Should Schools Teach "Intelligent Falling"?

I'm not denying it, I just don't think it absolutely proves your point. In Japan,a loaf of bread costs more than in America. Does that mean that Japan has a better standard of living?

You're reaching.

So the answer is exile?

Human rights are natural rights we are born with. They do not come from laws, government etc. If they did, they could be taken away. But your rights are absolute. You don't need some contract for that.

My point is that if you live physically surrounded by a society are you obligated to participate in the social contract, regardless of whether it is good for you, or you approve of it or not?

I say no. I think that would be immoral.

This is deserving of a long and personal response, but I don't have time this morning. Suffice it to say, the earth is covered with societies, it's not as simple as leaving America, and walking into a vast uncivilized world and starting from scratch.

But where did the system get the money to give? You make it sound like the government is like something from star trek. A machine that can make food and clothing from thin air.

Why should those who have lost their job get to penalize the people working by laying claim to their taxes? If you lose your job, you should have had savings. You should go out and get a new job. You have an obligation to ask for assistance from friends, family and neighbors before you take by force from faceless "others".

You keep bringing this up, and playing the "it's for the kids" card. The problem, isn't the kids. It's that school has a resource cost. Someone has to pay. It should be the people responsible for rearing the child, and for bringing tat child into the world. My 5 kids have no claim on your property. Now if you can afford to send my kids to school, and I do not, you might have a moral obligation to help, but I and my family cannot command the government to forcibly take your property and give it to us.

I realize that your being in Romania, you have a different perspective, and I respect that, but please, please, please understand the consequences of short term solutions, quick fixes such as we continually debate about.

A government which is big enough to provide everything it's citizen's want, is also big enough to take everything away. We're already seeing it in the US, where the government refuses to follow the Constitution, and the people are not allowed a redress of their grievances (from the Government) which is a right that goes back to the Magna Carta.

The kid might think so. That's an issue for every parent to deal with on their own. The parents are responsible for raising the kids, the kids are not the property of the society or government.

Freedom?

Where can you move? A deserted island? Live on the water? Do you realize how ludicrous that is? C'mon now.

You still aren't owning up to it. There are only benefits because you pay for them. Someone has to pay. The "society" is nothing more than a scheme to confiscate and redistribute. It produces nothing. It creates nothing. It only takes, and spends.

Pre-Industrial America.

The village chief is irrelevant. A central leader doesn't necessarily mean you have central organization unless it is a monarchy or dictatorship.

 

Which ones are those? The ones were you ask me how, then proceed to insult me and call my ideas fantasy?

How exactly is one to respond to loaded rhetorical questions like that?

On the contrary, every time I post, I expose a little more of your hypocrisy, and the fact that you have been trained and socialized to believe you cannot survive outside the state.

From your ignorant comments about Botswana, to the notion that people would pull up sidewalks behind them as they walk down the street.

You bounce between badly informed, to intentionally obtuse, with a mixture of sarcasm and insecurity for good measure.

This is what a private library looks like.

http://www.milibrary.org/

You can read more about the history, trials and entrepreneurial spirit behind one of the most successful libraries in the modern world.

It is possible for people to voluntarily develop a society, to build infrastructure and share knowledge without the state.

 

To the original OP: Your argument is flawed as gravity is a law, not a theory. The reason that Evolution is a theory is because it is not yet proven. However it is that you might believe on evolution itself, it is certainly not "proven" that we are in existence as a result of evolution.

 

Your understanding of basic science is flawed. Gravity is a fact, Gravitational theory explains the fact. Just like evolution is a fact, And evolutionary theory explains the fact.

Or are you saying there is no such thing as gravitational theory?

