owning the roads because nobody else can afford it, and would gouge everyone using the roads to become richer.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        Sounds good, but you know what would happen? The rich people would end up owning the roads because nobody else can afford it, and would gouge everyone using the roads to become richer.
        That actually is very silly. Rich do not get rich through osmosis and the motivation to have and build roads is to improve trade. It would be counterproductive to make it so no one could use them- no one gets Rich. It also presumes the same power structure today that isn't a truly free market so that the Rich tend to be protected. It would take hours of regurgitating Tom Woods to unpack this myth...

        So we have a coercive state own roads which is the biggest abuser of rights and protector of crony capitalism and back room deals. Stockholm at its best.
        The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

        sigpic

        Comment


        • #79
          The odd capitalization is because my phone insists Rich is a name
          The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

          sigpic

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Darth Xena View Post
            That actually is very silly. Rich do not get rich through osmosis and the motivation to have and build roads is to improve trade. It would be counterproductive to make it so no one could use them- no one gets Rich. It also presumes the same power structure today that isn't a truly free market so that the Rich tend to be protected. It would take hours of regurgitating Tom Woods to unpack this myth...

            So we have a coercive state own roads which is the biggest abuser of rights and protector of crony capitalism and back room deals. Stockholm at its best.
            well if someone owns a key stretch of road, they can charge what they want to. Sure they could price themselves out of business, but generally if it is a key road, they have no competition to worry about. Most roads pass through privately owned property, so it would be pretty hard for someone to come along and build an alternate path or detour in order to compete with the original key stretch. And even if they could, what then? someone comes along and builds another detour around the detour to compete with them? Pretty soon all you would have is a giant spaghetti system of roads. It all just seems idealist but impracticable.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Darth Xena View Post
              That actually is very silly. Rich do not get rich through osmosis and the motivation to have and build roads is to improve trade.
              You obviously have never been rich. Rich people don't necessarily do things "to get rich" - sometimes the motivation is simply "because I can".
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #82
                In a truly free market system, people will have to do something to stay rich (including surviving community censure) … and the few oddballs that do something simply because they can – that is not normative. And the existence of such doesn’t justify using force-funding on other people.

                No Sparko because other areas will then become key areas. Things simply are not static in that way. And still doesn’t justify violating people rights to force-fund things. Thank God the state hasn’t clothed us or we would be arguing about how we couldn’t possibly do it ourselves. It is the equivalent of “but who will pick the cotton?”

                I find it odd that I am the one arguing against violence and force…. And I am the “impracticable” one. Hmm. And you wonder why I call it Stockholm Syndrome? Particularly from conservatives… because the “logic” of all of this leads to socialism. Which is why I have zero sympathy when I hear conservatives moaning about Obamacare or welfare. You are getting the god you asked for… such gods tend to grow bigger and demand larger sacrifices. And of course none of you would rob your neighbors personally to pay for any of these things… you have the state do it for you #sobrave.

                Once you put force and violence on the table for the “greater good” – the genie does not go back in the bottle.

                Shrug, tired of the subject already. Carry on. I won’t be back to it.

                lcat.gif
                The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

                sigpic

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Absolutely!



                  So her right to be free from the temporary state of pregnancy trumps the right right to life of another person? Think about that really hard.



                  And when the clash results in the death of an innocent person, dire consequences should result.



                  No, actually, they don't. There are laws against that, and they may be ticketed, fined, and possibly even lose their license. Especially if their reckless operation of a vehicle injures or kills another person, or places them at risk of injury or death.



                  Which is why we have police officers patrolling the streets and highways watching out for those who don't obey the law.



                  In the case of your really really bad analogy - it's already settled. The reckless operation of a motor vehicle on public roadways is most certainly illegal.



                  Perhaps you can try another analogy which stinks less loudly?
                  CP, Sparko, Cerebrum apparently all failed to see the hypothetical nature of my post. A person advocates right X but then that is opposed by another person who advocates Y so that X and Y are put in opposition to each other. The only way to resolve that dilemma is to agree that X or Y should take the precedence over the other "right."

                  Now, let's agree to leave things here, not much would be gained so that time spent on it is well used.
                  Last edited by Truthseeker; 08-28-2015, 05:15 PM.
                  The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                  [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    Sounds good, but you know what would happen? The rich people would end up owning the roads because nobody else can afford it, and would gouge everyone using the roads to become richer.
                    Do you have a reason why maintaining and operating one's road is costless or low cost? And a reason why there would be virtually no competition?
                    The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                    [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                      CP, Sparko, Cerebrum apparently all failed to see the hypothetical nature of my post.
                      Then, obviously, you did a horrible job at making the case.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                        CP, Sparko, Cerebrum apparently all failed to see the hypothetical nature of my post. A person advocates right X but then that is opposed by another person who advocates Y so that X and Y are put in opposition to each other. The only way to resolve that dilemma is to agree that X or Y should take the precedence over the other "right."

                        Now, let's agree to leave things here, not much would be gained so that time spent on it is well used.
                        I missed that last line. It's always a hoot when somebody does their last shot in, then says "let's agree to leave things here".
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Darth Xena View Post
                          In a truly free market system, people will have to do something to stay rich (including surviving community censure) …
                          Meh, there comes a point where one can be so rich that they can live off their interest and dividends.

                          and the few oddballs that do something simply because they can – that is not normative.
                          Being rich isn't normative.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Joel View Post
                            I think the case of rape is more difficult than many other pro-lifers seem to think it is.
                            Let's grant that it would be immoral for the woman to abort. That still leaves another question: Is it morally okay for someone else to forcibly prevent the woman from aborting (or to punish after the fact)?

                            In the case of rape, the unwanted pregnancy is a continuation of the aggression of the rapist against the woman. For someone else to forcibly prevent the woman from aborting is to perpetuate that element of the rapist's aggression against the woman. In this case, it would seem that saving the baby's life requires committing an wrong against the woman. Is it still okay because it's a lesser evil? And if you forced the woman in that case, it seems that you would then have a debt of restitution to pay to the woman (probably at least including the obligation to pay for the costs of the pregnancy, any loss of wages, etc.)

                            And then assuming that that i.s the case (that it morally okay for you to force the woman if you provide that support/restitution to her), there still is a question of whether the government ought to do that forcing and force the tax payers to pay that support (which would be yet another act of injustice). Or perhaps the government could just allow people to choose to force the woman by choosing to accept the legal obligation to support her?
                            Before tackling this, in this hypothetical does the woman have the right to kill the rapist?
                            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                            My Personal Blog

                            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                            Quill Sword

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                              Before tackling this, in this hypothetical does the woman have the right to kill the rapist?
                              She may be justified in using lethal defensive force during the attack. After the fact, is the death penalty justified? I don't know. Probably not. Might depend on the circumstances? At the very least, the punishment should involve forcing the rapist to provide support for the woman and child.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Joel View Post
                                She may be justified in using lethal defensive force during the attack. After the fact, is the death penalty justified? I don't know. Probably not. Might depend on the circumstances? At the very least, the punishment should involve forcing the rapist to provide support for the woman and child.
                                Afterwards - the attack is a separate issue. If not then your argument fails entirely. The child is not guilty in any legal, ethical or moral sense of or for the attack. The rapist unquestionably is guilty in all three senses since we are dealing with rape per se and not any of the gray areas. If she has no right to kill the guilty then it follows that she also has no right to kill the innocent.
                                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                                My Personal Blog

                                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                                Quill Sword

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                160 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X