Dissasterix @ Dissasterix @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

30

Joined

2 yr. ago

Okay, this is getting good now :] I actually agree with their premise, that the dead are free. I mean, unless theres a whole bureaucracy to the underworld, lol. I think we will both agree that the dead are not pestered by corporeal issues like war and taxes, and so on. That there is no boot that can be applied to them. Souns nice :p

I think our rub is predominantly 'Positive vs. Negative rights.' Positive rights require Uncle Sam to hold them together, whereas negative liberty is innate, and our Constitution forbids government from trying to stop it. I think Negative rights are more real than Positive rights (like voting).

First, let me steelman your argument :] 'Having children doesnt automatically mean that you're a good, responsible, person.' Let me know how I did. Given the above--

Of course having children doesn't imbue a person with extra knowldge or virtue. However removing such barriers to vite (like lower voting age, allowing non-homeowners, allowing some fellons, et al) also does not grant extra knowldge or virtue. If the goal of society is to promote the ideals of the knowldgable/virtuous, it becomes necessary to find ways to delineate the two. One metric could be education level, another could be Starship Troopers, another could be a threshold of tax expenditures (after +$x of taxes paid)... There are many, including selecting for only those with children. This option has a few benefits. Chief among them, IMO, is that (at large) they want their children to inherit a functional society. Thus they may be more forward-thinking and more resistant to flippant changes in order to achieve a sense of stability. And, stability is good for society.

Lol, if you insist :p I take it you've never tried a Steelman?

Yes, I can be killed. And, sure, inanimate objects and the deceased do not have rights. However it would still be questionable as to why a restrained person was shot :p Further, our mortality does not mean that we dont have rights, lol. This is objectively true as you will die yet you have inalienable rights.

But fighting IS the right ;] Even struggling with in handcuffs is envoking your animal nature.

A man of civics :] Very cool.

I agree with pretentiousness-- They were trying really hard. By and large I like that, the big ideals. The unavoidable glaring problem is the paradox of freedom AND governance. Like, even lawless pirates begged the question; 'What do we do with a drunken sailor?'. Its not trivial.

Eh, I could try my primal scream :] Even empty-handed, I'd fight. And you would too!

Fair enough. Its not my position, either... However this is the logic for the idea. Seemingly nobody even tried to rationalize this in-thread, lol. Its literally not-un-thinkable :p

Most of the rights after the first 10 are 100% alienable in a naturalist sense. A man in the jungle will speak freely and associate voluntarily... A man in the jungle has a right to not be lorded over for more than 8 years by one individual (a la 25A, for instance)...? The verbiage becomes meaningless.

I've heard people make this kind of argument before: 'People with children are actively invested in the future of the nation. People without children are on a 100year free-trial.'

Its not unthinkable, tbh.