I want an utopia!

[PaintMyHouse]

enforcement does not equate to the creation of right

Enforcement means the right actually exist, but you got this part right, rights are a creation, from the minds of men.

If we say you have a right to a gun, but we've confiscated all of them and we ban their manufacture and importation, then you don't actually have that right unless you can go to court and and they allow you to own a gun.

 

[Neotrotsky]

again
whatever comfort it provides for you
is fine with me

though you are still wrong
and in direct conflict with common
teachings at all major universities.

Now granted, Democrats and Progressives would
love to eliminate the concept of natural law
for political reasons

but I don't get that from you

 

[PaintMyHouse]

again
whatever comfort it provides for you
is fine with me

though you are still wrong
and in direct conflict with common
teachings at all major universities.

Now granted, Democrats and Progressives would
love to eliminate the concept of natural law
for political reasons

but I don't get that from you

I'm still wrong? Sweetcheeks, you haven't been able to post anything but dogma for five pages now. Go read a book, and think for a change.

 

[percysunshine]

Evolution is not dogma. Well, not yet any way. The man had to get onto the island in the first place. How?

It doesn't matter how he got there. Maybe he was cast adrift like Moses? What matters is, once there, if his rights do not come from men then what rights does he have?

I would propose that it does matter how he got there. Otherwise, we are arguing about artificially contrived circumstances. Not that that should matter in a thread about utopia. Making stuff up for the comfort and convenience of a warm and fuzzy world view is understandable.

So, on with it..

In this island world we have a man alone, maybe a few coconuts, a fish or two he can eat, maybe .. what else? He is alone on an island. Where is this story going? Does FEMA rescue him or something?

Okay, he got there the way Tom Hanks did in the movie. He's alive, but all alone. So, what are his rights?

Yeah, 'Joe versus the Volcano'. As I recall, he outfitted himself with about a half million dollars worth of stuff bought at a Neiman Marcus before his odyssey...but I digress.

So he is alone. Then what happens? He has no rights unless FEMA shows up? He has the right to jump off his luggage crates and get eaten by sharks, if that is his choice.

.

The sharks won't be acknowledging his Right to Life eh? To them, he's food. Which means, he doesn't have a right to life, no such thing exist, except on paper, created and written down by men.

Au contraire. He has a half a million dollars worth of stuff with him. There is probably an ipad with satellite hookups, and possibly a few porno DVDs, He will have a great time.

You constructed this utopia, you have to live with it.

.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It doesn't matter how he got there. Maybe he was cast adrift like Moses? What matters is, once there, if his rights do not come from men then what rights does he have?

I would propose that it does matter how he got there. Otherwise, we are arguing about artificially contrived circumstances. Not that that should matter in a thread about utopia. Making stuff up for the comfort and convenience of a warm and fuzzy world view is understandable.

So, on with it..

In this island world we have a man alone, maybe a few coconuts, a fish or two he can eat, maybe .. what else? He is alone on an island. Where is this story going? Does FEMA rescue him or something?

Okay, he got there the way Tom Hanks did in the movie. He's alive, but all alone. So, what are his rights?

Yeah, 'Joe versus the Volcano'. As I recall, he outfitted himself with about a half million dollars worth of stuff bought at a Neiman Marcus before his odyssey...but I digress.

So he is alone. Then what happens? He has no rights unless FEMA shows up? He has the right to jump off his luggage crates and get eaten by sharks, if that is his choice.

.

The sharks won't be acknowledging his Right to Life eh? To them, he's food. Which means, he doesn't have a right to life, no such thing exist, except on paper, created and written down by men.

Au contraire. He has a half a million dollars worth of stuff with him. There is probably an ipad with satellite hookups, and possibly a few porno DVDs, He will have a great time.

You constructed this utopia, you have to live with it.

.

I have no idea who you are posting to but it has nothing to with what I am talking about, that rights come from men. If you want to live on a rock with many toys but no food, all alone, and you call that a Utopia, I'm not going to stand in your way.

 

[Neotrotsky]

again
whatever comfort it provides for you
is fine with me

though you are still wrong
and in direct conflict with common
teachings at all major universities.

