Women's Sports

[exchemist]

The latter. And the "make use of" question is immaterial in terms of the law; government's purpose is not one of providing amenities, but of protecting the rights of the people. Confining government to its lawful purposes is not our practice, of course (more and more we utilize government to provide services and amenities), but the law definitely precludes government being a service provider.

Are roads and sanitation not amenities?

And what law do you have in mind that prevents government providing amenities? If there is indeed such a law, I have no doubt that in such a litigious society as the United States, someone would have brought a legal case against the government for it. Has this happened and what was the outcome?

 

[wellwisher]

Secondly, as it has been explained to you before, your position would dismiss even the possibility that trans could even compete in many venues because there are so few of them proportionally.

This second criteria cuts to the heart of liberalism. Liberals do not see individuals. Rather they lump people into blocks, such as in a sexist or racist way; trans, until one size fits all for a group. Then, the solution is use block fairness, based on a surface stereo type. It does see much deeper, to what is inside; individual talent, merit and character. This is why Affirmation Action was made illegal. By not looking deeper than preferred blocks, other qualified individuals were discriminated against, due to systemic block exclusion.

I prefer to see what is inside people, with my image of fairness, taking into account the needs of the inner person, instead of pandering to a handful of shell categories, designed to benefit the Left. The shell game plays with blocks of people and does not see each person. It appears to be more emotional than rational.

The NBA is mostly tall black males, not because of racism, sexism or any other shallow Lefty block criteria. It is based on hard work and talent, of individuals; things of the inner person. Liberalism is too shallow to understand. It prefers something closer to the emperor new clothes; shell pretension. Go for what is shallow and shiny, and appeals to refined snobbery. You are taught to feel high above, in your fantasy world, so you can lump people.

If you treat each person as an individual, you will find, they may not follow the block criteria of Liberal revisionist history, and are being unjustly treated, based on the individuals they are. Their individuality only started at their own birth, and not the birth of the Liberal shell game; define their block shell and ignore the person.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

This second criteria cuts to the heart of liberalism. Liberals do not see individuals. Rather they lump people into blocks, such as in a sexist or racist way; trans, until one size fits all for a group. Then, the solution is use block fairness, based on a surface stereo type. It does see much deeper, to what is inside; individual talent, merit and character. This is why Affirmation Action was made illegal. By not looking deeper than preferred blocks, other qualified individuals were discriminated against, due to systemic block exclusion.

I prefer to see what is inside people, with my image of fairness, taking into account the needs of the inner person, instead of pandering to a handful of shell categories, designed to benefit the Left. The shell game plays with blocks of people and does not see each person. It appears to be more emotional than rational.

The NBA is mostly tall black males, not because of racism, sexism or any other shallow Lefty block criteria. It is based on hard work and talent, of individuals; things of the inner person. Liberalism is too shallow to understand. It prefers something closer to the emperor new clothes; shell pretension. Go for what is shallow and shiny, and appeals to refined snobbery. You are taught to feel high above, in your fantasy world, so you can lump people.

If you treat each person as an individual, you will find, they may not follow the block criteria of Liberal revisionist history, and are being unjustly treated, based on the individuals they are. Their individuality only started at their own birth, and not the birth of the Liberal shell game; define their block shell and ignore the person.

You clearly have a distorted view of Liberal philosophy
It is very much based on enlightened individualism and the need to balance that with the needs of society as a whole... it is the reverse of selfishness it encourages a generosity of spirit. it encourages cooperation and growth. and the diminishing of poverty through wealth creation, education, and equality of opportunity.

 

[metis]

This second criteria cuts to the heart of liberalism. Liberals do not see individuals. Rather they lump people into blocks, such as in a sexist or racist way; trans, until one size fits all for a group.

What an utterly childish stereotype that's devoid of even common sense. You don't even understand what the word "liberal" entails. Maybe look up the word in a dictionary and read and try to comprehend what it says.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

What an utterly childish stereotype that's devoid of even common sense. You don't even understand what the word "liberal" entails. Maybe look up the word in a dictionary and read and try to comprehend what it says.

