Civil Rights, Basically

[joe1776]

"To understand anything, start by asking: What is its essential nature?"

A society is essentially a cooperative endeavor aimed at improving the quality of life for all cooperative citizens.

Cooperation makes specialization possible. Specialists can do everything better. Thus, a society offers individuals a higher quality of life than they could achieve if they were on their own in the wild.

Citizens are expected to cooperate by trading in their absolute right to do anything they please for the benefits offered by the cooperative effort.

The inevitable conflicts between an individual citizen's rights and the welfare of others in their society must always be decided in favor the group. Citizens can play their music as loud as they like, provided it doesn't annoy the neighbors. Citizens should not have an absolute right to own a military-grade weapon.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm not a fan of the Communist manifesto.

 

[Orbit]

I'm not a fan of the Communist manifesto.

Have you read it? It's actually a spot-on description of how capitalism works, and what unfettered, unregulated capitalism leads to. I highly recommend it.

 

[joe1776]

I'm not a fan of the Communist manifesto.

My OP is open for debate. You're invited to participate.

 

[Nakosis]

"To understand anything, start by asking: What is its essential nature?"

A society is essentially a cooperative endeavor aimed at improving the quality of life for all cooperative citizens.

Cooperation makes specialization possible. Specialists can do everything better. Thus, a society offers individuals a higher quality of life than they could achieve if they were on their own in the wild.

Citizens are expected to cooperate by trading in their absolute right to do anything they please for the benefits offered by the cooperative effort.

The inevitable conflicts between an individual citizen's rights and the welfare of others in their society must always be decided in favor the group. Citizens can play their music as loud as they like, provided it doesn't annoy the neighbors. Citizens should not have an absolute right to own a military-grade weapon.

Humans aren't essential to nature. So whatever we decide amongst ourselves, we are on our own.

In nature, might makes right. However might is accomplished by group size. Though can be greatly offset by technology.
Technology can certainly improve the life of everyone and doesn't really need any cooperation.

Cooperation is not necessary for specialization.
Also specialists can't do everything better. Though they can do some thing better.
It'd be silly to expect citizens to cooperate. Just not in our nature. So we get a majority to set the rules which they agree to enforce including whatever "rights" the majority choose to enforce.
In favor of whatever the majority of the group decides.
Citizens don't have assess to military grade weapons except by special permit because a majority of folks have agreed to this.
The majority could at some point decide the other way. The only cooperation needed is for a majority to make a decision one way or the other.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"To understand anything, start by asking: What is its essential nature?"

A society is essentially a cooperative endeavor aimed at improving the quality of life for all cooperative citizens.

...

Well, I owned you an answer in another thread.
The problem is that there are 2 kinds of cooperation. Yours and top down Alpha Male. Both are natural and both work.
And if I am at the top or near it, I don't need to improve the quality of life for all humans.

You have to start be asking: What can we observe? Well, we can observe more than you claim is a fact.

 

[joe1776]

Humans aren't essential to nature. So whatever we decide amongst ourselves, we are on our own.

I don't understand the relevance of this statement to my OP.

In nature, might makes right. However might is accomplished by group size. Though can be greatly offset by technology. Technology can certainly improve the life of everyone and doesn't really need any cooperation.

Technology is created by specialists cooperating.

Cooperation is not necessary for specialization.

Please give me a few examples of specialists who don't require the help of others while they do their thing. Do they need fed, clothed, sheltered, health care?

Also specialists can't do everything better. Though they can do some thing better.

My comment was a general statement, allowing for exceptions. However, I can't think of anything that can't be done better by specialists can you?

It'd be silly to expect citizens to cooperate. Just not in our nature.

Almost all animal species cooperate, including us humans. 55 nations, and millions of people, cooperated to defeat the Axis powers in WW2.

Citizens don't have assess to military grade weapons except by special permit because a majority of folks have agreed to this.
The majority could at some point decide the other way. The only cooperation needed is for a majority to make a decision one way or the other

You're mistaken. The majority hasn't agree to any of that. With plenty of money to throw at the problem, the gun lobby has obstructed the will of the majority.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't understand the relevance of this statement to my OP.


Technology is created by specialists cooperating.


Please give me a few examples of specialists who don't require the help of others while they do their thing. Do they need fed, clothed, sheltered, health care?

...

They also get that in North Korea.

 

[Secret Chief]

"To understand anything, start by asking: What is its essential nature?"

A society is essentially a cooperative endeavor aimed at improving the quality of life for all cooperative citizens.

Cooperation makes specialization possible. Specialists can do everything better. Thus, a society offers individuals a higher quality of life than they could achieve if they were on their own in the wild.

Citizens are expected to cooperate by trading in their absolute right to do anything they please for the benefits offered by the cooperative effort.

The inevitable conflicts between an individual citizen's rights and the welfare of others in their society must always be decided in favor the group. Citizens can play their music as loud as they like, provided it doesn't annoy the neighbors. Citizens should not have an absolute right to own a military-grade weapon.

I agree.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I agree.

Well, I also like rights, but that is not the same as rationally justifying them. So I am honest. I like rights.