Now granted, Democrats and Progressives would
love to eliminate the concept of natural law
for political reasons

but I don't get that from you

I'm still wrong? Sweetcheeks, you haven't been able to post anything but dogma for five pages now. Go read a book, and think for a change.

sweetcheeks? thanks honeybuns



i have only posted concepts that are taught at schools
no dogma

because you don't understand something or do not like it
\
does not make it dogma

 

[PaintMyHouse]

again
whatever comfort it provides for you
is fine with me

though you are still wrong
and in direct conflict with common
teachings at all major universities.

Now granted, Democrats and Progressives would
love to eliminate the concept of natural law
for political reasons

but I don't get that from you

I'm still wrong? Sweetcheeks, you haven't been able to post anything but dogma for five pages now. Go read a book, and think for a change.

sweetcheeks? thanks honeybuns



i have only posted concepts that are taught at schools
no dogma

because you don't understand something or do not like it
\
does not make it dogma

What you were taught was a lie, that you can't think past even with clear examples.

 

[Neotrotsky]

I would propose that it does matter how he got there. Otherwise, we are arguing about artificially contrived circumstances. Not that that should matter in a thread about utopia. Making stuff up for the comfort and convenience of a warm and fuzzy world view is understandable.

So, on with it..

In this island world we have a man alone, maybe a few coconuts, a fish or two he can eat, maybe .. what else? He is alone on an island. Where is this story going? Does FEMA rescue him or something?

Okay, he got there the way Tom Hanks did in the movie. He's alive, but all alone. So, what are his rights?

Yeah, 'Joe versus the Volcano'. As I recall, he outfitted himself with about a half million dollars worth of stuff bought at a Neiman Marcus before his odyssey...but I digress.

So he is alone. Then what happens? He has no rights unless FEMA shows up? He has the right to jump off his luggage crates and get eaten by sharks, if that is his choice.

.

The sharks won't be acknowledging his Right to Life eh? To them, he's food. Which means, he doesn't have a right to life, no such thing exist, except on paper, created and written down by men.

Au contraire. He has a half a million dollars worth of stuff with him. There is probably an ipad with satellite hookups, and possibly a few porno DVDs, He will have a great time.

You constructed this utopia, you have to live with it.

.

I have no idea ....

indeed

 

[percysunshine]

I would propose that it does matter how he got there. Otherwise, we are arguing about artificially contrived circumstances. Not that that should matter in a thread about utopia. Making stuff up for the comfort and convenience of a warm and fuzzy world view is understandable.

So, on with it..

In this island world we have a man alone, maybe a few coconuts, a fish or two he can eat, maybe .. what else? He is alone on an island. Where is this story going? Does FEMA rescue him or something?

Okay, he got there the way Tom Hanks did in the movie. He's alive, but all alone. So, what are his rights?

Yeah, 'Joe versus the Volcano'. As I recall, he outfitted himself with about a half million dollars worth of stuff bought at a Neiman Marcus before his odyssey...but I digress.

So he is alone. Then what happens? He has no rights unless FEMA shows up? He has the right to jump off his luggage crates and get eaten by sharks, if that is his choice.

.

The sharks won't be acknowledging his Right to Life eh? To them, he's food. Which means, he doesn't have a right to life, no such thing exist, except on paper, created and written down by men.

Au contraire. He has a half a million dollars worth of stuff with him. There is probably an ipad with satellite hookups, and possibly a few porno DVDs, He will have a great time.

You constructed this utopia, you have to live with it.

.

I have no idea who you are posting to but it has nothing to with what I am talking about, that rights come from men. If you want to live on a rock with many toys but no food, all alone, and you call that a Utopia, I'm not going to stand in your way.

I guess that means we are back to evolution and the role of governance in the hunter/gatherer society. Joe was fun while he lasted.

 

[Avatar4321]

I disagree.

A bad start. Tell us, if I drop a family of four on an island in the middle of the ocean all alone, what "rights" do they have? Oh right, none.

Helicopters and reality TV did not exist before the twentieth century. You are going to have to go back further in time if we are going to debate which came first.... the individual and family, or the government.

It doesn't matter what came first because we know where rights came from, the minds of men.

And answer the question: If I drop a family of four on an island in the middle of the ocean all alone, what "rights" do they have?

Name his "rights"?

This must be your way of acknowledging a losing position in a debate.