He uses Liberal as a bogy word and object of his hate. He has no concept of, or understanding, of what liberal means.

 

[Unfettered]

Are roads and sanitation not amenities?

And what law do you have in mind that prevents government providing amenities? If there is indeed such a law, I have no doubt that in such a litigious society as the United States, someone would have brought a legal case against the government for it. Has this happened and what was the outcome?

Our primal law, the Declaration of Independence, asserts that the purpose of government is that of securing the natural rights of the people against infringement, stressing also that when government becomes destructive of those ends, the people have a right and obligation to alter government, or abolish it and establish government that does serve those ends. That is the standard I'm using.

So if government is to be a service provider, and if government's purpose is to secure our natural rights against infringement, and if the law is our standard, whatever service government seeks to provide must demonstrably serve to secure the natural rights of the people against infringement, which includes services demonstrably required by government to fulfill its obligations. Services that fail this test cannot lawfully be imposed on the people.

The provision of public roads serves the lawful ends of government in that roads provide for the movement of communications required by government to execute its charge; public roads also enable movement of the people's defense and law-enforcement assets (which are needed to secure our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, etc.) The provision of sanitation services does not serve to protect any natural right, nor does the provision of library services, sports services, etc. Citizens are, of course, free to create private institutions to provide these services, and to grant access to them on whatever bases they see fit to establish. Citizens are also free to use the structure of government to establish, manage and provide such services, so long as funding for them is voluntary (a public-private enterprise).

Does that help explain where I'm coming from?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Our primal law, the Declaration of Independence, asserts that the purpose of government is that of securing the natural rights of the people against infringement, stressing also that when government becomes destructive of those ends, the people have a right and obligation to alter government, or abolish it and establish government that does serve those ends. That is the standard I'm using.

So if government is to be a service provider, and if government's purpose is to secure our natural rights against infringement, and if the law is our standard, whatever service government seeks to provide must demonstrably serve to secure the natural rights of the people against infringement, which includes services demonstrably required by government to fulfill its obligations. Services that fail this test cannot lawfully be imposed on the people.

The provision of public roads serves the lawful ends of government in that roads provide for the movement of communications required by government to execute its charge; public roads also enable movement of the people's defense and law-enforcement assets (which are needed to secure our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, etc.) The provision of sanitation services does not serve to protect any natural right, nor does the provision of library services, sports services, etc. Citizens are, of course, free to create private institutions to provide these services, and to grant access to them on whatever bases they see fit to establish. Citizens are also free to use the structure of government to establish, manage and provide such services, so long as funding for them is voluntary (a public-private enterprise).

Does that help explain where I'm coming from?

Yes indeed it is called anarchy.

 

[exchemist]

Our primal law, the Declaration of Independence, asserts that the purpose of government is that of securing the natural rights of the people against infringement, stressing also that when government becomes destructive of those ends, the people have a right and obligation to alter government, or abolish it and establish government that does serve those ends. That is the standard I'm using.

So if government is to be a service provider, and if government's purpose is to secure our natural rights against infringement, and if the law is our standard, whatever service government seeks to provide must demonstrably serve to secure the natural rights of the people against infringement, which includes services demonstrably required by government to fulfill its obligations. Services that fail this test cannot lawfully be imposed on the people.

The provision of public roads serves the lawful ends of government in that roads provide for the movement of communications required by government to execute its charge; public roads also enable movement of the people's defense and law-enforcement assets (which are needed to secure our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, etc.) The provision of sanitation services does not serve to protect any natural right, nor does the provision of library services, sports services, etc. Citizens are, of course, free to create private institutions to provide these services, and to grant access to them on whatever bases they see fit to establish. Citizens are also free to use the structure of government to establish, manage and provide such services, so long as funding for them is voluntary (a public-private enterprise).

Does that help explain where I'm coming from?

Not really. In the first place, stating a prime purpose does not preclude other purposes, unless they are positively excluded or would frustrate that purpose. Secondly I should think right to life and pursuit of happiness would cover a great number of things that people need to access in the modern world, including sanitation and perhaps even libraries, not to mention social security, health services and so on. To take you literally, one would think the government has no business offering schooling.

