Economic rights...is there such a right ?

Economic rights...is there such a right ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> Economic rights...is there such a right ? (4/23/2016 10:52:21 PM)
Hardly. What are the economic rights ? Here's one definition: "Economic, social and cultural rights are socio-economic human rights, such as the right to education, right to housing, right to adequate standard of living, (food & clothing ?) right to health and the right to science and culture." Anonymous No, there are no such socio-economic rights. There is in most countries...a right to a basic education, that's it. No, there is no right to housing. No, there is no right to an adequate standard of living. No, there is no right to health care. (US) No, there no right to science and culture. Are there any economic rights at all ? YES !! Is there an economic right to a profit ? NO. Is there an economic right to a stock dividend ? Stock holders say yes. Is there an economic right to higher stock dividends when there are stock dividends ? Stock holders say yes. Is there an economic right to form a bank ? Yes. is there an economic right to form an investment bank ? Yes, Is there an economic right to create such large, intertwined, retail and investment banking regime that produces such institutions that thereby become...to big to fail ? Yes. The above 'banking and stock holders rights' have been described as the 'financialization' of society because it puts all of society in the service of and at risk for, others economic rights that society at large...does not enjoy. It also puts a society of individual persons as great financial risk as collective taxpayers, in the interest of private profit that enjoys little or no such institutional or financial risk. This thereby rewards and enriches individual persons known as managers, investors and stock holders, producing a financialized society at large that govt. forces [it] to serve. The 1% Stockholders did enjoy from 1940 to 1960 about 1/4 of profits, now they enjoy 100% of profits requiring economic institutions to borrow to satisfy those rights with debt. So rather then invest in markets or research and development, companies borrow to pay stock holders. This finacialization of industry reduces the company's contribution to its future and to society at large with little or no hiring and reduced investment in education. So, do you have any economic rights ? For the 99%...NO !! For the 1%...YES !! We live now in a financialized society that is the essence and very definition of...moral hazard. HERE

Termyn8or -> RE: Economic rights...is there such a right ? (4/24/2016 4:13:36 AM)
Well, if the People had economic rights they would be assured by a currency staked to the bone in some stable reference, like gold or silver for example. Tying a currency to a specific value guarantees the value to some extent. You know, people used to save money in the old days, and if rent was still $25 a month and a loaf of bread was still less than a quarter, these old folks may have been able to live on their savings. The devaluation of the dollar is what made that impossible. In the 1950s they made $100 a week, now that won't pay for most people car insurance for a month. The money is no good. There is a song by Montrose about it "Paper money don't hold". Actually there are other songs protesting this shit they do, like Grand Funk - Creeping. All true, and has happened. And the shit the ZPG people said, all came true. All those portent with doom in decades past have been proven right, and we boil just like a frog. The place is hitting the ground soon. We got quantitative easing, which requires creating billions of dollars every month, and we got paper gold which deflates the price of gold making the dollar look better. We got false reports about inflation unless you can eat an ipad. We got false reports about unemployment, unless you discount the people who just can't get a job and gave up, or are working under the table. You got no rights. Nobody owes you or me a damn thing. And they prove it every day, because they ain't giving it up. they take but do not give, and really, that is the heart of becoming rich. And the government is rich and lording over the poor, every day trying to find ways to extract more. And it is not going to change. T^T

Awareness -> RE: Economic rights...is there such a right ? (4/24/2016 6:07:03 AM)
There are no such thing as "rights", period. Rights are simply those things which the strong allow the weak to possess.

bounty44 -> RE: Economic rights...is there such a right ? (4/24/2016 6:53:39 AM)
i suppose that could be true if there is no god, or rather, at least no god in your worldview. otherwise, being a part of god's creation, the phrase "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" works for the rest of us.

