|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 23, 2014 14:40:09 GMT
The political philosophy of the United States is summed up in two short sentences expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
This is not a half-way proposition because a person either embraces and support it or they don't. If they don't then they must have another political philosophy because it's "not this one" they support. Do you support this political philosophy or do you have another political philosophy?
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Feb 23, 2014 15:54:47 GMT
A knife is equal to another knife in sharpness, because one of its purposes is to cut. What is the purpose of people, and in what can they be held equal or unequal? There is no creator. The only meaningful plan is 'from each according to his/her ability and to each according to his/her need' - socialism.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 23, 2014 17:30:14 GMT
A knife is equal to another knife in sharpness, because one of its purposes is to cut. What is the purpose of people, and in what can they be held equal or unequal? There is no creator. The only meaningful plan is 'from each according to his/her ability and to each according to his/her need' - socialism.
The political philosophy expressed is based upon the "inalienable rights of the person" and those are easily established based upon the criteria for an inalienable right.
It does not address economic theory. Capitalism and socialism both economic theories and not a political theory
BTW there is another expression of "socialism" which is "From each according to their ability and to each according to their contribution."
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Feb 24, 2014 13:07:08 GMT
A knife is equal to another knife in sharpness, because one of its purposes is to cut. What is the purpose of people, and in what can they be held equal or unequal? There is no creator. The only meaningful plan is 'from each according to his/her ability and to each according to his/her need' - socialism.
The political philosophy expressed is based upon the "inalienable rights of the person" and those are easily established based upon the criteria for an inalienable right.
It does not address economic theory. Capitalism and socialism both economic theories and not a political theory
BTW there is another expression of "socialism" which is "From each according to their ability and to each according to their contribution."
People are not FOR anything - they are an end in themselves, and neither equal nor unequal. People have no 'unalienable right' to anything - they have the right to what they can take. Capitalism uses people as tools and then throws them aside, and believes thieves are admirable, so it is crap, incompatible with humanity. The economy is what shapes people, as you know. There are various mis-statements about Christianity, too. That's how the *fairy dust*bags keep *fairy dust*baggery going - by falsifying and confusing. *'extretabags' and 'excretabaggery'. |
|
newsman
Scribe
Posts: 37 
Politics: Independent
|
Post by newsman on Feb 24, 2014 17:59:23 GMT
The political philosophy of the United States is summed up in two short sentences expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
This is not a half-way proposition because a person either embraces and support it or they don't. If they don't then they must have another political philosophy because it's "not this one" they support. Do you support this political philosophy or do you have another political philosophy?
Yes in theory, but in practice that idea has become corrupted by the alien concepts that corporations are "people" and that money is "speech". |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Feb 25, 2014 3:18:09 GMT
I absolutely agree with it. I also like that they mentioned their "Creator" as well....which was an acknowledgement of a higher being......something that certain people even to this day deny.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 25, 2014 12:34:33 GMT
People have no 'unalienable right' to anything - they have the right to what they can take.
"Unalienable" is the archaic spelling of "Inalienable" (not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated) that many confuse with "Inviolable" (cannot be violated).
The statement that "they have the right to take what they can take" is the basic principle of "Might Makes Right" or "Law of the Jungle" that establishes that "Act of Aggression against Others" is completely acceptable. Based upon this prinicple it's fully acceptable to simply murder another person (the other Person has no Rights such as the Inalienable Right of Self and the related Inalienable Right to Life) for personal gain.
I don't know of many that advocate the "Law of the Jungle" where "Might Makes Right" and we can simply go out and murder other people to take away the possessions they have so that we can have those possession. Where if we want "sex" we can simply rape any woman walking down the street because we're stronger and can "take" that from them.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Feb 25, 2014 12:53:28 GMT
I absolutely agree with it. I also like that they mentioned their "Creator" as well....which was an acknowledgement of a higher being......something that certain people even to this day deny.
Whether our "creator" is a supernatural entity or simply "nature" is really a moot point. The acknowledgement of the inherent "inalienable rights of the person" is what is important. By analogy "I own a Harley-Davidson motorcycle" is important while "I got it from Owens Harley-Davidson" isn't really important.
This would take us to the next issue though. What is an "Inalienable Right" because if we can't identify what they are then they don't have much meaning. If I can't tell you what a Harley-Davidson motorcycle is then simply saying "Harley-Davidson" doesn't have any meaning. In the past I've put forward the following definition/criteria for determing what an "Inalienable Right" is:
An inalienable right is that which is inherent in the person, not dependent upon another person, that does not violate the inalienable rights of another person, nor does it impose an involuntary obligation upon another person.