But, to get back to my original question, in what sense are these sports leagues imposed?

 

[Unfettered]

Yes indeed it is called anarchy.

Isn't anarchy lawlessness?

 

[Unfettered]

Not really. In the first place, stating a prime purpose does not preclude other purposes, unless they are positively excluded or would frustrate that purpose.

That depends on the basis upon which the preclusion is claimed. Specifics matter. A citizen's right to life may be lawfully infringed under specific circumstances, but all other purposes government may assume or assert, relative to that right, are precluded, no matter how needful they may seem at a given time. Likewise with all other natural rights. Else our claim to rights, and to a government that secures them, is wholly academic—and meaningless.

Secondly I should think right to life and pursuit of happiness would cover a great number of things that people need to access in the modern world,

We may think that, but do they cover things simply because they are claimed to be needful? For example, you may claim to need housing, but nature affords you no right to housing, only the right to pursue it. Government secures from infringement your right to pursue housing, but it cannot secure for you the right that doesn't exist—the right to housing. You may claim to need education, but nature affords you no right to education, only the right to pursue it. Government secures from infringement your right to pursue education, but it cannot secure for you the right that doesn't exist—the right to education. And so on. Government secures one's real natural rights; everything else is up to the individual to obtain using his natural rights. Every imposed deviation from this results in injury to someone in some way.

and perhaps even libraries, not to mention social security, health services and so on.

No one has a natural right to social security, health services, libraries, etc. How can government secure a natural right that doesn't exist?

Don't get me wrong here; I'm just looking at the law. I personally want everyone to have every service and amenity he needs in life. And where he can't secure a needful thing for himself through the deployment of his rights and abilities, I believe he should be helped by his fellows, which includes me. But government has no lawful authority to compel my neighbor, who doesn't agree with me on that point, to surrender any portion of himself to support my belief. If it does, government is a tyrant, claiming unto itself all powers of justice (state) and mercy (religion). It becomes the fox guarding the hen-house, so to speak.

To take you literally, one would think the government has no business offering schooling.

That is correct; government has no lawful authority to impose education on its citizenry. The people yield to this affront, but government has no lawful authority to impose it. Education is wholly a religious question, which places it entirely outside the purview of government. Additionally, rights and obligations associated with a thing belong to the creator of that thing. Parents create children, not government, so the right to educate belongs to the parents, as do the obligations of defining, funding, and deploying that education.

What does government create? Over those things it is sovereign—and over nothing else. When government starts producing children, government may justly define education for those children, and fund their education through the fruits of its own productivity (not mine; the fruits of my productivity are mine to deploy to educate my children).

But, to get back to my original question, in what sense are these sports leagues imposed?

In the sense that government unlawfully appropriates a portion of our natural rights to provide the service.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Education is wholly a religious question, which places it entirely outside the purview of government.

Mostly I'm just reading along with this thread. But education is something that interests me. What do you mean by this?

 

[exchemist]

That depends on the basis upon which the preclusion is claimed. Specifics matter. A citizen's right to life may be lawfully infringed under specific circumstances, but all other purposes government may assume or assert, relative to that right, are precluded, no matter how needful they may seem at a given time. Likewise with all other natural rights. Else our claim to rights, and to a government that secures them, is wholly academic—and meaningless.

We may think that, but do they cover things simply because they are claimed to be needful? For example, you may claim to need housing, but nature affords you no right to housing, only the right to pursue it. Government secures from infringement your right to pursue housing, but it cannot secure for you the right that doesn't exist—the right to housing. You may claim to need education, but nature affords you no right to education, only the right to pursue it. Government secures from infringement your right to pursue education, but it cannot secure for you the right that doesn't exist—the right to education. And so on. Government secures one's real natural rights; everything else is up to the individual to obtain using his natural rights. Every imposed deviation from this results in injury to someone in some way.

No one has a natural right to social security, health services, libraries, etc. How can government secure a natural right that doesn't exist?