Real0ne -> RE: Economic rights...is there such a right ? (4/24/2016 7:55:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness There are no such thing as "rights", period. Rights are simply those things which the strong allow the weak to possess. Unfortunately the strong dictating to the weak is de facto the only rights to be had in any demobcracy. This is the case now that america has expanded from suits resulting from observable injury and damage to include any number of dysfunctional perceptual emotional disorders that may or may not be self induced or grossly exaggerated to extort money. The state has the obligation to provide and protect a usable system of intercourse, which means the ability to trade amonst each other, which is presumed to enable the pursuit to happiness. See the articles of confederation. Beyond that they have no positive consitutional obligation to 'provide' for a good economy. On the other side of the coin people join together to create groups corporations and nations to give themselves economic leverage. It was presumed that people would be involved in voting for everything the gubmint was allowed to do, of course we have fucktwit attorneys that do that for us destroying individual rights by 'summarily' forcing a one shoe to fit all through statutes despite the violation of rights which they conveniently redefine to push their agenda. There is however a right to be left alone to pursue your econimic happiness however those rights end where the gubmint is duly authorized to regulate commerce. The only area they are duly authorized to regulate.

MrRodgers -> RE: Economic rights...is there such a right ? (4/24/2016 7:57:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 i suppose that could be true if there is no god, or rather, at least no god in your worldview. otherwise, being a part of god's creation, the phrase "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" works for the rest of us. Well irrespective of our creator, those rights were to be the basis for limited govt. the evil necessity that was to 'limit' itself to protecting those rights. It has not. Plus, when it comes to govt., it hardly observes that worldview and has obviously shirked it responsibility except in only the narrow case of business economic rights. Those economic rights puts society at large not only at a distinct disadvantage but at risk financially. This produces the civil regime that holds when you steal something from your employer, it is a criminal offense. if your employer fails to pay you, it's a...civil offense. The good ole boys back in the day used to go on about if employees weren't fully accoutered, then you can't work him on a 1099 and to employ people likewise, you'd would get in serious trouble. But it was still only a civil offense and you make up the withholding and may pay a fine. Civil lack of economic rights creates a regime holds that stocks, hard infrastructure, money, programming, (copywrite etc) even your ideas, are a property right of your employer. Your compensation for your labor however is not such a property (economic) right.

tj444 -> RE: Economic rights...is there such a right ? (4/24/2016 7:58:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers So, do you have any economic rights ? For the 99%...NO !! For the 1%...YES !! We live now in a financialized society that is the essence and very definition of...moral hazard. HERE Your point being? I think people need to demand the rights they want.. some countries (like Norway?) do have considerably more rights that the schmucks in the US do.. they decided as a society the life they wanted and what was important to them.. here in the US you dont believe in that stuff, dont have the same values, you get the govt y'all deserve... dont complain about it now.. its too late, imo.. but in other news... "New Data Further Proves That Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely" http://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/new-data-further-proves-that-absolute-power-corrupts-absolutely.html/?a=viewall Gee, who knew? [8\|]

MrRodgers -> RE: Economic rights...is there such a right ? (4/24/2016 8:06:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers So, do you have any economic rights ? For the 99%...NO !! For the 1%...YES !! We live now in a financialized society that is the essence and very definition of...moral hazard. HERE Your point being? I think people need to demand the rights they want.. some countries (like Norway?) do have considerably more rights that the schmucks in the US do.. they decided as a society the life they wanted and what was important to them.. here in the US you dont believe in that stuff, dont have the same values, you get the govt y'all deserve... dont complain about it now.. its too late, imo.. but in other news... "New Data Further Proves That Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely" http://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/new-data-further-proves-that-absolute-power-corrupts-absolutely.html/?a=viewall Gee, who knew? [8\|] Yes, the American electorate has shirked it political power to make a difference because of our 'individuality' and as long as 'I got mine' shit, then to hell with my neighbor. Plus govt. is on-the-take so it does the bidding of their business sponsors.