I've not read this precise statement of what an inalienable right is anywhere and it is really a short expression compressing everything I've read into a single sentence that establishes the basis for the logical deduction of what is and what is not an inalienable right. Would you agree with it or is there another criteria that you can propose that would be more accurate?
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Feb 25, 2014 13:05:52 GMT
People have no 'unalienable right' to anything - they have the right to what they can take.
"Unalienable" is the archaic spelling of "Inalienable" (not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated) that many confuse with "Inviolable" (cannot be violated).
The statement that "they have the right to take what they can take" is the basic principle of "Might Makes Right" or "Law of the Jungle" that establishes that "Act of Aggression against Others" is completely acceptable. Based upon this prinicple it's fully acceptable to simply murder another person (the other Person has no Rights such as the Inalienable Right of Self and the related Inalienable Right to Life) for personal gain.
I don't know of many that advocate the "Law of the Jungle" where "Might Makes Right" and we can simply go out and murder other people to take away the possessions they have so that we can have those possession. Where if we want "sex" we can simply rape any woman walking down the street because we're stronger and can "take" that from them.
If you don't like fact, choose fiction, and good luck to you. |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 28, 2014 15:02:37 GMT
The whole thing is based on an error; all men are NOT created equal.
If so, no one would run faster than anyone else and no one would be able to exploit the weaknesses of others in order to rise to the top.
There would be no bosses, supervisors or poo shovel operatives.
We'd all be exactly the same.
Since we are clearly anything but equal, even from birth, the whole thing is so much bog roll.
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Feb 28, 2014 17:47:28 GMT
The whole thing is based on an error; all men are NOT created equal. If so, no one would run faster than anyone else and no one would be able to exploit the weaknesses of others in order to rise to the top. There would be no bosses, supervisors or poo shovel operatives. We'd all be exactly the same. Since we are clearly anything but equal, even from birth, the whole thing is so much bog roll. But - say it again - equal at what? What are we for? Heaping up money for expensive funerals? Come ON! |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 1, 2014 1:39:41 GMT
The whole thing is based on an error; all men are NOT created equal. If so, no one would run faster than anyone else and no one would be able to exploit the weaknesses of others in order to rise to the top. There would be no bosses, supervisors or poo shovel operatives. We'd all be exactly the same. Since we are clearly anything but equal, even from birth, the whole thing is so much bog roll. But - say it again - equal at what? What are we for? Heaping up money for expensive funerals? Come ON! We are equal at nothing. Great pianists entertain us and graceful ballet dancers thrill us but we don't all have their skills. The same goes for making money. Some people will be able to do it and have a good life whilst others will hardly master a shovel and have difficulty in finding the poo to use it on. The latter group tend to moan on about how unfair the world is. |
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Mar 1, 2014 17:27:04 GMT
We are not a means but an end. We are not equal or unequal: every one of us is all that matters. That is why capitalism is such footling bull*fairy dust*.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 3, 2014 0:25:37 GMT
The political philosophy of the United States is summed up in two short sentences expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
This is not a half-way proposition because a person either embraces and support it or they don't. If they don't then they must have another political philosophy because it's "not this one" they support. Do you support this political philosophy or do you have another political philosophy?
I certainly do support that philosophy. Unequivocally. But we appear to have somewhat different interpretations of what that philosophy entails. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 3, 2014 14:18:25 GMT
I certainly do support that philosophy. Unequivocally. But we appear to have somewhat different interpretations of what that philosophy entails.
I believe that we have to start at the beginning which is the Inalienable Rights of the Person that are not granted by government and exist without government. I have summarized the determining factors related to the Inalienable Rights of the Person.
An inalienable Right is that which is inherent in the person, not dependent upon any other person, that does not infringe upon the Inalienable Rights of another person, nor does it impose any involuntary obligation upon another person.
It is pretty straightforward and relatively easy to apply in determining what is and what is not an Inalienable Right.
A person can act based upon their inalienable rights but cannot act unless it's based upon their inalienable rights. For example I can express my personal opinions (freedom of expression) but I cannot require anyone to listen to them. I can use force defend myself from acts of aggression against me but I cannot use force to commit an act of aggression against another person.
This exists outside of the existance of government and it gives us the understanding of our cummulative authority as individuals in creating government. We cannot authorize government to do anything that we don't as individual person's have an Inalienable Right to do. We cannot delegate a "power" that we don't possess based upon the exercising of our Inalienable Rights.
That is the very beginning of understanding the political philosophy established by the Declaration of Independence. We have to start at square one which is the Inalienable Rights of the Person because those Rights both empower us as well as limit us in our actions.
I can provide examples where we, as a society, have delegated powers to government that we don't possess as individual persons based upon our Inalienable Rights and that violates the political ideology of the United States as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. I believe that is where our opinions are different but I believe I can support my arguments based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person.
|
|