Don't get me wrong here; I'm just looking at the law. I personally want everyone to have every service and amenity he needs in life. And where he can't secure a needful thing for himself through the deployment of his rights and abilities, I believe he should be helped by his fellows, which includes me. But government has no lawful authority to compel my neighbor, who doesn't agree with me on that point, to surrender any portion of himself to support my belief. If it does, government is a tyrant, claiming unto itself all powers of justice (state) and mercy (religion). It becomes the fox guarding the hen-house, so to speak.

That is correct; government has no lawful authority to impose education on its citizenry. The people yield to this affront, but government has no lawful authority to impose it. Education is wholly a religious question, which places it entirely outside the purview of government. Additionally, rights and obligations associated with a thing belong to the creator of that thing. Parents create children, not government, so the right to educate belongs to the parents, as do the obligations of defining, funding, and deploying that education.

What does government create? Over those things it is sovereign—and over nothing else. When government starts producing children, government may justly define education for those children, and fund their education through the fruits of its own productivity (not mine; the fruits of my productivity are mine to deploy to educate my children).

In the sense that government unlawfully appropriates a portion of our natural rights to provide the service.

What do you mean by "appropriates a portion of our natural rights"? That would mean it takes a portion of our rights over, for its own use.

How is it doing that by setting up a sports league, of all things?

 

[Unfettered]

What do you mean by "appropriates a portion of our natural rights"? That would mean it takes a portion of our rights over, for its own use.

That's correct. It is often noted that people work for several months of the year, effectively, only for government (to cover one's tax burden), before actually being able to work toward the enjoyment of their rights of life, liberty, etc. That being said, if the taxation is lawful, while it may be a burden, it is not an appropriation because we authorized it (the use of our rights remains self-directed).

To the extent, however, that any portion of our rights is unlawfully exacted from us to bear the burden of government—to that extent our rights have effectively been appropriated for government to use for its own purposes, rather than for the self-directed purposes we would otherwise define.

Our rights are the only natural currency we have to spend.

How is it doing that by setting up a sports league, of all things?

Well, if the provision of sports leagues exceeds the authority of government, then whatever portion of one's life and means is excised from him to provide them is an appropriation of his rights. Clearly, I am asserting that the provision of sports leagues with the currency of our rights (any portion of them) exceeds the authority of government. Think of it this way: If instead of taxing the money obtained through your productivity to create sports leagues, government taxed the time obtained through your productivity—eg, you were compelled under threat of "justice" to labor an hour a week for the public sports league. Would you object to that taxation? Would you consider that your right to enjoy that time secured through your labors (to pay the debt owed to nature for your subsistence), was justly infringed?

Law aside, on a purely pragmatic level, do we ever slow down to think about what is going on…about what we're allowing government to do? I mean, the government of a nation of 1/3 of a billion people bothering with sports leagues? Seriously? As if humans have a right to sports leagues! What if government busied itself only with the things we created it to busy itself with—justice (securing rights domestically) and defense (securing rights internationally)? What do we suppose that would look like? Would we have less social discord? Less crime? Less international tension? Less debt? I'll let others answer. As it is, we are 33 trillion dollars in debt. For what? Is that what securing our natural rights actually costs? Do we all feel more secure in our rights because we're sitting in that hole? If government exists to secure the rights of the people, are they secure for 33 trillion dollars? Can we stop going into debt now because our rights are finally secure? If not, then maybe government is too focused on things we did not create it to do?

Just what is going on here??

 

[Unfettered]

Mostly I'm just reading along with this thread. But education is something that interests me. What do you mean by this?

Yes, it interests me, too.

When I say that education is wholly a religious question, I am saying that education is an exercise and extension of human conscience. IE, religion.

Let me illustrate. If I walked up to you and said, "Starting tomorrow I'm going to teach your three-year-old son how to run a table saw and you don't have a choice; you have to buy the saw and pay me to teach your son; class starts at 7:30 AM and I'll be done with him at around 3:30 PM," would you object? If so, what if I and a dozen of my friends walked up to you said the same thing? Would you object? If so, what if I and 330 million of my peers walked up to you and said the same thing? Would you object?

If you would object at all, on what grounds would you object?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, it interests me, too.

When I say that education is wholly a religious question, I am saying that education is an exercise and extension of human conscience. IE, religion.