Real0ne -> RE: Economic rights...is there such a right ? (4/24/2016 8:24:30 AM)
Technically your labor is your property right and when trading property for property in a quid pro quo manner it is therefore: not taxable. [legitimately] However as I said above they simply redefine the law to suit their agenda by selling you on some product they provide then dictating the rules for how you will use "THEIR" product, in this case money. They use 'presumption' that your 'USE' of their money is 'CONSENT' to pay all fees and penalties while insuring no one is not able to create a competative system and have imprisoned anyone who has tried. They got you by the balls! Leaving you to choose between extreme inconvenience or their system that in the end is over the top extortion by the despicable banking/gubmint marriage. When you contract to use THEIR money or any other system they provide you CONTRACT AWAY YOUR RIGHTS to accept the terms and conditions they place before you. Yes people through ignorance contract away their rights and wonder how the gubmint can trample their rights. They did it to themselves. and the people who know and are getting rich are laughing their asses off. quid pro quo operates on something for something the exchange of the labor given as the product of said labor is therefore equal in value, hence no tax to be collected. The gubmint gets around it by using the words empolyee, employer, wages, salaries, earnings etc., then locking you in their 'USUFRUCTORY' monetary scheme. Same as pre-revolution. Nothing changed man! [:-] Note how they compartmentalize it: https://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-076-051.html You are paid with money that they create, it is not yours, it is theirs, they can recall it and change its value any time they want or abolish it completely. All these state programs are created to get you to contract your way out of your rights. Hence you are taxed based on 'wages' (money rental) rather than QPQ labor to pay for renting the product of their monetary system. Money does not belong to you, it is not a government OF the people but provided for the people by the crookocracy who exorts money from them at every turn. Same goes with ohaha care, its about CREATING A STATE INTEREST in something you do, in this case health care, so they can GAIN state control and they have gotten to the point they are in the case of ohaha care writing law to force you to join to force you to give up your rights. Its the only avenue they can use to APPEAR legal. People today are not real brite generally when it comes to understanding how it works in the big leagues and dealing with the crookocracy is playing in the big leagues.

Real0ne -> RE: Economic rights...is there such a right ? (4/24/2016 8:32:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers So, do you have any economic rights ? For the 99%...NO !! For the 1%...YES !! We live now in a financialized society that is the essence and very definition of...moral hazard. HERE Your point being? I think people need to demand the rights they want.. some countries (like Norway?) do have considerably more rights that the schmucks in the US do.. they decided as a society the life they wanted and what was important to them.. here in the US you dont believe in that stuff, dont have the same values, you get the govt y'all deserve... dont complain about it now.. its too late, imo.. but in other news... "New Data Further Proves That Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely" http://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/new-data-further-proves-that-absolute-power-corrupts-absolutely.html/?a=viewall Gee, who knew? [8\|] America will never see a plan drawn out in detail with all costs and boundaries because all programs are expanded to the point of bankruptcy then new ones likewuse designed to fail put in its place while you are still paying on the old ones. They do what THEY want to do so THEIR CORPORATIONS can make huge sums of money and they try and often do FORCE you to pay them as in the case of ohaha care. What a racket and in so far as the crookocracy is concerned all nice neat and lego despite you VOTED ON NOTHING! TAXATION AND LAW MAKING WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. I once called up the state legislative records department to ask them who I would write an open records request to get all the data our SO CALLED representatives used to determine what the people wanted regarding the particular law in question and they said they HAD NOTHING to give me. (well except for the bill) Sorry folks if you want to call a body sitting in a chair doing what the state crooks want instead of what you and your constituents want 'representation' then be my guest, but the bottom line we have no and at best little representation, just like before the revolution. All gubmint solutions serve to expand and line the pockets of gubmint [in the process] and if that cannot be done then they dont give a shit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umrp1tIBY8Q

