|
Thread: Voluntary Charity vs Welfare | This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 20, 2010 01:28 PM |
|
|
Quote: So your claim is that most people are subject to becoming rapists, murders, robbers, child molesters, ect?
Maybe not rapists and child molesters, but I believe that most people would steal and murder to get food if it was a matter of life and death.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
posted November 20, 2010 04:26 PM |
|
|
Elodin: I was talking about Christianity, not Judaism. Aristoteles predates Christanity and Christ, which means he was out earlier. Even with the jews and their 10 commandments, last time I checked a Christian is a follower of Christ, not a Jew(you at the least claim so). About every single religion back in the ages had whoever ruled at the top of some sort of divine descendant, and with loads of lore on "it is so because the gods said so". No, their not even touching the subject of natural law, even if its a usage of it. Even then they had special laws for special people, which is again a completely unrelated subject.
And secondly, you do not have any arguments that disagrees with mine. You are just claiming that the natural law, which completely lacks logic and arguments backing it, are a better than laws that was written down after some discussion(and are changed in pace with society). So you are claiming "good laws"(laws that are written down) are better than "natural laws"(laws that are backup by the claim of them being natural) without any logical arguments.
If you want to say that I am wrong on this, you would need to use logic and explanation on why.
And then you claim that subjective issues is self-evident, no they are not. They are at the best privileges that a society can benefit from. And you support taxation for having a army, yet you think taxation is immoral, yet you live in a democracy, yet you do not move out, yet you vote.
And again: It depends on a society. The only reason why you think you have entitlement to your labor, is because our current society is based on the idea. If we lived in a society without money, which was based on collective labor and living, the concept would quickly disappear.
And again: If everyone has a right to liberty and freedom, why does jail and death penalty exist? They are after all a stark contrast?
Secondly, the USA is not a free nation. Nor is it the paragon of free nations. So we disagree over that subjective standpoint.
It spread democracy be enforcing it, and it only spread it because it was more or less having the cold war with the USSR. So the USSR expanded and annexed, because they did have borders, so the US did the same thing by supporting dictators and the worse of it.
3rd: The USSR was a dictatorship and a fallen ship because of Stalin, which paranoia and the worse it made things really really bad. The entire wake of cleaning up after that is still in process in what is now a bunch of nations, but I guess its soon cleaned up.
And secondly: The USSR was deeply Christian, which again makes the entire argument of "evil evil Atheists" entire pointless and invalid.
Quote: At this point I ask a question:
Is it an acknowledged human right to pursue the goal of multiplication - having children, plant the seed and so on?
Is it maybe too self-evident to mention this as a right? Which is strange, because not all people had this right in all times.
What do you think why that is so?
No, that is a really bad gray area.
Back in the old days of the great plagues, you would give birth to 10 children, but only 2 or 3 or 4 of them would actually survive and reach adulthood, this thing is more or less present from the day we went from being hunters to being farmers.
When the industrial revolution finally kicked in, we had medicine, soap, and we started bathing again in England. What happened is that the population growth exploded, people still had 10 children, but only 1 of them died instead of almost all of them.
The world can currently do a reasonable sustainability of roughly 8 billion people it is estimated, which means if we go over that population limit before we reach the space age and start colonizing other planets, it will be a really sad place to be, because there is not enough food, and there is not a equal enough distribution.
The reason we never had any problems with the human desire of spreading its life around is because we was always really far away from any population limit, the exception was before we became farmers, when the hard had a limitation on how much it could sustain.
After we became farmers there was always enough food if enough crops was planted, along with diseases floored up in number and people starting dieing again, which meant population growth was never a problem.
Now..... turn your eyes around to Africa and the slums in India, or China.....
People get aids, the entire countryside is plagued with poverty, and the cities do have slums.
China did something reasonable: They had a policy of getting many children under Mao, which lead to their 1 billion population. And that is really to huge, so the goverment sat down and attempted to start up the 1 child per family policy, mainly because the country was sorely in need of it. While there are downsides of it, such as girls being sold into a sort of slavery or killed when born so families can have a son, from a longer term standpoint the country needs it. Give China 30-40 years, and the worst part of their gender inequality problems along with other troubles might be solves.
Now... how about India? We have completely and utterly ridicules large slum areas, and people are giving birth to many children, which mostly thanks to modern medicine in its low forms survive, and thanks to that: We have a really really large slum population, and its increasing!
So, no people do not have the right to multiply, they merely have the right to multiply if its not killing of society. We could say that a nation has a right of a birthrate of 2,1 if it think it has a reasonable population, but it does not have the right of each familiy giving birth to 8 children, and all of them surviving, because we are starting to get far to close to the population limit.
Mostly Europa and North America along with most cities outside of slum areas in the world has a stable and non-destructive population growth for this age, so it does not matter what we do. It does matter what countries in Asia and Africa and Southern America do, because they have the large population growth in danger of growing large enough to create unsolvable starvation problem.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted November 20, 2010 10:51 PM |
|
|
I never said Israel lived up to God's expectations. I merely was setting the record straight that the philosophy of natural law did not in fact come before the idea of God-given rights.
As I have mentioned before God did allow Israel to have slaves (though they had to be treated better than slaves anywhere else in the world) because of the hardness of the hearts of men, precisely why Jesus stated that God allowed divorce.