Hmm...I'll pass on that for a sec, as it's going to send this off on a tangent and it's not my intent. Happy to discuss this point further if you want, but I'll ignore for now.

Let me illustrate. If I walked up to you and said, "Starting tomorrow I'm going to teach your three-year-old son how to run a table saw and you don't have a choice; you have to buy the saw and pay me to teach your son; class starts at 7:30 AM and I'll be done with him at around 3:30 PM," would you object? If so, what if I and a dozen of my friends walked up to you said the same thing? Would you object? If so, what if I and 330 million of my peers walked up to you and said the same thing? Would you object?

If you would object at all, on what grounds would you object?

So...there is a bit to cover here.

1) The content of any proposed education being delivered might be objectionable to me. A forced mandatory Bible Study class at a State School would be an example. The table saw class for three year olds would seem to fall into that category for reasons of physical safety. It's possible the class content is both sensible and safe, but given we are dealing with a hypothetical, I'm assuming not.

2) The content of any proposed education might lack relevance to me. All items in a curriculum have a 'cost' in terms of time for preparation, delivery and assessment. If it's lacks relevance to me it might 'just' be personal opinion. It might be that the classes adhere to agreed education frameworks but I personally don't see the point. Or it could be a school freelancing, and reducing reading classes to insert classes on navel gazing.

3) I might object based on cost. This one is tricky to discuss in isolation though. I'm Australian, but have MAJOR misgivings with US funding models for schools. A large part of that misgiving is based around localised funding meaning that public schools in wealthy areas can access more funding than public schools in poor areas (somewhat state dependent). So when you talk about payments, individual costs, etc, there is a lot to crack open. Still, if I'm paying for something, directly or indirectly, I have some investment in getting a good return on investment.

If I object, to some extent it wouldn't matter if there was 1 person, you and your mates, or 330 million people telling me I was wrong. But in some ways it would.

If it was just you...well...not only is it 'just' your opinion, but this is an area I have a strong professional background. So I'd back my opinions against most until proven wrong.

If it was a dozen, it depends who they are and why they disagree with me. And if it's the whole of society, then there is a careful consideration to make, based on the fact that 'society' would include a number of considerations beyond 'my child' and a number of people involved who have my level of expertise or more.

Not sure if that answers you well enough, but feel free to ask away and I'll be as transparent as I can!

 

[Unfettered]

Hmm...I'll pass on that for a sec, as it's going to send this off on a tangent and it's not my intent. Happy to discuss this point further if you want, but I'll ignore for now.

So...there is a bit to cover here.

1) The content of any proposed education being delivered might be objectionable to me. A forced mandatory Bible Study class at a State School would be an example. The table saw class for three year olds would seem to fall into that category for reasons of physical safety. It's possible the class content is both sensible and safe, but given we are dealing with a hypothetical, I'm assuming not.

2) The content of any proposed education might lack relevance to me. All items in a curriculum have a 'cost' in terms of time for preparation, delivery and assessment. If it's lacks relevance to me it might 'just' be personal opinion. It might be that the classes adhere to agreed education frameworks but I personally don't see the point. Or it could be a school freelancing, and reducing reading classes to insert classes on navel gazing.

3) I might object based on cost. This one is tricky to discuss in isolation though. I'm Australian, but have MAJOR misgivings with US funding models for schools. A large part of that misgiving is based around localised funding meaning that public schools in wealthy areas can access more funding than public schools in poor areas (somewhat state dependent). So when you talk about payments, individual costs, etc, there is a lot to crack open. Still, if I'm paying for something, directly or indirectly, I have some investment in getting a good return on investment.

If I object, to some extent it wouldn't matter if there was 1 person, you and your mates, or 330 million people telling me I was wrong. But in some ways it would.

If it was just you...well...not only is it 'just' your opinion, but this is an area I have a strong professional background. So I'd back my opinions against most until proven wrong.

If it was a dozen, it depends who they are and why they disagree with me. And if it's the whole of society, then there is a careful consideration to make, based on the fact that 'society' would include a number of considerations beyond 'my child' and a number of people involved who have my level of expertise or more.