Zonie63 -> RE: Economic rights...is there such a right ? (4/24/2016 12:16:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 i suppose that could be true if there is no god, or rather, at least no god in your worldview. otherwise, being a part of god's creation, the phrase "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" works for the rest of us. I suppose so, although since there's no indication or evidence of any "god" coming to enumerate, define, and enforce these rights, then this sort of leaves us hanging in the clouds somewhere. But I don't really subscribe to the idea that rights are only what the strong allow the weak to possess, since in the long run, everyone is weak and frail. That's just the way our species turned out - we grow old, our bodies deteriorate and die - even for the strongest among us. So...that idea also has some flaws in it. On the other hand, our species can also reproduce, and strength can be passed down from generation to generation - through the family unit, which then becomes a more collectivist ideal. Individual strength is tied to the relative strength of whatever collective he/she is part of. If there is a "Creator," then what seems self-evident is that we are separated from the animal kingdom by our ability to speak and use language - to communicate, to negotiate, to compromise and make contracts and coalitions with each other. This is how collectives are formed, and the concept of "rights" is merely a matter of giving consideration to those who are part of the collective. In more primitive societies - at the clan or tribal level - people speak the same language, embrace the same cultural traditions and values, worship the same deities, and generally feel a sense of kinship and bonding with the other members of their collective. As long as there is familial love, loyalty, and a sense of unity within the tribe, then the individual's rights are guaranteed within that structure - even if they are relatively "weaker" than other members of the tribe. It's not a question of the strong "allowing" the weak to have rights, but more related to family/tribal loyalty. Instinctively, no living thing wants to die. We all have a survival instinct, we all want to live forever, but since we know we can't do that, we'll take whatever we can get. We can vicariously live forever if we are remembered through our descendants, and it is because of this concept that "strong" parents bestow rights upon their "weak" (initially) offspring (as long as they're not "too weak" or deemed unfit to survive). It likely took several millennia of "tribal and error" before human societies could ever reach anything coming close to the modern concept of "rights" as we understand it today. But I think much of it is still rooted in the idea of building a stronger collective, or as it's written in the Preamble of the Constitution - "in order to form a more perfect Union." We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Note that forming a perfect union comes before everything else: justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, the general welfare, and the blessings of liberty. The Union ("collective") must come first above all other considerations. This is why individual rights can never be viewed as an absolute. But unlike more primitive societies where the consciousness and will of the collective would have been determined by tribal elders, we have far more complicated methods of doing so. However, logically, I believe it can be said that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few - or the 1%. That is, the needs of the collective whole outweigh the needs of smaller sub-collectives or individuals. This is why, in my opinion, those who have a certain grudge against "collectivism" or seem to be of an "anti-collectivist" bent are ultimately illogical and could undermine and weaken the Union for the sake of their own insatiable greed and selfishness. For this reason, economic rights and/or property rights can never be considered absolute or sacrosanct. Everything must be rooted in what is best for the collective whole - or else there will be no collective anymore - and a stronger collective will overwhelm and defeat us.

Real0ne -> RE: Economic rights...is there such a right ? (4/24/2016 1:07:15 PM)
wow you really blew it on this one zonie! quote: "in order to form a more perfect Union." means they had to create another arm of gubmint to force the states to pay their taxes and create and honor a fundamental agreement across the several states so you are not put in jail for something that is allowed in one state and not in the next, and that obligations formed in one state are recognised in the next, finally a means that the INDIVIDUAL CAN FORCE though the federal courts their state to conform to the items (bill of rights) that the states gave us lip service that they would honor. Rights do not derive from the collective and filter down they derive from the individual and are applied to the collective. You have it precisely reversed. justice - an overlord court system domestic tranquility - they translated to mean implementing a police state common defense - military the general welfare - survival/protection of commercial intercourse the blessings of liberty - support the ability to freely speak and exercize your religion in public NOT quote: unlike more primitive societies where the consciousness and will of the collective would have been determined by tribal elders, yeh we have the tribal elite and their corporations that bought the legislature and courts. quote: I believe it can be said that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few yeh I watched star trek too. quote: This is why, in my opinion, those who have a certain grudge against "collectivism" or seem to be of an "anti-collectivist" bent are ultimately illogical and could undermine and weaken the Union for the sake of their own insatiable greed and selfishness. And across the board is purely borg mentality. “We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.” Insatiable greed? Are you serious? What does the right to free speech and to exercise ones religion have to do with greed? Paying taxes on your freaking shelter which is a necessity in life? If its rental property or property intended for 'profit' which is 'commercial' legimately within the power of your collective to regulate, then its understandble. It seems the borg are hell bent on creating mindless collective automatons (thank you Mr Spock) since the only way anyone would have a right in your version of gubmint is by the sole authority of the 'crookocratic' state that you dont even have the right to vote on which rights you want to live under! What a deal! quote: For this reason, economic rights and/or property rights can never be considered absolute or sacrosanct. Everything must be rooted in what is best for the collective whole - or else there will be no collective anymore - and a stronger collective will overwhelm and defeat us. That is possibly the smallest minded hogwash I have seen in a while. With respect to law and equity (statutes not with standing) feel free to make a bonafide case for what you just said on any level, even the absurd like sacrificing someones mother to make the popcorn monster happy and I will happily show you how it works perfectly with your commie collective under the rule of law. We the people have no say so in the tax assessment btw, you will never vote on it, they are forced upon you.

