Do these people never learn?! Frist backs Ban on Gay Marriage.

[Shi Huangdi]

Not at all. Jesus is saying your good cannot be confined to prayers or the private feelings of your heart. In essence, Jesus is affirming that indeed the personal is political.

Jesus didn't come about for political reform. Some of his followers wanted political change, that is the liberation of Judaea from the Roman Empire but Jesus rebuked them. Moreover, using taxation to try to accomplish good means forcefully appropriating the property of others- something Jesus never supported or took actions towards.

You are correct that Christianity can't be confined to prayers or private thought, but Matthew 5:13-16 provides no evidence he is talking about politics, rather he is talking about good works in general.

What both the Christian Right and the Christian Left miss out on is the importance of free will. It is impossible to truly love God unless you have a free choice to do so. God could have just forced forced us to love him, but he did not. We ought not to take away what God has given us. The person who helps the poor through his tax money did not have a free choice in the matter and so no particular love or acceptance of God can be seen in that action alone. Nor does someone honor God by refraining from immoral sexual conduct only because he faces criminal sanctions.

We are given an opporuntity to freely love god through our actions when they are freely done however. So in a way government actions that limit our free will on this Earth can actually work counter to this. The more money is taxes, the less that can be given as alms. When we don't have a choice regarding whether to partke in immoral actions, we don't get to choose the choice to love God.

Now, that's not say the State can never to take actions to defend ourselves or promote order. It's just that we should keep in mind we can't honor God through the forceful actions of the State.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Depending on just how immoral, then said society could be up for some "liberation"

Only if you are 'strong' enough to liberate them. If the most powerful country is 'immoral' and its people like being 'immoral', then there ain't a damned thing you could do about it.

Furthermore, Libertarians aren't into invading other countries .

[David Floyd]

Imran,

I finally see where you are coming from. You are saying that absolutes may indeed exist, but that's irrelevant because they are meaningless without strength.

Is that an accurate summary of your point?

Templar,

Shi answered you fairly well, and I'll do so as well when I get back from the bank. You might also want to address the rest of my post - I posted at length, and you've hardly addressed anything I said.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Templar,

Shi answered you fairly well, and I'll do so as well when I get back from the bank. You might also want to address the rest of my post - I posted at length, and you've hardly addressed anything I said.

I thought that he declared victory and left the thread.

[David Floyd]

Speaking of sure signs of losing an argument, that's gotta be the granddaddy of them all

[Imran Siddiqui]

I finally see where you are coming from. You are saying that absolutes may indeed exist, but that's irrelevant because they are meaningless without strength.

Is that an accurate summary of your point?

Kinda. Personally I don't think there is an absolute morality out there. I think it is silly to claim any moral belief system as 'absolute'.

However, there MAY be one, I'm not ruling it out (especially if God exists ). Yet, even if there is one, without strength it doesn't mean jack.

[David Floyd]

OK, fair enough. Then our biggest point of disagreement is that I see moral behavior as something that is good on its own merit, and that one can be the weaker party, yet still hold the moral high ground, and that this is important.

[GePap]

Templer was doing very well, specially when it comes ot the noton of property.

To answer berz notion that territoriality and porperty are the same, lets take the following possibility:

man goes to see a movie, and buys a ticket for a show in a theater without assigned seats. This person goes in, sits down, andecides they want to do something outside, so they leave an item of theirs to mark the seat and leave for a while.
This person returns to find an individual has sat down in the seat they had marked, and moved the item to another seat. Now, I am willing to bet a significant amoutn of money that most people would confront the person sitting tell them that the seat was theirs: a fine example of territoriality. A seat was found and marked. BUt this is were property kickcs in. The man does not own that seat, and neither does the individual now sitting there. The theater owns the seats, and neither indvidual has a claim to any particualr seat. IN buying the ticket, both paid for the ability to have A seat, ANY seat, but not any PARTICULAR seat in the theater. The man to have arrived first had no right whasoever to expect that no other person would take that seat, since they have no legal ownership over the seat. What about their item, which most likely they do own? Well, it is still there in the theater hall, just at a different location. They own the item, not the space, which is what is in dispute.
So, the fact that either individual might feel a territorial claim to the seat means nothing to the idea of who owns it (who's property it is). The only way to be able to claim any seat is to actually inhabit it for that period in time, since while you may not own the seat, you do have a right not to be assaulted, and only by assulting you would someone else be able to claim it if you are occupying it personally.

