sailingbythelee @ sailingbythelee @lemmy.world

Posts

9

Comments

684

Joined

2 yr. ago

They had the "right" but they weren't able to exercise it. The moral wrongness of withholding their inherent right to life, etc. Is what created the moral impetus to free the slaves. It is a subtle but important difference. If rights are inherent, they can't be removed without violating the moral fabric that those rights are based on. Thus, when a government removes the ability to exercise an inherent right, that is what makes that government's action "wrong" and not just "different".

Thanks, your link worked for me.

I clicked on the link to "installation instructions" on your home page in a couple of different places and got the error "e.split is not a function".

What's the difference between an "internet atheist" and an atheist?

Rights are a fascinating concept. While I agree with you practically that we definitely create the social contract that "gives" people rights, that's not really how rights are conceptualized in law. In the Western conception, rights are, by definition, not "given", they are "inalienable", meaning that you have rights even if someone has taken away your practical ability to exercise them. The rights themselves, separate from your ability to exercise them, are indeed considered "inherent". In the olden days, this was often codified or framed in terms of religion, but it doesn't have to be. Calling rights "natural" or "self-evident" are other ways of framing their "inherent-ness".

Of course, in reality it isn't so simple. We separate "natural" and "derived" rights. There aren't many natural rights. Things like the right to life, to self-determination, and to freedom of conscience are considered natural rights (in the West, anyway), while something like the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution would be considered a derived right. Derived rights, of course, are rather more subject to interpretation since they rely on a chain of reasoning from a more natural right, and that chain of reasoning is subject to challenge.

The current oppressive regime in Iran wasn't installed by the CIA.

Lol, are you serious about your "statute of limitations" claim? If so, I guess you think those damn Romans are responsible for Brexit. Is King George responsible for Trump, too? Get a grip, friend.

Right, so the CIA ousted a pro-Soviet Iranian leader in, what, the 1950s? Not defending that, but it was a long time ago. At what point does the theocracy in charge of Iran bear responsibility for the current situation? Or will it always be America's fault?

Sorry about that. I missed the reference, though I see you've updated your comment with the link. Anyway, yes, electoral reform is desperately needed.

Its a good idea, though the application is somewhat limited. Most government business is complex, boring and technical, but direct democracy is feasible for a few issues that the public is invested in. The US, at least, already has some direct democracy in the form of ballot questions. However, too many ballot questions would be exhausting and virtually no one would be able to keep up. No, we have representative democracy for good reason. Rather than direct democracy, we need electoral reform. Various forms of proportional representation might tick your boxes, or perhaps something more radical like non-geographic elections.

In addition to the other answers here, the mode doesn't work with continuous variables.

What's your suggested alternative to democracy?

alias shortname 'flatpak run longname'

I believe the reasoning is the same as the US went through with 9/11. It obviously wouldn't take billion of dollars to retaliate proportionally to October 7. Just like it wouldn't have cost a trillion dollars to retaliate in kind for 9/11. The cost escalates beyond all proportion when the goal is not just to retaliate in kind, but to eliminate the possibility of such an attack happening again.

What VPS service do you use/recommend and what's your monthly cost?

It could be the overly popular and ambitious general scenario, or it could be the scenario of the meddling politician who is incompetent in military matters causing major losses of men and materiel. History has examples of both.

Unfortunately, the lack of progress in the war naturally leads to internal frustration and conflict. The West could certainly help if we would stop using Ukraine military aid as a political football.

If you believe Ryan Evans from War on the Rocks quoting confidential sources, a rivalry has developed between Zelensky and Zaluzhny. Apparently, Zelensky fears that Zaluzhniy may challenge him for the presidency. Also, military analysts think that some of Ukraine's poor military decisions have come from Zelensky, not Zaluzhny, which is bound to create some tension.

Starts at about 17:45: https://open.spotify.com/episode/12e2WYSgm9smWYgSZN1UwT?si=0YBQ32UgS6W2776dXggN9Q

Biden should call their bluff. Letting Abbott and DeSantis make these little shows of defiance using actual troops and law enforcement personnel only emboldens the right. That has to be a red line.

It's a warning shot.

If Masterson was brainwashed by the Church of Scientology and they appointed a lawyer who turned him into their sacrificial lamb, one would think that he could plausibly play the victim card. If the government was interested in going after the bigwigs at the CoS, he might be able to get a good deal. Masterson is not particularly important in the grand scheme. A case against the CoS that would finally take down someone big, whether the head of the CoS or a big celebrity like Tom Cruise would be amazing. Even better would be to dismantle the whole rotten enterprise.

In Canada, Alberta has this same notion that they got a raw deal in federalism and that secession is the answer. They are the Texans of the north: conservative, religious, oil-rich, strong capitalist rhetoric (though there is plenty of corporate welfare, of course). But Alberta is a fully landlocked province of a few million people with not much else besides oil. And, get this: they want to secede because they supposedly can't get any new oil pipelines built to the ocean in Canada. Did I mention that they are landlocked? What a bunch of morons.