 

my point is society has the right to claim part of your income

you could also try to change the social contract

humans are part of the natural world. What gives you the right to property yet a cow can't own anything? Where does the right to claim anything as your own come from? It's a deal made between humans.

in that case you are obligated to participate simply because you benefit from that certain society. You walk their sidewalks, you get security from them, they provide you with an army to defend you and so on

of course it's not as simple as that. It's very complicated. You want to benefit from the society without paying the price

from people, of course

because it's better for society to have such a safety net. It reduces the chances of the person loosing his/her job of commiting crimes to sustain themselfs. You have to analyse situations with realism. A person who got itself in some deep shit isn't just going to say "oh well, it's my fault so I'm just going to starve". He/she is going whatever it takes to survive. It's human nature

well, it really is for the kids ! Don't you agree that kids should be provided with education regardless of what their parents do or don't do?

I know short term solutions are worth nothing but I don't see what exactly you see as a short term solution in my statement

I am aware of that and I don't support a government providing everything but there are a number of things which I consider to be basic and I support the government providing those. They include healthcare, education, infrastructure, social security, protection and probably some other stuff I can't remember now

but are kids the property of the parents?

chaos

I know it's ridiculous but as I've said before if you choose to live in a society you must pay the price

the society is a group of people. Of course it produces and creates. And some of what that group of people produces is pooled together and used for the common good.

didn't they have mayors and governors? Wasn't you constitution the result of a government? Isn't your constitution a social contract?

a central leader's role is to take decisions

 

I just want to be sure, very clear, that you are saying that you believe that society has a right to claim part of your income. Even if you object, society can take it. Is this right?

Well, at least you are keeping that option open.

If you're going to argue the case for a social contract with cows, then we will need a new thread. Because it's totally an OT tangent.

What if I put in my own sidewalks? What if I don't walk? What if I conduct trade at the border of my property, and only enter the property of others with their permission?

No, and I resent that implication (made several times by stOx). I want nothing that I have not paid for. I am not trying to steal from others, while making the point that no one has a right to steal from me.

People. What people? Why are they nameless and faceless? Does that make it easier to justify someone taking what is not theirs?

Does the state have to provide the safety net? or can the church do it? Or neighbors? Family?

I find the example you make, similar to stOx's. It's an extreme, and the result of a number of compound situations. Far from the norm, or possibly even a reasonable expectation.

A person would have to (1) lose their job, (2) not have any savings, (3) not have any friends, neighbors, relatives, or community assistance available, (4) not have access to credit and (5) not be able to find another job.

No. Not necessarily. I have no problem with free education for kids, if it is paid for voluntarily. But I do not believe that because I have 2 children, I have a right to confiscate your property to pay for their education.

You know, unemployed parents can teach their own children. There is nothing wrong with home schooling, and raising and teaching your own children, is as natural and honest as it can get.

The responsibility for children lies with the parents, not with the "society" or government. That is a very creepy world where parents have to give up their children to the state. We certainly wouldn't approve of the Churches taking children from their parents and dictating their education...

Rather than wait for market conditions to improve the lot of Romanians, the quick and dirty way is to expect the government to work miracles with tax revenue, laws and treaties. You can't legislate your way to prosperity. It has to be a function of productive gains, and deferred consumption.

I really like arguing with you. Perhaps we need to each come up with a list of what we believe are fundamental and universal rights, then go from there.

Well, the question is, who is responsible to raise, teach, feed, clothe, love and nurture children? Parents? The State?

Nonsense! America seceded from the British Empire. That was not chaos.

When a government becomes corrupt, or out of control (as has happened a great many times in history), the people must be allowed to break up the government or country and start again with a fresh slate. I truly believe this is the quickest, and possibly most peaceful way to thwart an out of control state or ruler.

I refuse to believe that. It is based on a narrow definition of society.

Does the common good exceed the rights of the individual? For example, if a majority of people vote to take your home, and give you an unfair price for it, that may serve the common good, but is it just to you?

A true constitutional scholar might be a better person to answer that question. But I believe that the Constitution merely made the law of the land, the natural laws that every human is entitled to by birth. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not always. It can be to organize or lead decision makers. It can be to present decisions. The "strongman" theory of leadership (alpha-male) is outdated and prehistoric. We're much more advanced than that. Well, maybe not the people who vote en masse, but much of the culture is more sensitive, educated and aware than that.