Now, why does this not happen al;l the time in real life? Not becuase of any notion that people do have a right to the seats they leave thier stuff in, but by social norm meant to minimize possible conflict, gievn the feeling of territoriality.

[Az]

I just wanted to point out that I agree with DF. There is right and wrong.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
I just wanted to point out that I agree with DF. There is right and wrong.

Yes, the question is which right and which wrong

[Imran Siddiqui]

that one can be the weaker party, yet still hold the moral high ground, and that this is important.

Ain't that important if your moral high ground results in you sitting in a jail cell .

[David Floyd]

Well, admitting that there is an absolute right and wrong is a good first step. Once you admit that we can get into specifics.

[David Floyd]

Ain't that important if your moral high ground results in you sitting in a jail cell

Again, I have to disagree. You might say that if you act morally, and go to jail for it, then you made a mistake or are stupid, but I would say the opposite. Moral behavior should totally ignore the consequences, or the acts of others, and should deal with only your own actions.

Just because someone wants to shoot you for your moral actions doesn't make your actions any less moral. For example, in Tiananmen Square, had the tanks simply run over and crushed the guy standing in front of them, that wouldn't have rendered the guy's actions wrong, it would simply have made the tankers into murderers.

Or, another example. If someone breaks into your house, and you fight tooth and nail to prevent him from killing your family, but he ends up killing you and everyone else anyway, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't have fought. It simply means that the burglar was acting immorally, and yes, was stronger.

[GePap]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, admitting that there is an absolute right and wrong is a good first step. Once you admit that we can get into specifics.

You have yet to explain what you base this immense assumption on.

[Berzerker]

Templar -

Communism predated Bolshevism. Bolshevism was socially and fiscally communist. I'm talking about a communal as opposed to private property system. I had hoped the inference was obvious - but why infer when a rhetorical cheap shot is easier?

Voluntary "communism" is based on private property since adherents agreed to share their property and can simply withdraw from the arrangement without fearing for their lives.

Plurality = most popular but less than 50%
Majority = over 50%

Since even the libertarian party believes in taxes to fund defense and police, this leaves anarchists and nutjobs in Montana who categorically disagree with all taxes.

First, the majority doesn't even vote. Second, the argument is not about having taxes, it's about what taxes to have and to cover which expenditures. Are you suggesting libertarians agree with liberals on tax policy? Hell, not even conservatives agree with liberals or libertarians, so it would be quite a stretch to say all three groups agree on tax policy.

While that is an interesting question for archaeology, its not important for the present discussion which is conceptual - not empirical. Property, being a social construct defines and enforced by the state, the firat state to institute a property system had the first type of government to create property as a regulatory tool.

But you just admitted you don't know what political system invented property, that means you don't even know if government invented property or merely adopted the idea from earlier peoples who had no system of taxation.

And Newton told us light was particles. Newton was half right. The enlightenment thinkers thought property was a natural kind and natural right. They were half right, property is a right or entitlement - but a state created one. People tend to get things wrong occasionally.

States cannot create these rights, they can only respect or violate them. If our right to life was a grant from the state, then we have no moral grounds to object to genocide committed by the state.

territory is space, property a bundle of rights. This is a conceptual difference which you tried to elide. I'm separating them out. A dog has no bundle of rights with repect to his/her territory - that territory is maintained by might, not right.

Umm...why do you keep referring to this territory as belonging to the dog if you don't believe in the ownership of territory?

Where did fairness and justice come from?

Sheesh! That was what I asked you a while ago and got no answer.

