@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.
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.