Zonie63 -> RE: Economic rights...is there such a right ? (4/24/2016 1:16:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne That is possibly the smallest minded hogwash I have seen in a while. If you feel the need to resort to insults, then I take that as a concession that you can't come up with any kind of argument against it. By this tactic, you are attempting to undermine the social contract by deception. My views are based within the spirit of cooperation and compromise among humans, which is the basis of human civilization. Would you prefer a dog-eat-dog animalistic society as propagated by those very same corporations and other deceivers?

Real0ne -> RE: Economic rights...is there such a right ? (4/24/2016 1:31:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne That is possibly the smallest minded hogwash I have seen in a while. If you feel the need to resort to insults, then I take that as a concession that you can't come up with any kind of argument against it. By this tactic, you are attempting to undermine the social contract by deception. My views are based within the spirit of cooperation and compromise among humans, which is the basis of human civilization. Would you prefer a dog-eat-dog animalistic society as propagated by those very same corporations and other deceivers? really? fine lets go, git it done. My views are based in the law and its intended purpose. First the so called social contract is not a social contract at all, it is organic law that lays out the terms and conditions the people of this nation agreed and or accepted to be governed by/under the corporation. Just because it can be depicted in a lessor and secondary 'generalized' philisophical sense outside its primary purpose is irellevant to its meaning in law. You dont see the hypocrisy in your defense of the collective which under the common law is the basis in this country which requires some variant of incorporation to form a quorum to so much as even speak to the borg? How do you put forth a common goal regarding your humans without incorporating them into one entity? Cant be done. The collective was put together to protect the rights of individuals! [albeit focused on 'elite' individuals] You think my rights are subject to some collective corporate crookocratic vote? Your tactic is to undermine the reserved rights of individuals which the gubmint stipulated to keep their lying treacherous paws out of when they agreed to incorporate the requirements set forth in the bill of rights. I am all for gubmint just short of anarchy. I am waiting for a single example of how individual rights personal or property can undermine "the union"

Termyn8or -> RE: Economic rights...is there such a right ? (4/24/2016 2:28:34 PM)
The law is : "Give me what I want because I am stronger". Guess where that came from. T^T

