Karl Marx, Yesterday and Today

[Audie]

"Natural rights" are an illusion based upon strong feeling.
All rights are things we believe to be rights.
When enuf people believe them to create a consensus,
then they become law.

Of course, and is it somehow too obvious for some to see?

Even the USA Constitution regards rights as being
endowed. Granted to you.

The "right" to territory is granted only in the sense that
your group seized it. Your group grants individuals the privilege of using it. True of ants, wolves and people.

Until someone stronger takes it.

Like you hadn't figured that out before I was born.

 

[Audie]

LOL. Yes, easily. I think we're already there (looking at the number of citizens who own land).

Territoriality is natural and necessary. So I'd offer that there is no fault to be found with the territorial nature of land ownership, only with monopolizing it, or placing artificial barriers to it.

What is "the opposite"?

Unnatural

 

[PureX]

Applying your statement above: If THE PEOPLE are charged with determining who gets to use the land, and if that charge must be executed under the real premise that THE PEOPLE all have equal right to the land, how do THE PEOPLE arrive at a determination that my neighbor shall have a 10,000 acre ranch and I shall have a 1,000 sq ft apartment on the 5th floor of an apartment building?

They create a government entity to make that decision based on the ethical standards the people choose to adhere to. It's a called 'representative government'.

Again, how is it arrived at that my neighbor's necessity equals 10,000 acres while my necessity equals 1,000 sq ft?

There are many factors involved that are unique to each society.

By what standard do THE PEOPLE come to this determination?

Not by what "standard", but by mutual agreement. When their government no longer represents their collective needs or desires sufficiently, they will do away with it and create a new one.

Also, how does that interference maintain peace? How does that interference maintain equilibrium?

By force if necessary. But mostly by mutual agreement.

It's only in the last 4 decades that the American people have become so childish and so selfish that they can no longer tolerate any form of government oversight or interference. Before then, most people understood that their government represented the well being of the society as whole, and that even though this might contradict the well being of some individuals within the whole, those individuals must recognize that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, or of the few. And that although the government is never going to be perfect, it is nevertheless, necessary, and is trying to do it's job.

But as the government has become more and more corrupted by the massive wealth of a small group of elites (created by capitalism) it has become less and less representational of anyone else. And the people have lost their trust in it. So now they think only of themselves, and resent any sort of government interference.

 

[PureX]

The "pursuit of happiness" is a pointless concept when one's basic needs are not being met. The needs have to be met, first, before the individual happiness can become a goal. As a result, I am becoming more and more convinced that we need to establish two different forms of economic and social interaction. One intended to make sure everyone's basic needs are being met, the other allowing people to pursue their own interests.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course, and is it somehow too obvious for some to see?

Even the USA Constitution regards rights as being
endowed. Granted to you.

The "right" to territory is granted only in the sense that
your group seized it. Your group grants individuals the privilege of using it. True of ants, wolves and people.

Until someone stronger takes it.

Like you hadn't figured that out before I was born.

It seems that people with faith in all powerful
sky fairies believe this is the source of rights
& morality.
So what's obvious to us heathens would be
an anathema to them.

 

[Audie]

It seems that people with faith in all powerful
sky fairies believe this is the source of rights
& morality.
So what's obvious to us heathens would be
an anathema to them.

Whose quote was it to the effect of,
" a thousand pities the bible ever got across
the Atlantic"

 

[Revoltingest]

Whose quote was it to the effect of,
" a thousand pities the bible ever got across
the Atlantic"

I searched for the quote.
No results.
Perhaps different wording?

 

[Unfettered]

Some people see government as a "necessary evil" to maintain law and order and provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, among other things. Is that what you meant by a "poor foundation"?

No. The US government is established on a good foundation, as detailed in our primal law, the Declaration of Independence.

We have been considering the foundation you described several posts ago: "Practical necessity and mutual self-interest"

Could you point out where you understand the idea of "practical necessity" to be found in the Declaration? Perhaps that would help us come to a common understanding.

 

[Brickjectivity]

A necromancer's thread never truly dies. Carl Marx either?

 

[Unfettered]

"Natural rights" are an illusion based upon strong feeling.
All rights are things we believe to be rights.
When enuf people believe them to create a consensus,
then they become law.

Of course, and is it somehow too obvious for some to see?

Even the USA Constitution regards rights as being
endowed. Granted to you.

The "right" to territory is granted only in the sense that
your group seized it. Your group grants individuals the privilege of using it. True of ants, wolves and people.

Until someone stronger takes it.

Like you hadn't figured that out before I was born.

It seems that people with faith in all powerful
sky fairies believe this is the source of rights
& morality.
So what's obvious to us heathens would be
an anathema to them.

Why single out theists? Let's be honest and equitable here. Atheists are just as prone to ignorance on these matters as are theists. IE, directing focus to the identity of the granter of natural rights exposes the ignorance of theist and atheist alike, as that implies that it is actually necessary for the enjoyment and protection of natural rights that we assign an identity to the source of those rights.

So yes, let's be fair to the poor theists and acknowledge that they don't swim alone in the pool of doltishness.

