I think the right to life is inalienable and no government should be allowed to execute it's citizens.

(March 28, 2009 at 2:29 pm)bozo Wrote: I don't put our legal system on any pedestal. I simply defend the jury system as it is against your attempts at rubbishing it.

IMO you do.

Kyu

---

(March 28, 2009 at 4:55 pm)Meatball Wrote: I think the right to life is inalienable and no government should be allowed to execute it's citizens.

I don't really believe in rights at all let alone ones that are inalienable. Rights don't exist unless someone can defend/enforce them.

Kyu

(March 28, 2009 at 5:01 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(March 28, 2009 at 2:29 pm)bozo Wrote: I don't put our legal system on any pedestal. I simply defend the jury system as it is against your attempts at rubbishing it.

IMO you do.

Kyu

---

(March 28, 2009 at 4:55 pm)Meatball Wrote: I think the right to life is inalienable and no government should be allowed to execute it's citizens.

I don't really believe in rights at all let alone ones that are inalienable. Rights don't exist unless someone can defend/enforce them.

Kyu

In your opinion I'm lying?

(March 28, 2009 at 6:22 pm)bozo Wrote: In your opinion I'm lying?

IMO you are wrong for whatever reason that may be.

Kyu

(March 28, 2009 at 6:46 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(March 28, 2009 at 6:22 pm)bozo Wrote: In your opinion I'm lying?

IMO you are wrong for whatever reason that may be.

Kyu

Your opinion means jack shit in this case. I said I did not put the judicial system " on a pedestal " and I meant it! If I had wanted to, I would have sais so.
You are far too opinionated, in my view. You lack credibility.

@bozo


Reading both what you've written and what Kyu has written,imo he's no more opinionated than your good self. Of course you are under no obligation to give Kyu any credibility.However, you do not speak for me. Kyu actually has a lot of credibility with me. It's you who have none.

I also reject the notion of innate rights.This is not a unique idea. The base of the opposing views is moral judgment and political ideology.


The idea of an inalienable right implies an absolute moral imperative.Moral law is based on some form of moral authority.Any universal moral law must be based on a universally recognised moral authority.Imo there is no such thing.


As for politics,my position is that of Conflict Theory. I agree with Mao who said "power grows from the barrel of a gun". The rights an individual has are those accorded by society as a whole, supported by the state, and underpinned by the sanction of force,explicit and implied.

In my opinion the US Declaration of Independence is either one of the most fatuous and naive documents ever written or one of the most cynical. The US Constitution is one the most noble documents ever written. However the US government manages to ignore it whenever it sees fit.

Three examples:

During WW2,the US government interred American citizens born in Japan.


The activities of Senator Joseph McCarthy and his committee in the 1950's were unconstitutional.


Currently there is The Patriot Act,which suspends due process,including habeus corpus and the right to representation.-I won't even start on the practices rendition,GITMO, and torture.

So I hope you can see why I'm unable to give your views any credibility.They contradict my view of the world as it is, not as I'd like it to be.

(March 28, 2009 at 7:21 pm)bozo Wrote: Your opinion means jack shit in this case. I said I did not put the judicial system " on a pedestal " and I meant it! If I had wanted to, I would have sais so.

I'm sorry you feel that mate (I was rather under the impression that I lived in a country that embraces freedom of speech and that I was allowed to express my opinions.

(March 28, 2009 at 7:21 pm)bozo Wrote: You are far too opinionated, in my view. You lack credibility.

ROFLMAO! So I stated my opinion strongly just as you stated your opinion strongly and I am far too opinionated (apparently because I won't agree with your opinion)? i Have you ever heard of the word hypocrisy?

Kyu

---

(March 28, 2009 at 10:08 pm)padraic Wrote: I also reject the notion of innate rights.This is not a unique idea. The base of the opposing views is moral judgment and political ideology.

This requires beer ... beer is foamy

Kyu

(March 28, 2009 at 5:01 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(March 28, 2009 at 4:55 pm)Meatball Wrote: I think the right to life is inalienable and no government should be allowed to execute it's citizens.

I don't really believe in rights at all let alone ones that are inalienable. Rights don't exist unless someone can defend/enforce them.

Well obviously rights are a concept we've created and try to apply to society.

I think any government should do everything within their power to recognize that people should have a right to life, a right to free speech, right to assemble, etc..., and that the government should do their best to enforce these standards.

Obviously nobody can guarantee life, but a government should recognize that nobody is justified in taking another's life, saving extreme circumstances.

Quote:I think any government should do everything within their power to recognize that people should have a right to life, a right to free speech, right to assemble, etc..., and that the government should do their best to enforce these standards.

WHY?

Although I have those rights and value them, I have no sense of natural entitlement.

My position is that "should" is a moral judgment. I'd argue it's in a government's best interest to accord those rights to people,as a form of government with the support of the people will survive longer.


The form of government we incorrectly call "democracy"* is just one form of government,it's not perfect,nor universally just. The "human rights" we value are cultural constructs,based on our notions of morality. They are by no means universal.


*"Democracy" within the original Greek sense is rule by referendum. ALL Voters,vote on EVERY matter of importance.Of course in a Greek city state,that meant about 25% of the population (all male) all of whom could fit into a modest sized ampitheatre.

Even when protected by a constitution, there are no such things as "inalienable rights".Any government can and does ignore such rights as circumstances dictate.

(March 29, 2009 at 7:25 pm)padraic Wrote: WHY?

Although I have those rights and value them, I have no sense of natural entitlement.

Obviously. Who's arguing that we are naturally entitled to anything? If we were natually entitled to these things we wouldn't have much use for government. It's a way of a civilization saying, 'we value human life'. It's one of those things that makes us civilized...

Quote:Even when protected by a constitution, there are no such things as "inalienable rights".Any government can and does ignore such rights as circumstances dictate.

I thought I made that clear in the way that I worded my post. I'm not deluded into thinking the government can let me live forever because a constitution says so. I'm also not saying these things are abused and twisted for a number of reasons. Did you even read my post?