Zonie63 -> RE: Economic rights...is there such a right ? (4/24/2016 2:48:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne That is possibly the smallest minded hogwash I have seen in a while. If you feel the need to resort to insults, then I take that as a concession that you can't come up with any kind of argument against it. By this tactic, you are attempting to undermine the social contract by deception. My views are based within the spirit of cooperation and compromise among humans, which is the basis of human civilization. Would you prefer a dog-eat-dog animalistic society as propagated by those very same corporations and other deceivers? really? fine lets go, git it done. My views are based in the law and its intended purpose. Whose law and whose intended purpose? This thing you call "law" - where does it come from, and why should anyone have to follow it? Is it some kind of "magical incantation" or is it just some piece of paper? quote: First the so called social contract is not a social contract at all, it is organic law that lays out the terms and conditions the people of this nation agreed and or accepted to be governed by/under the corporation. Just because it can be depicted in a lessor and secondary 'generalized' philisophical sense outside its primary purpose is irellevant to its meaning in law. It likely originated more naturally, among family members who already shared a bond of kinship and familial love. It didn't even have to be enumerated or even "agreed" to since it's just a natural thing - much like a parent loves his/her child. It doesn't derive from the "individual," since the "individual" starts off as just a helpless baby, totally reliant on the "group" for sustenance and support. quote: You dont see the hypocrisy in your defense of the collective which under the common law is the basis in this country which requires some variant of incorporation to form a quorum to so much as even speak to the borg? I'm just talking about general principles and how they relate to human rights and our responsibilities to each other. I don't see any hypocrisy in that at all. To me, if someone goes against those principles and uses a bunch of legalese and other nonsensical jargon as a way of deceiving people, then that would be hypocritical. The collective will write its own laws, and if a law does not serve the needs of the collective, it must rejected and discarded. The real question is on what basis the collective forms itself. Is it based only on white males, only on property owners, only on the wealthy? Or should it be based on all humans within a society? The basis of law in this country was originally founded on the notion that only white male property owners should be a part of the collective, whereas anyone outside that group was considered "the other," which is a fundamentally wrong, immoral, and most definitely hypocritical way of running things. Strictly speaking, the only thing that unifies the people in this country is our geographical location. When our Founders revolted and form a new nation, they ceased being "Englishmen" and chose to call themselves "Americans," based on the given name of the geographical location and its boundaries. We could have called ourselves "Spaghetti Sauce" if we wanted to, but "American" seemed as good as anything else. quote: The collective was put together to protect the rights of individuals! At first, it was only to protect a minority of individuals, not the collective whole, and that's where it was flawed from the very beginning. It eventually led to a serious rift between the States which eventually culminated in the Civil War, which led to the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. If it was just about protecting rights of individuals, then that could have been accomplished by making each State its own independent, sovereign entity. Instead one nation, we could have had 13 individual nations. But then we'd be like Central America. It doesn't matter what's written on a piece of paper if you have no real power to defend it. quote: You think my rights are subject to some collective corporate crookocratic vote? Only if everyone is equal and has the same vote and the same level of power as anyone else. Otherwise, it's not a legitimate government and must be overthrown by the collective will of the people. A rather messy business, I'll admit, but if there is no other choice, then that's how it shall be. If those corporate crookocrats in the 1% want to stack the deck or use legalese to deceive the people into believe that they have the "right," then the people must see through that and say "no." But if the people are either too soft or too weak or too easily deceived that they are easily fooled, then that will reap its own consequences. That leads to an overall weaker society which can then be dominated, conquered, and/or consumed by more powerful states which have their shit together. The stronger collective wins out over weaker collectives. That's a fact of history which has been repeated over and over and over. quote: Your tactic is to undermine the reserved rights of individuals which the gubmint stipulated to keep their lying treacherous paws out of in the bill of rights. I'm not undermining anyone's rights. I'm just saying that in order to have a strong, unified society, the needs of ALL the people must be given consideration over the needs of the very few at the top. You know, the same kind of people with those "lying treacherous paws." As long as people conduct themselves honorably, give consideration and respect to the rights of other members of the collective (aka "live and let live"), then there wouldn't be any problems at all. Those who have "lying treacherous paws" are flawed individuals, and it's because of people like that, that we end up with problems. Any and every flaw within a collective is due to flawed individuals, the kind of people who believe they are superior and deserve more power or wealth than other members within the same collective. This creates unnecessary tension and leads to anger, hatred, and undermines the unity and strength of the collective. That's what leads to your next point... quote: I am all for gubmint just short of anarchy. And how are you going to prevent that? Do you believe that your "law" is some kind of magical incantation which will protect you when the shit hits the fan? Will your individually-owned handguns and rifles be enough to withstand an entire army? Unless you're Chuck Norris, how will you protect yourself and your "individual rights" without the power of the collective to back you up and support you in times of trouble? You say that I'm undermining individual rights, but in my view, I'm advocating the protection of individual rights through the only practical methods allowable through the laws of physics and nature. Anything else is just "magical thinking." It works for a while, as long as people believe in it and their bellies are full and they're reasonably pacified. But it hangs on a very precarious perch - something that might be a bit too risky in the long run. quote: I am waiting for a single example of how individual rights personal or property can undermine "the union" Well, I mentioned the Civil War. There's a single example. But since then, we've been able to enjoy a good life of reasonable stability and freedom thanks mainly to liberals, progressives, and other "collectivists" who favor giving consideration to ALL members of society. Unfortunately, over the past 30+ years, more and more people are forgetting that, getting spoiled by technology and other aspects of "modern" society that make them genuinely believe that the puny "individual" can go it alone. The "self-made," "self-actualized" types who read an Ayn Rand novel and think they are giants among pygmies - just because they're good at negotiating deals and conning people into thinking they're "worth it." They're the ones who go on and on about "economic rights" and how they have the right to shit on the "little people" and working stiffs who are also members of the collective but finding that obedience and submission is no longer working for them. Even us lowly submissives need some consideration, otherwise puppies and "pay piggies" turn into angry wolves and wild boars who won't be pacified all that easily. That's what brings about the "anarchy" that you fear so much. If you truly fear anarchy, then it would be wise for you to not consider collectivist thinking as "small-minded hogwash." In the end, you need the collective more than it needs you. Food for thought.

