|
|
|
how can i become a senator? Biology & Politics. Reply to Friedman
|
|
|
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
(Adrian) wrote in <84c4q4$
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
: An organization is singled out. A company is an organization like a state. Your argument that the justification which does not work for the thief, works for the state because the state is no one in particular, also applies to any company, because a company is no one in particular. Therefore, by your argument, if a company takes property that did not belong to it, can justify its actions by pointing out that it is no one in particular. That is not true. We are not all authorized to participate equally in a corporation. My argument is that we all have equal access to the government
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
how can i become a senator? Biology & Politics. Reply to Friedman
|
|
|
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
(Adrian) wrote in <84c4q4$
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
: An organization is singled out. A company is an organization like a state. Your argument that the justification which does not work for the thief, works for the state because the state is no one in particular, also applies to any company, because a company is no one in particular. Therefore, by your argument, if a company takes property that did not belong to it, can justify its actions by pointing out that it is no one in particular. That is not true. We are not all authorized to participate equally in a corporation. My argument is that we all have equal access to the government
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
how can i become a senator? Biology & Politics. Reply to Friedman
|
|
|
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
(Adrian) wrote in <84c4q4$
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
: An organization is singled out. A company is an organization like a state. Your argument that the justification which does not work for the thief, works for the state because the state is no one in particular, also applies to any company, because a company is no one in particular. Therefore, by your argument, if a company takes property that did not belong to it, can justify its actions by pointing out that it is no one in particular. That is not true. We are not all authorized to participate equally in a corporation. My argument is that we all have equal access to the government
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
how can i become a senator? Biology & Politics. Reply to Friedman
|
|
|
brave man to admit the truth. if you think government is society's representative, because then it follows that government officials may assign us whatever rights they please, and may revoke those rights at their discretion. Thus if the government revokes your rights, perhaps by amending its constitution if it has one, and sends you to a slave labor camp, you have, by definition, no right to complain. Rights are defined by society, and government represents the will of society, so you have no right other than to be a slave. A counter-argument could be that the government isn't really representing society in such a situation, but if you happen to be (for example) a despised ethnic minority, it is likely that enslaving you could well be the general will of society as measured by majority vote. I find this approach to human rights unacceptable. It may well be unacceptable, but what if it is the truth? What if we're all really butterflies dreaming we're human? Your question hardly requires a response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
how can i become a senator? Biology & Politics. Reply to Friedman
|
|
|
Arguments lose their value except in the context of conflicting views. A person only needs to argue for his view *against* an opposing view. Since we're all agreed that there are natural rights, there's really no opposition present for any arguments to *address*, to *engage*. Arguing for something in the absence of opposition is like spinning wheels idly. If that is true, then all the more reason for me to present an opposing view for me to contrast my view to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
how can i become a senator? Biology & Politics. Reply to Friedman
|
|
|
I think I understand your parable; however, I am not sure that the issue is that clear cut. I think it is more like a heap. One grain of wheat does not make a heap, and ten thousand do, but where did the addition of one grain suddenly make the difference? You talk as though there were no grains and then suddenly there were 10,000 when in fact there was a steady increase until we stopped calling it just so many grains of wheat and started to refer to it as a heap. Similarly, a state only appears suddenly because we start calling it one not because the basic qualities that make it one suddenly poof into existence. Those people were not just self-organized they had their own lesser leaders that they followed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
Favoured: 0