 

I should be able to keep every penny I earn. I should be able to own a gun, I should be able to own a car, own a hundred, own a thousand, I should be able to run for any office I want, I should be able to live my life on my terms, I should be free of supporting a government I do not support, I should be free from the chains of this socialist nightmare that keeps encroaching on the United States. I should be able to have power to forward my cause, which is noble and pure. I should be able to lead an uprising, a new order, a new world. I should be able to watch the news and not see propaganda. I should be able to hear all sides of an argument. I should be able to sue any industry that pollutes for whatever amount I desire. I should be able to sue any hospital or health care facility or pharmaceutical company for exposing me to poisons without my consent. I should be able to refuse vaccines of anything and everything because I believe they contain chemicals that are worse than actually getting the disease, and I should be able to exclude my children from such mandatory autism inducing vaccinations.

I should.

So I support Paul. I want my total freedom back. I want it all back. I was born not having it - and I want it. It should be mine.

 

Hallelujah brother! It's really good to know a supporter who also gets it on a personal and philosophical level.

Freedom isn't about compromise. Liberty doesn't come in doses.

You're either free or not. As soon as someone can encroach on one freedom, it's open season on the other freedoms you may have.

 

yes

My point is you're not born with any natural right. It's a deal between humans not to kill eachother (although that's often not respected) and to respect the other "rights". A snake will still bite you and a tiger or a bear will hunt you.

you still benefit from society. You still benefit from what society has done before you were even born. And I'm pretty sure you have already used at least one in your lifetime a public road or sidewalk

it's called pooling together some of the resources for the common good. How would you pay for an army for example? How about if the people in your town decide to build a sidewalk but 20% of the inhabitants don't want to pay for it. What's the sollution then? You put guards to make sure they don't walk on the sidewalk?

people as in everybody who works (yeah, I know there will always be some of those who don't work but as I've said before they are just an anomaly. No system is perfect)

I support a state provided safety net. Maybe the family and neighbours can't provide it. Where does the church have money from? Isn't it from people? Also, do you support churches not paying taxes?

that's what state provided help is: community assistance

it's ironic that you complain about illegal immigrants destroying your society but you're willing to let it decay from within

of course they can, but what if they don't?

so should parents be able to do whatever they want with their kids?

I am well aware the government can't get this country out of the shit it's burried in but that's not what I'm advocating. I just think the state should provide a safety net. That's it. What the government can do is to create a proper evironment for us to do business because currently Romania is Europe's champion at the number of taxes we pay. Businesses pay about 100 different taxes, so you can imagine it's a bureaucratic hell. The closest country to us is Poland with 40 taxes

well I wouldn't exactly call universal healthcare, state provided education, education, safety net etc. "rights", but pooling together some resources and using them for the common good is the best option

parents. But if they can't/don't want to do it somebody else has to step in. Someone to adopt them would be the next best thing but if that doesn't happen then yes, I think the state has to step in

yeah, but if every person could simply secede whenever they want you could end up with millions of states within your country. Isn't THAT chaos?

I agree

no, I'd be pissed off if I didn't get a fair price for it. I was in this situation last year when the government needed part of some land I own for a highway but they paid me about 20x of what it's worth so nobody complained. Infact everyone was hoping the highway would pass over their land

now you take things for granted

don't governments still take decisions? Don't governors still take decisions? Don't mayors still take decisions? They person/group of persons who are the leaders (regardless of how they got in that position) ALWAYS have the pover to take decisions. That's how it has always been and that's how it will always be. Someone will rise between the ranks and become leader. It works like this in any kind of activity that involves groups of people

I think you fail to see all the threats to your freedom and only look at the government as the possible freedom taker. But individuals and private organisations can take your freedom too if government doesn't step in. I gave you this example in another thread: I buy the roads and all the properties around your house and don't allow you to get in or out of there. Doesn't that take your freedom?

 

I see guerillas utopia still only exists in an imagined philosophical level and he hasn't actually offered any explanation of how it would work in the real world.... keep dreaming, Kid.