It is sad that Genesis was written about 3500 years ago and espoused the equality of man and that man had inalienable rights yet some today deny that a man has a right without some government beaurocrat declaring it to be so. Such philosophies are in my opinion degrading to the human race.
Man existed before the State and needs not for the State to grant him any rights through some regulation.
Quote: Is it an acknowledged human right to pursue the goal of multiplication - having children, plant the seed and so on?
Yes, it is a right for me to have children with a willing wife. Mankind is male and female. Sex is natual and people were designed to have sex within a monogamous relationship. The family unit is natural and came long before the State. The State has no right to impose a draconian regulation limiting how many children a couple to have.
Of course China follows the "might makes right" philosophy, denying that people have any rights that the government does not grant and has a tyranical regulation limiting couples to only one child. China often even murders a child if a woman who has one child becomes pregnant. Here is one example of the horrors that happen when natural rights are not recognized.
CBS News Oct 21 2010
Quote: A pregnant woman in south China was detained, beaten and forced to have an abortion just a month before her due date because the baby would have violated the country's one-child limit, her husband said Thursday.
Construction worker Luo Yanquan said his wife was taken kicking and screaming from their home by more than a dozen people on Oct. 10 and detained in a clinic for three days by family planning officials, then taken to a hospital and injected with a drug that killed her baby.
Family planning officials told the couple they weren't allowed to have the child because they already have a 9-year-old daughter, Luo said.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
posted November 21, 2010 01:38 AM |
|
|
The earth can not feed unlimited number of humans, so I guess China laws will be something natural to each country in about one century.
Maybe God gave us the planet, but he did not say to copulate like rabbits.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
posted November 21, 2010 03:37 AM |
|
|
Quote: I never said Israel lived up to God's expectations. I merely was setting the record straight that the philosophy of natural law did not in fact come before the idea of God-given rights.
As I have mentioned before God did allow Israel to have slaves (though they had to be treated better than slaves anywhere else in the world) because of the hardness of the hearts of men, precisely why Jesus stated that God allowed divorce.
It is sad that Genesis was written about 3500 years ago and espoused the equality of man and that man had inalienable rights yet some today deny that a man has a right without some government beaurocrat declaring it to be so. Such philosophies are in my opinion degrading to the human race.
Man existed before the State and needs not for the State to grant him any rights through some regulation.
Tsk, if I bothered I could drag in other ancient religions and societies that did a better job than the Jews.
And natural philosophy is "god-given laws", its just that the entire idea must be buildt on itself, which means regulations is completely and utterly a violation of natural law.
And slaves? Slaves was generally treated quite well everywhere, except in places where really really hard labour was needed. Again, its not a point of any kind.
Ancient mesopotania should predate Judaism by quite a good margin, and it also has the same things: Written down laws which rarely changed.
And why are you draggin in goverment beaurocrats? They are elected in the first place because of you the people, if they are not, you are just running a flawed system. If society changes completely, at some point the laws must follow, otherwise there exists no reason to have those laws. The beaurocrats is a example of somebody in a goverment doing a bad job, nevermind that fact that a minor bit of beaurocrats is needed for any kind of goverment.
And society did not exist before there was a state, even before that there was societies, with leaders. Man is not a completely independent creature, we live in some form of dictoatorship or leadership regardless, because we work like that.
If there is any natural law, it should be that man needs to have some sort of symbol over who decides, to what extension would be up to that society which is questioned.
Quote: Of course China follows the "might makes right" philosophy, denying that people have any rights that the government does not grant and has a tyranical regulation limiting couples to only one child. China often even murders a child if a woman who has one child becomes pregnant. Here is one example of the horrors that happen when natural rights are not recognized.
CBS News Oct 21 2010
Don't drag the worst case examples of Chinese corruption into this. That is a worst case example, and its a part of the Chinese sliding scale of corruption.
At some point, the chinese goverment will have to fight of it all, and its doing it at a slow pace at the moment. If there is anything that is good about China, its that they got 1 goverment, no ridiculess election fuss, and nobody to scapegoat issues to. Even if they scapegoat, issues will still have to be solved, the alternative is a armed revolution if things get bad enough.
The other thing about China: Its not a small dictatorship, its the worlds largest one, with 1,3 billion inhabitants and its larger than US, with a completely different demographic.
And its not a example of naturals rights being ignored, a better example would be a socity that changed, and thus most laws changed, which means that the natural laws was removed mostly.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 21, 2010 09:15 AM |
|
|
Del Diablo,
you miss the point.
Acknowledging the right to multiply doesn't say ANYTHING about the amount of children you produce, as does the right to live doesn't say anything about the length of time you live or the pursuit of happiness declares how much happiness you may habe, the right to private property how much you can and should have and so on.
The right to multiply would just be the acknowledgement that every person, no matter which one, has a basic right to try and have children. Even in China they CAN do that, albeit with limitations in how many, so your argumentation is invalid.
Elodin,
if we agree, that, yes, (for whatever the reason) we acknowledge for everyone the basic right to try and multiply -
why do you think that quite basic right is missing in all those bills of right?
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 21, 2010 02:16 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 14:17, 21 Nov 2010.
|
that makes me think of the suppressing field in Half life 2. (preventing reproduction between human beings)
would that be ok? after all, you could still try... and fail.
|
|
|
|