Not sure if that answers you well enough, but feel free to ask away and I'll be as transparent as I can!

Thanks. I'm not sure your response gets us much further down the road; it doesn't really commit one way or the other. Though this segment opens up further discussion, and is relevant to the broader point I'm looking at:

if it's the whole of society, then there is a careful consideration to make, based on the fact that 'society' would include a number of considerations beyond 'my child'

You suggested that you would likely object to the imposition in my hypothetical on the grounds of safety. If it would help tip the scales fully into "objection," let's lower the age of your child to two. (I currently have a two-year-old son and under no circumstances that I can think of—hypothetical or real—can I imagine coming to an understanding that it would be an appropriate educational endeavor for him to engage in learning how to use a table saw.)

With that simple modification (age: 2) do you object to the imposition I outlined?

Also, let's be clear: In the hypothetical, no one is disagreeing with you (at one point you said "it depends who they are and why they disagree with me"). No one is interested in what you think. You are simply being told, "This is what will be." If there is any disagreement, it will come from you.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Thanks. I'm not sure your response gets us much further down the road; it doesn't really commit one way or the other. Though this segment opens up further discussion, and is relevant to the broader point I'm looking at:

You suggested that you would likely object to the imposition in my hypothetical on the grounds of safety. If it would help tip the scales fully into "objection," let's lower the age of your child to two. (I currently have a two-year-old son and under no circumstances that I can think of—hypothetical or real—can I imagine coming to an understanding that it would be an appropriate educational endeavor for him to engage in learning how to use a table saw.)

With that simple modification (age: 2) do you object to the imposition I outlined?

Also, let's be clear: In the hypothetical, no one is disagreeing with you (at one point you said "it depends who they are and why they disagree with me"). No one is interested in what you think. You are simply being told, "This is what will be." If there is any disagreement, it will come from you.

Yep, I'd object.
I'd object for a 3 year old or 4 year old too, I guess I was just trying to draw back from the specific scenario you'd suggested to talk more about how I'd assess any educational initiative.

But in the interests of understanding one another, let's keep it simple for now.

Yes, I'd object for multiple reasons;
1) unsafe
2) not part of any agreed educational framework
3) potentially expensive
4) wastes time better spent on reading or maths or...lots of other things.

 

[Unfettered]

Yep, I'd object.
I'd object for a 3 year old or 4 year old too, I guess I was just trying to draw back from the specific scenario you'd suggested to talk more about how I'd assess any educational initiative.

But in the interests of understanding one another, let's keep it simple for now.

Yes, I'd object for multiple reasons;
1) unsafe
2) not part of any agreed educational framework
3) potentially expensive
4) wastes time better spent on reading or maths or...lots of other things.

Thanks. Maybe we can simplify even more? All we need is a simple objection. Sounds like we'd each object on the grounds that it's unsafe for our respective two-year-old children.

So you object. You have disagreed. Either with just me, with 13 of us, or 330 million of us, plus one. Inference suggests that you'd be most open to considering the opinion of 330 million, so let's go with that. The hypothetical continues...

The 330 million people say, "You object. Noted. But we assure you, it is safe. We'll take good care of your child."

Do you object still? -or-
Do you ask for detail about the safety measures? -or-
<some other question>? -or-
Do you submit?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Thanks. Maybe we can simplify even more? All we need is a simple objection. Sounds like we'd each object on the grounds that it's unsafe for our respective two-year-old children.

So you object. You have disagreed. Either with just me, with 13 of us, or 330 million of us, plus one. Inference suggests that you'd be most open to considering the opinion of 330 million, so let's go with that. The hypothetical continues...

The 330 million people say, "You object. Noted. But we assure you, it is safe. We'll take good care of your child."

Do you object still? -or-
Do you ask for detail about the safety measures? -or-
<some other question>? -or-
Do you submit?

I'd ask for details.
I'd also do independent research.

 

[Unfettered]

I'd ask for details.
I'd also do independent research.

What details would need to be offered to compel you against your initial judgment that it wouldn't be safe? What would independent research need to yield to compel you against your initial judgment that it wouldn't be safe?