That is a long philosophical question that exceeds the size of this forum. If you want to start a thread for this topic, fine.

It's relevant because if government did not invent them, government did not invent morality - and rights are moral or just claims, ultimately of ownership.

But assuming fairness is a standard external to legal systems, one can judge whether or not a legal system is de jure or de factor unfair.

Agreed, which is why government didn't invent "fairness".

Racism is unfair, so any property system that operates is a racist manner (say group x can't own property for instance) is unfair to the extent that it is racist.

Agreed again, but that argument requires applying a standard of morality from outside of legal systems. So, where did this morality come from?

Like fairness and justice, this would require its own thread. Suffice it to say that Kant and Hegel, to name two, have their own theories of how rights exists without a basis in property.

When I try to show you that property came before government and from natural rights derived from morality, you keep saying that's a different issue best suited for another thread.

And if you read carefully you would understand my position. My point is, for the third time, war is not a natural state. It is a construct that requires other social constructs like nation, enemy, ally, etc.

But I never brought up war, you did when I asked about murder.

Murder has a moral dimension (leaving aside law for the moment). If you believe killing an enemy soldier in war is not morally murder, then you believe murder has a social component. If you remember correctly, you asked if murder was also like property created by the state. I answered.

Where did you answer? All I see are repeated references to killing soldiers in wartime.

Sure.

Finally, so we have right to life that precludes murder. From where did this right come from?

Many large slaveholders in the south purchased "quadroon" slave solely to rape and torment. I take it being raped does count as labor since it is neither productive nor voluntary.

I'd be surprised if all these slaves did was be raped and nothing else, but rape certainly is productive for the rapist - and that's what matters, true?

You asked a conceptual question about slavery. Conceptual questions often require hypothetical answers. You argued that the nature of slavery precluded slaves owning property. I argued this was not a necessary element of slavery. Whatever property rights actually belonged to slaves are irrelevant to the question of necessity.

You said slaves owned property, so pointing to how slavery was practiced is not "conceptual". If slaves don't even own themselves or their labor, just how can they own property? If the master gave the slave a shack to live in, and the slave refused to come out of the shack, do you think the master would just walk away because the shack was the slave's property?

Once you mine and smelt gold, you own it by virtue of admixing your labor with the material. WHile your not looking, I fashion the gold into a beautiful statue that is worth more than the mere value of the gold. I have also admixed my labor with the material. Who owns the gold and who owns the statue?

First, do you agree that someone owns it as your question implies? The person who mined and smelted the gold owns it, the person who stole it for their own purposes doesn't. But the person who did steal it could morally return the gold after melting it down to it's former condition. Now, can you address my point about the spear?

You are essentially espousing Locke's labor theory of property. My hypothetical shows just one of the many problems it creates. Locke's theory is not sufficient for understanding property.

Hardly, but for someone who doesn't think it's possible to steal unless government exists to define stealing, I can see why you're perplexed. Are you really suggesting archaic peoples without government and systems of taxation had no concept of theft?

Moreover, even if I did by the argument that your labor gave you some moral interest in the property, is that the whole story? Suppose you are the worst hunter in the tribe, but Bob is the best. Unfortunately, Bob can't make a spear to save his life - but you are the master of spear making. As tribal chief, I might decide that Bob has a greater right to the spear than you because he can actually use it. I also decide since Bob needs you spear, he has to share an equal portion of his meat with you. Here we have a centrally planned system of communal property where the tribal chief distributes entitlements. Is it fair? Sure, everyone benefits. Does it involve private property? No. Locke's theory is also not necessary for property.

Once again you're arguing that if someone violates our property rights, then we have no property rights. And what happened to your voluntary communism? You reject involuntary communism - Bolshevism - but immediately jump to examples of "central planning" to make your case. Hmm...

Ergo, the labor theory of property is neither necessary nor sufficient to understand property so it is wrong insofar as Locke employed it.