Phydeaux -> RE: Economic rights...is there such a right ? (4/24/2016 3:54:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne That is possibly the smallest minded hogwash I have seen in a while. If you feel the need to resort to insults, then I take that as a concession that you can't come up with any kind of argument against it. By this tactic, you are attempting to undermine the social contract by deception. My views are based within the spirit of cooperation and compromise among humans, which is the basis of human civilization. Would you prefer a dog-eat-dog animalistic society as propagated by those very same corporations and other deceivers? Than the crap you outline? Yes. Yes everyday and twice on Sunday. Human civilization is based on many things. Competition. Cooperation. A legal framework (we call it the constitution). No - a collectivist 'union' is not the most important thing. We passed a thing called 'the bill of rights' - which is a guarantee individual rights. The whole structure of the constitution is to protect the rights of individuals and minorities from 'unions' whose paeans you sing. Because groups of people may behave well - but they also behave badly. You think a corporation - probably the greatest invention in the history of the world for creating wealth - is evil. Thats a world view that is dangerously leftist and myopic.

Zonie63 -> RE: Economic rights...is there such a right ? (4/24/2016 4:33:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne That is possibly the smallest minded hogwash I have seen in a while. If you feel the need to resort to insults, then I take that as a concession that you can't come up with any kind of argument against it. By this tactic, you are attempting to undermine the social contract by deception. My views are based within the spirit of cooperation and compromise among humans, which is the basis of human civilization. Would you prefer a dog-eat-dog animalistic society as propagated by those very same corporations and other deceivers? Than the crap you outline? Yes. Yes everyday and twice on Sunday. Human civilization is based on many things. Competition. Cooperation. A legal framework (we call it the constitution). No - a collectivist 'union' is not the most important thing. We passed a thing called 'the bill of rights' - which is a guarantee individual rights. The whole structure of the constitution is to protect the rights of individuals and minorities from 'unions' whose paeans you sing. Because groups of people may behave well - but they also behave badly. You think a corporation - probably the greatest invention in the history of the world for creating wealth - is evil. Thats a world view that is dangerously leftist and myopic. I thought you said you were done with me, Phydeaux. Why do you even bother? In case you didn't notice, the person I was responding to also thinks that corporations are evil, so maybe you should be addressing him as well.