 

[Secret Chief]

Well, I also like rights, but that is not the same as rationally justifying them. So I am honest. I like rights.

Would you justify them another way? Or do different?

 

[Heyo]

Have you read it? It's actually a spot-on description of how capitalism works, and what unfettered, unregulated capitalism leads to. I highly recommend it.

The Communist Manifesto isn't that great. It's a pamphlet with a lot of pathos.
Das Kapital otoh is the "spot-on description of how capitalism works". It is an academis work, not the agenda of a political party. It is mandatory reading for most students of economics.

 

[joe1776]

Well, I owned you an answer in another thread.
The problem is that there are 2 kinds of cooperation. Yours and top down Alpha Male. Both are natural and both work.
And if I am at the top or near it, I don't need to improve the quality of life for all humans.

You have to start be asking: What can we observe? Well, we can observe more than you claim is a fact.

I think you are observing things that haven't happened. The alpha male, autocratic rule hasn't been successful in getting people to cooperate. That's why kingdoms have been displaced by democracies.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Would you justify them another way? Or do different?

No, I can't justify them other than I like them.

 

[Secret Chief]

No, I can't justify them other than I like them.

Why do you feel unable to justify them?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The inevitable conflicts between an individual citizen's rights and the welfare of others in their society must always be decided in favor the group. Citizens can play their music as loud as they like, provided it doesn't annoy the neighbors. Citizens should not have an absolute right to own a military-grade weapon.

This sort of communitarianism is notorious for needlessly impeding on the rights of others on grounds of nothing more than morality. Drinking and get drunk annoy a lot of people, for example, but favoring that community desire and banning alcohol was a miserable failure. Many claim being gay and being in an interracial relationship are wrong. They would needlessly ban it.
Amd then we move onto books, movies and music. The community shouldn't be able to micromanage such things. Nor should they be able to ban porn and sex toys.
I agree with the rest.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm not a fan of the Communist manifesto.

That's not even really in it.
It's more the Social Contract, which is a basic understanding in the Constitution that we inherently surrender certain rights we have in a "natural state" in order to live in a complex and highly organized society.
It's a "fancy way" of acknowledging a degree of need for mutual cooperation to exist in order for society to thrive.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Humans aren't essential to nature. So whatever we decide amongst ourselves, we are on our own.

In nature, might makes right. However might is accomplished by group size. Though can be greatly offset by technology.
Technology can certainly improve the life of everyone and doesn't really need any cooperation.

Cooperation is not necessary for specialization.
Also specialists can't do everything better. Though they can do some thing better.
It'd be silly to expect citizens to cooperate. Just not in our nature. So we get a majority to set the rules which they agree to enforce including whatever "rights" the majority choose to enforce.
In favor of whatever the majority of the group decides.
Citizens don't have assess to military grade weapons except by special permit because a majority of folks have agreed to this.
The majority could at some point decide the other way. The only cooperation needed is for a majority to make a decision one way or the other.

Cooperation is inherently a part of being a social animal. Elephants, dolphins, wolves, other primates, ants and bees, we all cooperate, at least with out own in group. This is just how we evolved, and without cooperation we can't even effectively communicate with eachother, let alone make such an elaborate society work.
And just as social animals thrive with cooperation, we suffer if we have too much compitition and isolation. This is just basic psychology, and in social species we don't even tend to live as long when we aren't cooperating and thriving in our in group, and we usually don't live as long should we go off on our own.
That's just the nature of being a social animal.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, I owned you an answer in another thread.
The problem is that there are 2 kinds of cooperation. Yours and top down Alpha Male. Both are natural and both work.
And if I am at the top or near it, I don't need to improve the quality of life for all humans.

You have to start be asking: What can we observe? Well, we can observe more than you claim is a fact.

We can also observe the alpha males are often bad for societies. Frequent warring, inner conflict, deadly struggles to fill voids in power, and whether it improves things or not many are overthrown. This societal instability does no one any good, as even the alpha male who leads it must live in paranoia.
The Art of War is the oldest text I'm aware if that promotes treating those under your command with decency to enforce loyalty, amd even going as far to treat prisoners well to win them to your side.
So whether it's ancient knowledge or modern management, we know treating those under you with respect, dignity and improving their situation will improve your own. To not accept that is basically on par with not accepting evolution.

 

[Nakosis]

Cooperation is inherently a part of being a social animal. Elephants, dolphins, wolves, other primates, ants and bees, we all cooperate, at least with out own in group. This is just how we evolved, and without cooperation we can't even effectively communicate with eachother, let alone make such an elaborate society work.
And just as social animals thrive with cooperation, we suffer if we have too much compitition and isolation. This is just basic psychology, and in social species we don't even tend to live as long when we aren't cooperating and thriving in our in group, and we usually don't live as long should we go off on our own.
That's just the nature of being a social animal.

Sure but again the point would be to cooperate with the majority, or whoever has the biggest stick.
Or in a capitalist system, whoever has the most money.

Power, whatever form it takes, political, enforcement, financial.
Political power is very complex. You have to be either very smart, not me, or very lucky.
The problem with communism is no one is smart enough for it.
With capitalism it is a lot easier to figure out where the money is.