Although, upon further reflection, talking about people and their flaws—no matter how obvious their ignorance is to us or how exhausting it is to endure their inane ramblings day after day—doesn't get us any closer to building a better society. Perhaps our energies would be better spent on efforts to come to accord on the principles of proper and good government?

 

[Audie]

Why single out theists? Let's be honest and equitable here. Atheists are just as prone to ignorance on these matters as are theists. IE, directing focus to the identity of the granter of natural rights exposes the ignorance of theist and atheist alike, as that implies that it is actually necessary for the enjoyment and protection of natural rights that we assign an identity to the source of those rights.

So yes, let's be fair to the poor theists and acknowledge that they don't swim alone in the pool of doltishness.

Although, upon further reflection, talking about people and their flaws—no matter how obvious their ignorance is to us or how exhausting it is to endure their inane ramblings day after day—doesn't get us any closer to building a better society. Perhaps our energies would be better spent on efforts to come to accord on the principles of proper and good government?

"Single" out when it's like nearly everyone on earth?

Nwtural rights are a chimera btw.

Building better based on illusion. Sorry,
I won't help with that.

Idealists imposing their folly on societies have
all caused disasters.

 

[Audie]

I searched for the quote.
No results.
Perhaps different wording?

Search no further
Its my quote.

 

[Unfettered]

"Single" out when it's like nearly everyone on earth?

Nwtural rights are a chimera btw.

Building better based on illusion. Sorry,
I won't help with that.

Idealists imposing their folly on societies have
all caused disasters.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. So, let's say that the idealists have been silenced and everyone is looking to you now. On what non-illlusory thing do you build society?

 

[Audie]

OK, now we're getting somewhere. So, let's say that the idealists have been silenced and everyone is looking to you now. On what non-illlusory thing do you build society?

All of them have been silenced here.
All but the official ideal.

Look at me?
Theres education, health care, housing, law...

So I get just one decision to make.

You would not like it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why single out theists?

Because that's how they tend to see things
to a far greater extent than non-believers.
Don't you also notice fundamentally different
perspectives between the 2 groups?

Let's be honest and equitable here.

Alway.
Aren't you?

Atheists are just as prone to ignorance on these matters as are theists.

I excel at ignorance.
But to not know something is different
from the perspective of where human
rights originate.

IE, directing focus to the identity of the granter of natural rights exposes the ignorance of theist and atheist alike, as that implies that it is actually necessary for the enjoyment and protection of natural rights that we assign an identity to the source of those rights.

Atheists more commonly attribute the
source of rights to what a society values,
not supreme beings.

So yes, let's be fair to the poor theists and acknowledge that they don't swim alone in the pool of doltishness.

Atheists aren't immune to doltism.
This is about fundamentally different
ways of seeing morality & rights.

Although, upon further reflection, talking about people and their flaws—no matter how obvious their ignorance is to us or how exhausting it is to endure their inane ramblings day after day—doesn't get us any closer to building a better society. Perhaps our energies would be better spent on efforts to come to accord on the principles of proper and good government?

You might notice that even this
fire breathing atheist has flaws.

 

[vulcanlogician]

The problem with Marx, like so many philosophers, is that their observations are correct (and often self-apparent), but their solutions (if they have any) generally aren't.

True dat. Have you ever heard of that schmuck of a philosopher named John Locke? He made an assessment of society (probably self-apparent) based on the idea of a social contract and then (get this) introduced us to the idea of "human rights."

Lol. What an idiot! "Human rights" is a dumb idea that will never help humanity achieve progress. Luckily, no nation would ever adopt (let alone be founded upon) such a foolish idea as "human rights."

Philosophers are so useless.

 

[Unfettered]

Theres education, health care, housing, law...

So I get just one decision to make.

You would not like it.

Why prejudice my response to your idea with assumption? If you believe you're in possession of a good system, I'm sure I'm not the only person who would like to hear and consider it.

 

[Unfettered]

Because that's how they tend to see things
to a far greater extent than non-believers.

Shouldn't we be interested in reality? In reality, atheists and theists alike are ignorant of these matters. That you or I may feel that one group or the other represents a greater share of that pool...how does that contribute anything of value to the objective of searching out the best answers for building society?

Don't you also notice fundamentally different
perspectives between the 2 groups?

I am aware of the differences but am disinterested in making them the object of focus.

Alway.
Aren't you?

I am.

I excel at ignorance.
But to not know something is different
from the perspective of where human
rights originate.

Atheists more commonly attribute the
source of rights to what a society values,
not supreme beings.

This is about fundamentally different
ways of seeing morality & rights.

What difference does the origin of rights make if everyone agrees on what they are, and agrees to secure them from infringement?

You might notice that even this
fire breathing atheist has flaws.

I'm not interested in discussing anyone's flaws; I'm interested in discussing how every person in society may more fully enjoy his or her rights, which demands a discussion about the foundations of society.

 

[Revoltingest]

Shouldn't we be interested in reality?

It appears that everyone is interested in it.
But how to discern it differs.
A believer once told me that Christianity isn't a religion. It's simply reality.

 

[Audie]

Why prejudice my response to your idea with assumption? If you believe you're in possession of a good system, I'm sure I'm not the only person who would like to hear and consider it.

My edict will be the elimination of men