Immigration

[tackattack]

---

@Min so you feel no one has any inherint privaleges at all? That it's take or be taken, kill or be killed, the strongest survive?

Inherint? No. Not even inherent. Carlin is correct. "Rights aren't rights if someone can them them away."

We see even in America today a concerted effort by rich corporate plutocrat cocksuckers to take away rights from the middle class so they can fill their filthy pockets even further....aided and abetted by a tiny group of naive fools called "Libertarians."

Humans are social animals. All rights and privileges are artifacts of particular construction in the society in which they are found. Individuals may come up with all sorts of arguments for or against particular ones, but ultimately any rights and privileges can be taken away by any society which grants them. Religious faith is attractive partially because it can be used as another bluff in the argument for or against certain privilege or rights, partially because it also readily turns the sand into which weak minded can plung their heads to deny the unreassuring bedrock fact of human existence that one has no rights and privileges beyond the ones that fellow men can take away. The same also applies to constitutional fundamentalism. However, that rights and previleges are conceived and granted by men does not demean their potential value as advantageous traits of a society.

---

Fair enough, so no inherent rights. Would it be more accurate to say then - It is advantageous for a civilized society to grant members of that society certain privileges that are conducive and productive to the type of society that it’s leaders aim for?