I'd like people to note how many time i asked for an explanation of how this would work and also note how many times he failed to give one.

 

I have offered examples, as well as historical precedent. Of course, since you think people in Botswana do not pay taxes and live in mud huts, such clear and factual responses might confuse you.

I'd like people to note (1) how many times I have responded, (2) the level of personal insult and derision stOx has subjected me to, and (3) the fact that he has surrendered the argument for lack of position and acumen.

 

So if the majority of people, decide to strip you of all of your property, all of your income, take the food off your table etc., you are ok with that? I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this, since you have lobbied so hard for social good, but are willing to allow society to persecute individuals.

Ok, I can't even respond to the rest of your post, or even future posts until we work this out. I can't believe we have been arguing for weeks, and I didn't realize that this was your position.

So you have mentioned "Human Rights", which I assumed meant that you believe that every human has a set of universal rights.

Now you are telling me that people have no rights, outside a social contract. So if someone is not born into my culture or country, with my social contract, can I enslave them? Murder them? Steal from them? Torture them?

In an urban setting, tigers, bears, snakes and cows aren't involved, so let's try to keep this focused on people. On Humans.

See, I believe that every human life has rights, from the moment it comes into existence. It has the right to free will, self determination. It has the right to think freely. Amongst others.

But you're indicating to me that human lives are only as valuable as the social contract they fall under. Is this correct?

 

No you haven't offered any explanation of how this would work and you know you haven't. In fact you have actively dodged the questions, Regardless how many time i have asked them. I asked you specific questions and you failed to answer them..

 

the human rights are supposed to be a universal social contract and I also believe it should even be applied unilatteraly. If some scumbags decide not to respect it that's not a reason for the other side to lower themselfs to that level too

no, I'm not OK with that. But I'm OK with giving part of my earnings for public use

 

But where does the contract come from? From being human (at birth)? Then that is a natural law position.

If the contract is by government, then the government can change it. Either the government, or the majority. Which means it is not unilateral, and it is not consistent. The majority could vote that people do not have a right to practice any religion. Or that they cannot criticize the government. Or that one group of people are slaves.

So if you believe that our rights come from our humanity, and they are the same regardless of where or when we are born, that's a natural law position.

Or is your argument that you only have the rights that other people will respect (by law, by government)?

See where I am going with this?

Then we're on the same side. Voluntary giving. Not taxes enforced by coercion. I love giving. I wish I had lots of money, because I would give like crazy. But I hate it when people take it from me without my consent, and use that money for things I find immoral.

iul, I respect you a lot, even if we disagree, but I think you have taken positions that are very hard to defend.

 

I'm arguing that all laws and human rights is a deal between people. Think about the american eagle for example. How come you're allowed to kill a cow but not an american eagle or any other protected species? Is the american eagle born with more rights than a cow? No. We humans have made a deal among ourselfs not to kill the eagles because it's endangered. It's exactly the same about human rights too. You may feel entitled to them (and to tell you the truth I feel that way about them too) but the fact is you can claim those rights only in front of other humans

Giving "free" education to kids and healthcare to everyone isn't exactly hard to defend.
Your ideeas are great. And I do agree for example that parents should be more responsible with their kids. I do agree that the best ones for providing education for kids would be parents and maybe there shouldn't even be schools as we know them today. But these ideeas would only work in a utopic world and the fact is the world we live in is faaaaaar from that. So the next best thing is to pool resources together wether you like it or not and make sure everyone gets the basic stuff.
These pooled resources also bring you benefits directly or indirectly. If the kids in your town get a proper education they're less likely to end up jobless and kicking your ass to get your wallet.

anyway, if you don't support an income tax where would the state get money from?

 

Technically humans have as much right as the mosquito. However, humans build nations, enact laws, start things. Then other humans come along and F**k it up by ignoring those documents (Constitution) and then those freedoms are lost again. But, technically speaking, if all life is life - we are but a mosquito on the Earth's skin - sucking its zits for oil, and hunkering down when it tries to brush us off.