So a tribal chief, i.e., dictator, stealing property from one person and giving it to another makes your case? What happens if I, the spear maker, and Bob the hunter, says no to the tribal chief?

Once the system was put in place, the Jews acquired property rights.

And the system removed those property rights.

The only question is whether the Nazi system allowed for the wholesale dispossession of the Jews. If it did, then the Jews had no property rights - but the system was neither just nor fair. Again, you are eliding concepts which are separate.

But "just"ice is about morality, so to explain away what happened to the property of the Jews, you're reaching for something - morality/justice - beyond government to say what the Nazis did was wrong. This realm of justice beyond government is where "rights", including property rights, originates.

Possession. If you are big and I am small, you will take my fish. If you are small and I am big, I will take your shoes. If we are approximately equal and don't feel like risking a fight, we might trade possession of fish for shoes. Possession without right is not property, and the right is created by the state even if the possession is not.

After all this time you still don't understand the definition of rights. They are moral claims of ownership, and you've already established that morality exists outside of government. But why do you keep referring to objects as if they are owned? "My" fish, "your" shoes...

Now as fun as libertarian-baiting is, I hereby declare victory and bid you farewell.

Sounds like the knight in Monty Python running away from the Knights of Knee proclaiming victory as his truthful sidekick tells a different story...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Just because someone wants to shoot you for your moral actions doesn't make your actions any less moral. For example, in Tiananmen Square, had the tanks simply run over and crushed the guy standing in front of them, that wouldn't have rendered the guy's actions wrong, it would simply have made the tankers into murderers.

Doesn't matter. They wouldn't have been murderers because they are protected by the state. The 'moral' guy is dead, but that doesn't matter either because his country isn't going to grieve for him. Other people who have a different 'moral' outlook might be shocked and horrified... but as long as they don't have power in China, don't matter worth a damn.

If someone breaks into your house, and you fight tooth and nail to prevent him from killing your family, but he ends up killing you and everyone else anyway, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't have fought. It simply means that the burglar was acting immorally, and yes, was stronger.

If the burglary was sanctioned by the state, then your 'moral act' (ignoring the obvious question of whether killing in self defense is a moral act or an excused immoral act) meant nothing. You died anyway. Did any good come of your moral act?


I'm not saying don't do the moral act. Go ahead follow your heart. But if the stronger force is against you, the moral act won't do much good.

[GePap]

States cannot create these rights, they can only respect or violate them. If our right to life was a grant from the state, then we have no moral grounds to object to genocide committed by the state.

There is no right to life, period. As for genocide, you have a grounds, even if you believe tha rights are not absolute: you have the ability to ask which method leads to the best possible society, whatever best means. If under your vision, the act of genocide is a great detriment to the ability to create a better society, than that is all the ground you need.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Berz:

Voluntary "communism" is based on private property since adherents agreed to share their property and can simply withdraw from the arrangement without fearing for their lives.

It's based on private property, because they pool their property together. But once you enter, you can't leave. Like the Hotel California... only different . When you enter into a commune you agree that your property is now the property of the groups (kinda like a contract, if you will). So, if you try to take your property back, you are actually stealing some of the group's property.

[GePap]

But "just"ice is about morality, so to explain away what happened to the property of the Jews, you're reaching for something - morality/justice - beyond government to say what the Nazis did was wrong. This realm of justice beyond government is where "rights", including property rights, originates.

Was the outcome in the OJ trial just? Most people think not. BUt is was legal and he is a free man wth all the rights of a free man. The notion of "justice" is based on a need for recirocity in humans, due to our social nature. BUt these feelings of reciprocity, while manifested in some way in the legal codes created are not the justfication for them, nor can you make any claims for rights based on them either. For without the state there can be no priveledges.

[Berzerker]

GePap - Before addressing your recent posts, your hypothetical about theater seats is flawed. You introduce a third party as the owner of the seat but remove him from any resolution to the dispute over the seat. Furthermore, my "territorial" claim to the seat is created by leaving my property on the seat, so territory does = property in your example.

There is no right to life, period.