The image is perfect....chuckle

The losing is not mine. If rights don't come from men, then he should still have rights all alone on his island. So, name them?

You have to get past the dogma, and actually think.

alone on an island a man can speak freely, worship as he chooses, defend himself. He can live, be free, and be happy with absolutely no government other than self government. The idea that we need a state to give us life or liberty is absurd.

we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. That is what true liberalism teaches. But its lost on progressives who coopted the term

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A bad start. Tell us, if I drop a family of four on an island in the middle of the ocean all alone, what "rights" do they have? Oh right, none.

Helicopters and reality TV did not exist before the twentieth century. You are going to have to go back further in time if we are going to debate which came first.... the individual and family, or the government.

It doesn't matter what came first because we know where rights came from, the minds of men.

And answer the question: If I drop a family of four on an island in the middle of the ocean all alone, what "rights" do they have?

Name his "rights"?

This must be your way of acknowledging a losing position in a debate.

The image is perfect....chuckle

The losing is not mine. If rights don't come from men, then he should still have rights all alone on his island. So, name them?

You have to get past the dogma, and actually think.

alone on an island a man can speak freely, worship as he chooses, defend himself. He can live, be free, and be happy with absolutely no government other than self government. The idea that we need a state to give us life or liberty is absurd.

we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. That is what true liberalism teaches. But its lost on progressives who coopted the term

Dogma. And he's free alright, since he no rights at all, which is Anarchy.

 

[Avatar4321]

Helicopters and reality TV did not exist before the twentieth century. You are going to have to go back further in time if we are going to debate which came first.... the individual and family, or the government.

It doesn't matter what came first because we know where rights came from, the minds of men.

And answer the question: If I drop a family of four on an island in the middle of the ocean all alone, what "rights" do they have?

Name his "rights"?

This must be your way of acknowledging a losing position in a debate.

The image is perfect....chuckle

The losing is not mine. If rights don't come from men, then he should still have rights all alone on his island. So, name them?

You have to get past the dogma, and actually think.

Evolution is not dogma. Well, not yet any way. The man had to get onto the island in the first place. How?

It doesn't matter how he got there. Maybe he was cast adrift like Moses? What matters is, once there, if his rights do not come from men then what rights does he have?

when was Moses cast adrift?

 

[danielpalos]

Rights are recognized via the socialism of the coercive use of force of the State stemming from a Social Contract that establishes Government.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It doesn't matter what came first because we know where rights came from, the minds of men.

And answer the question: If I drop a family of four on an island in the middle of the ocean all alone, what "rights" do they have?

Name his "rights"?

This must be your way of acknowledging a losing position in a debate.

The image is perfect....chuckle

The losing is not mine. If rights don't come from men, then he should still have rights all alone on his island. So, name them?

You have to get past the dogma, and actually think.

Evolution is not dogma. Well, not yet any way. The man had to get onto the island in the first place. How?

It doesn't matter how he got there. Maybe he was cast adrift like Moses? What matters is, once there, if his rights do not come from men then what rights does he have?

when was Moses cast adrift?

Try not to be so literal. Does left alone as a baby in a basket among the reeds make you feel better?

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm guessing someone hasn't read John Locke. He was one of the father's of classical liberal thought. And your completely denying everything he taught on the rights of man.

I am just puzzled how you can contradict Locke and the Founders and then claim you are liberal like them.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm guessing someone hasn't read John Locke. He was one of the father's of classical liberal thought. And your completely denying everything he taught on the rights of man.

I am just puzzled how you can contradict Locke and the Founders and then claim you are liberal like them.

I'm a good deal smarter than they were, and much more honest.

 

[Neotrotsky]

I'm guessing someone hasn't read John Locke. He was one of the father's of classical liberal thought. And your completely denying everything he taught on the rights of man.

I am just puzzled how you can contradict Locke and the Founders and then claim you are liberal like them.

because he is not
progressive to liberal
liberal to progressive
they constantly have to change their name
as people see the failures of their policies and the
damage they do

Just as they have to hide their really intent
for they know people would reject it.
As such, they prefer the slow "boiling of the frog"

At the core they are run of the mill, statists
creatures of the left

who put the gov't above the individual
which is why they feed on group or identity politics
black, white, rich, poor, gay etc