Phydeaux -> RE: Economic rights...is there such a right ? (4/24/2016 6:47:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne That is possibly the smallest minded hogwash I have seen in a while. If you feel the need to resort to insults, then I take that as a concession that you can't come up with any kind of argument against it. By this tactic, you are attempting to undermine the social contract by deception. My views are based within the spirit of cooperation and compromise among humans, which is the basis of human civilization. Would you prefer a dog-eat-dog animalistic society as propagated by those very same corporations and other deceivers? Than the crap you outline? Yes. Yes everyday and twice on Sunday. Human civilization is based on many things. Competition. Cooperation. A legal framework (we call it the constitution). No - a collectivist 'union' is not the most important thing. We passed a thing called 'the bill of rights' - which is a guarantee individual rights. The whole structure of the constitution is to protect the rights of individuals and minorities from 'unions' whose paeans you sing. Because groups of people may behave well - but they also behave badly. You think a corporation - probably the greatest invention in the history of the world for creating wealth - is evil. Thats a world view that is dangerously leftist and myopic. I thought you said you were done with me, Phydeaux. Why do you even bother? In case you didn't notice, the person I was responding to also thinks that corporations are evil, so maybe you should be addressing him as well. I am done with you. That doesn't mean I won't post to a thread. It just means you get lumped with mnotter and thompson. Well lower than mnotter, and higher than thompson. Mnotter sometimes makes a post with a cite worth debating. You're all for peace and harmony until someone disagrees with you - then you kill them and take their stuff. Nuff said.

MrRodgers -> RE: Economic rights...is there such a right ? (4/24/2016 7:04:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne That is possibly the smallest minded hogwash I have seen in a while. If you feel the need to resort to insults, then I take that as a concession that you can't come up with any kind of argument against it. By this tactic, you are attempting to undermine the social contract by deception. My views are based within the spirit of cooperation and compromise among humans, which is the basis of human civilization. Would you prefer a dog-eat-dog animalistic society as propagated by those very same corporations and other deceivers? Than the crap you outline? Yes. Yes everyday and twice on Sunday. Human civilization is based on many things. Competition. Cooperation. A legal framework (we call it the constitution). No - a collectivist 'union' is not the most important thing. We passed a thing called 'the bill of rights' - which is a guarantee individual rights. The whole structure of the constitution is to protect the rights of individuals and minorities from 'unions' whose paeans you sing. Because groups of people may behave well - but they also behave badly. You think a corporation - probably the greatest invention in the history of the world for creating wealth - is evil. Thats a world view that is dangerously leftist and myopic. The only reason for the creation of the corporation was to limit financial and too often...criminal liability. Whatever business that can be conducted via a corporation can also be, by a private partnership or sole proprietorship which maintains and retains an individual and collective (within the business) financial liability. Hence the creation a few years ago of the LLC, the 'Limited liability' company. A partnership or proprietorship that can limit financial and criminal liability as identified by its very name. It is an expressly legal given that corporations get away with real criminal acts and financial crimes and survive because as the perpetrator. a corp. and has no individual liability and are only subject to fine and civil sanction. Corporations never go to jail. Corporations regularly file for bankruptcy and are reorganized to have debt eliminated, something a private partnership or individual cannot do. The corporation is prolific at creating private wealth for its investors only and most often at the expense of society at large, have no commercial or social so-called compact with society the costly and immoral exception being, the legal framework and protections that society is forced to provide it by law and in being just that, represents the last authoritarian institution of, are legally and morally, the antithesis of, a free country. Oh and BTW, the founding fathers did not and for the ensuing 60 -70 years, nobody wanted the corporation knowing full well its corruption on society and its mere existence was also the antithesis of conservatism. The most prolific example of that corruption coming into being in the web of abysmally corrupt corporations formed to complete the intercontinental railroad around the 1860's where everybody was on the take top to bottom and because everybody saw the outright corruption in principals and the govt. that never regulated them. Even Hamilton the so-called father of capitalism did not believe in the absolution of liability in the corp. and foresaw it ensuing corruption.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.152344E-02