If you have no moral justification - a right - to exist, then murdering you can't be immoral.

As for genocide, you have a grounds, even if you believe tha rights are not absolute: you have the ability to ask which method leads to the best possible society, whatever best means. If under your vision, the act of genocide is a great detriment to the ability to create a better society, than that is all the ground you need.

So you'd agree that the genocide of native Americans was justified since a greater society evolved?

Was the outcome in the OJ trial just?

Depends on his guilt or innocense.

Most people think not. BUt is was legal and he is a free man wth all the rights of a free man.

Which only shows that what is legal and what is just are not always the same. Btw, he doesn't have all the rights of a free man because we aren't free either.

The notion of "justice" is based on a need for recirocity in humans, due to our social nature. BUt these feelings of reciprocity, while manifested in some way in the legal codes created are not the justfication for them, nor can you make any claims for rights based on them either. For without the state there can be no priveledges.

Rights are not privileges, as for the rest of that...huh???

Imran -

It's based on private property, because they pool their property together. But once you enter, you can't leave. Like the Hotel California... only different . When you enter into a commune you agree that your property is now the property of the groups (kinda like a contract, if you will). So, if you try to take your property back, you are actually stealing some of the group's property.

Do we have actual evidence that people agreed to such a contract? Oh well...a fool and his money... But you're right, they brought their property to the commune and agreed to participate, not at the point of a gun, but voluntarily...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Do we have actual evidence that people agreed to such a contract?

These days you don't really need a written contract. An oral one will do just fine. Because if you back out, there can be a claim for 'detrimental reliance' based on your promise.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I thought that he declared victory and left the thread.

Cute. I declared victory on the property issue. The Jesus thing is still interesting.

So Dave, nothing to say on the sermon?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker
GePap - Before addressing your recent posts, your hypothetical about theater seats is flawed. You introduce a third party as the owner of the seat but remove him from any resolution to the dispute over the seat. Furthermore, my "territorial" claim to the seat is created by leaving my property on the seat, so territory does = property in your example.

I don't introduce any third party. The fact is that the Theater (not even meantioned as an individual, but as a institution) would not get involved, since there is no issue from their perspective (unless a crime begins to occur, a fight).

And on the second part: you are incorrect in your view of the situation. The item is left as a way to mark of the seat as property. The person leaving it is using a symbol to denote territory. The man could in fact leave anyting in the seat, even something that he had not bought or aquired in some other binding way, to try to denote the territory. BUt the fact that the man is trying to claim a seat as his territory, even though it is not his property, hence the disctinction.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker
If you have no moral justification - a right - to exist, then murdering you can't be immoral.

So you'd agree that the genocide of native Americans was justified since a greater society evolved?

Depends on his guilt or innocense.

Which only shows that what is legal and what is just are not always the same. Btw, he doesn't have all the rights of a free man because we aren't free either.

Rights are not privileges, as for the rest of that...huh???

What right do you have to exist? YOU are a random result of two gamete having met up in your mother's uterus. Any set of gametes could have met, leading to a completely different individual being born. At any point in the pregnancy, any small event could terminate it. A disease could take hold of your mother and induce a miscarriage. The fact that you exist is an accident of the universe, basically pure luck. Do we call diseases murderers? It makes no sense to call a non-human entity a murderer for ending human life, becuase Murder is a legal definiton. Being a legal definition, the morality of murder is based solely on human-human interaction, and certainly not on the idea that you have any claim to your life, given the almost infinmite possible ways for your life to be snuffed out.

You claim rights are not privaledges, but then were do they come from? You seem to think they are inherent to your very being. This is absrud really, without the notion of God. Wat about a human being gives him rights? his sentience? So does a braindead husk of a man not have rights? And if "rights" are inherent to man, when did they first riginate? if you believed man evolved, then from whence did "rights" evolve? Do chimps and other primates have a lesser version of rights that they evolved with? The very notion of rights 'evolving' sounds silly, and it is absurd, but wihtout it, from whence can you, deovid of a greater creator or an extra-natural realm sperate from this can you possibly claim that something as ephemeral as "natural rights" could come from?

[David Floyd]

Templar,

So Dave, nothing to say on the sermon?

I already said plenty, and you responded to a couple of points, one of which Shi rebutted. But anyway...

And the essence of demonstrating your good nature politically

God doesn't care about political good nature. He cares about the condition of your heart, and what you yourself do, not what you make others do. In fact, God does not want you to do something because you are forced, but rather, because you want to. One of the things God hates the most is someone who is "lukewarm" (sorry, can't recall chapter and verse, but if you know the Bible, you know what I'm talking about), and a major element of the Bible is free will/choice.

is to be found on the left.

The political left has also starved millions of Ukrainians to death, created the killing fields of Cambodia, and was responsible for the massacres in China this century. The political left, in the US, started the Vietnam War.

Let's not pretend the political left has any monopoly on "good will".

But granted, being taxed to feed and shelter poor people will not make you good. Said policy has to flow from a good heart.

No, the policy is not indicative of a good heart, because of the element of coercion. Show me where Jesus says that we should force other people to be good.

But a good heart will vote for this policy.

Again, nowhere does Jesus preach that we should force others to "be good".

Not at all. Jesus is saying your good cannot be confined to prayers or the private feelings of your heart. In essence, Jesus is affirming that indeed the personal is political. So that one is not truly good unless that good is expressed with respect to the community (i.e. politically). Actions speak louder than feelings.

That is, a putatively good person who acts in selfish ways is like salt that has lost its taste - good for nothing

Shi has rebutted this segment, but let me again reiterate that nowhere in the Bible does Jesus advocate forcing anyone to give to the poor. He just says that we should do it, in terms of our personal behavior.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by David Floyd
God doesn't care about political good nature.

So God does not care how you conduct your public affairs? You must have a fairly limited conception of what 'political' means.

He cares about the condition of your heart,

The only evidence of which is you actions. This is the point Jesus makes when talking about the salt, this is also the point being made in the book of James.

and what you yourself do, not what you make others do. In fact, God does not want you to do something because you are forced, but rather, because you want to.

I already agreed - doing good works because your tax dollars have been funneled that way do not make you a good person. Taking an active role in the political sphere to give more and direct it to the poor is evidence of a good soul politically.

The political left has also starved millions of Ukrainians to death, created the killing fields of Cambodia, and was responsible for the massacres in China this century. The political left, in the US, started the Vietnam War.

And the political right in Germany murdered millions of Jews. What's your point? Progressives in the US have pushed for successful social welfare programs. And the original progressives were politically liberal Christians. They saw their Christian duty as commanding their political life to take on left wing characteristics.

Are really suggesting Jesus only cares about what is supposedly "in your heart" even if that goodness never manifests in the social sphere? Frankly if that goodness is not evident from actions it doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned.

No, the policy is not indicative of a good heart, because of the element of coercion. Show me where Jesus says that we should force other people to be good.

Perhaps Jesus sees the value in overcoming the problem of collective action.

Again, nowhere does Jesus preach that we should force others to "be good".

Not the issue. I said true Christians would have left wing politics. True Christians would have the funds that are rendered unto Caesar used to help those in need.

Shi has rebutted this segment

but let me again reiterate that nowhere in the Bible does Jesus advocate forcing anyone to give to the poor.

Try reiterating something relevant. Look, property is nothing more than a government regulation for resouce distribution, and that entitlements can be geared in such a way that helps the needy. Which sort of social ordering would Jesus approve of? One that distributes wealth fairly or one that is more capitalist?

Like most libertarians, you assume that you have a natural property right to x and that taxes other regulations etc. infringe on your right. I dispute, and have successfully undermined your premise. We are not talking about forcing people to be good (at least I'm not). We are talking about Christians selecting a political system. How can Christians select an unChristian political system and still be Christians? Even the religious right makes this argument - they just have an incorrect interpretation of Christianity.

He just says that we should do it, in terms of our personal behavior.

The personal is political. How can you divorce your personal and political behavior? Moreover, behavior - not words, not mushy feelings that may be in our hearts - is what counts.

Sorry Dave, you lose also. You are requiring people to maintain a complete divorce from public and private behavior. You are saying that a good Christian believes in charity and helping others in private, but when it comes to public (i.e. political) behavior, a putative Christian may act in ways that are selfish or detrimental to implementing the teachings of Christ. People just don't work that way.

Finally, the really funny thing about so-called "Christians" like Frist and Santorum are that they will not allow a divorce between the public and private spheres when it comes to sexuality. So a state may force Christian sexual mores down the throats of the vast ****ing majority of people who enjoy sex on their account. But the minute someone tries to impose a tax to help the poor suddenly we hear talk of "enforced altruism".

Again, I feel compelled to declare victory on the Jesus issue as well. On to other threads ...

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Let's not pretend the political left has any monopoly on "good will".

Of course not. However, the good will is found far more often on the left if you look at it in terms of compassion.

Case in point:

-The habit of the left of America to assist the poor while the right is in the habit of cutting the poor out of benefits.

-The peacekeeping missions initiated, at least in the last two decades, by the American left, such as Kosovo and Bosnia, while the right seems to be less willing to help those countries who do not possess some form of strategic importance (which I will rescind somewhat if Bush goes into Liberia)

-The left's ability to work with Europe to devise plans that incorporate multiple views on military options, while the right goes it alone if at all, and thus chooses one certain path to follow

-The left (all over the world) has the ability to, while not necessarily support, at least can sympathize with the plight of the Palestinians

-The left has the ability to stand up to corporations (as Bill Clinton when he supported anti-Tobacco legislation) in support of the little guy while the right has always followed those with the money

-The left's complete dismantling of Fascism, saving Europe, while the right wanted to isolate

-The left's compassion for the soldiers (wages, housing, education, rights) while the right has compassion for technology and bigger bombs

-The left's ability to not automatically assume immigrants = bad

-The left's ideals of Universal Health Care

-The left's ideals of increasing public school funding, rather than private school vouchers, to help those less fortunate

Sure, the left doesn't have a monopoly, but we most certainly have Boardwalk.

[GePap]

I hearby post a challenge to all and any libertarians:

It seems to me that your argument is that Rights are an inhrent part of all human beings; that al human ebings are born with them. OK: create an experiement (even a thougth experiment) to prove it.

Now, why an experiment: Becuase anything else that is 'inhenrent' to man, and man is born with can be tested and scrutenized (though doing so might terminate the subject, but it can be done still). All emotions leave behind physiological signals we can look for, or one can always use psychiatrict test and so forth. IF rights are also inherent to man, then would we not be able to test such proposition? Can it not be proven?

Now, why do it? well, when I say rights are based on law and come form the state, that provides a clear and simple (relatively) answer to the questions "what are rights, were do they come from?" All you guys seem to say is "they are natural", but that is an incomplete answer, and honestly, it is not anymore covincing than any other article of faith given as such. So, can any of you design for us a way in which this could be tested? Or do you guys admit that when you say "rights are natural", that what you are giving is an article of faith?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

It is the right of a human, as any animal, to fight for survival.

The modern human instincts for survival are faith and pleasure - therefore, faith is a right as pleasure are rights

All humans have these same basic rights, faith and pleasure - therefore, all humans have the right to pursue these equally - right to equality

[GePap]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
It is the right of a human, as any animal, to fight for survival.

The modern human instincts for survival are faith and pleasure - therefore, faith is a right as pleasure are rights

All humans have these same basic rights, faith and pleasure - therefore, all humans have the right to pursue these equally - right to equality

What is your defintion of right in that first sentence? There is a vast difference between "having the ability" and "having the right". If you (or an animal) die, were your rights violated? Is it immoral or injust to die?

Modern human? As opposed to? What is a non-modern human?