Do we have a responsibility for the well-being of others?

Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:17 am

Quote:

People bear a responsibility for the well-being of others. Even when it is a burden. This is the basis of Civilization.

That is from sjc's signature. So the question of course is: do we, in fact, bear a responsibility for the well-being of others, even when and especially if it is a burden? And is that, in fact, the basis of civilization?

This ultimately boils down to positive vs negative liberty: do we have an obligation to provide X to A if A has a right to it, or do we merely have to refrain from interfering in A's acquisition of X? Is the former really the basis of civilization, or can civilization happen from the latter?

My challenge to sjc, which I know will be met solely and only with insults and evasions, is for him to demonstrate that positive liberty is in fact what humans have, and that it and only it is the basis for civilization. Of course, as I said, this challenge will not be taken. I know that. That's why I'm issuing the challenge. I'm counting on the insults and evasion, for that will mean that sjc knows that he cannot intellectually back his beliefs. He will insult, evade, and use every emotive plea he can. But that will only mean that he concedes that we only have negative liberty unless we specifically contract to provide something to A, such as a home-care nurse contracting to provide said care to an homebound patient. Even then, we do not have positive liberty, but merely a contractual obligation to fulfill.

I think we all know where I stand on this: positive liberty means one thing: slavery. If we must provide X to A if A has a right to it, then we are A's slave. A has a claim upon us for which we did not contract/consent/assent to. How civilized can a society be if it involves slavery? Oh, let's not ask that question. Let's just evade it by calling people cruel and heartless if they do not wish to be forced to divest themselves of their property because someone else has some "need", real or imagined. Let's bring up the idea that people would all be starving except for about 5 ultrarich people were it not for positive liberty in some attempt to skirt around the blatant problem of having a civilized society while enslaving at least some of the population--perhaps all.

Make no mistake about it: slavery is the right word. What else do you call it when you impose an unchosen obligation on someone to provide something to another, or just make the assertion that since you have more than someone else, you must provide your "surplus" (one wonders how this "suplus" number is arrived at) to others without recompense.

But, this will be ignored. This will be met solely with insults and evasions. So I'm issuing another challenge--this one to the only moderator in this section who is active: cheap, if sjc posts anything in this thread which is composed of insults and evasions, I wish for you to delete it. And keep deleting his posts in this thread until he finally posts something that addresses the topic, rather than solely contains whining, crying, insults, and evasions. You want a civil area? You want intelligent discussions? Fine--take action to ensure them. You signed up to be a moderator; you chose that obligation. If you do not want this to turn into sjc-insults-everyone-because-sjc-has-no-argument, then you'd best exercise whatever power you have.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

The quote means that only when people came together, to care for and protect each other, was civilization allowed to grow. You, on the other hand, have something else in mind.

All rights and freedoms come with a responsibility. I'm talking about civilization while you, as always, advocate anarchy.

ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS

Positive versus Negative Liberty

Why and in what sense do we say we want people to be free?

Freedom and Constraint

http://osgoode.yorku.ca/media2.nsf/83303ffe5af03ed585256ae6005379c9/73eef396d217f906852570eb006f8da4!OpenDocument

BTW, this topic belongs more in Social Issues than here.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

To be fair, cheap should also delete any and all the insults that you just issued as well. Come to think of it, he can't since it would be a complete conflict of interest since he is also involved in your campaign as well.

Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:55 am

sjc wrote:

The quote means that only when people came together, to care for and protect each other, was civilization allowed to grow.

No, that's not what it means, nor what it states. Nice evasion, and nice attempt to lie your way out of the problem.

sjc wrote:

You, on the other hand, have something else in mind.

Yeah, I have reality in mind.

sjc wrote:

All rights and freedoms come with a responsibility. I'm talking about civilization while you, as always, advocate anarchy.

So anarchy = no civilization. How exactly and precisely is that different from no god = no morality? Answer: it's not different at all. In fact, it's exactly the same. Nice try at an insult. And please note: at no point in this post or the first one did I insult you. I pointed out your tactics, which everyone who deals with you in this section knows really is your modus operandi . What I did was no different than saying that the RIAA uses underhanded tactics in trying to prosecute people for "copyright violations". Both are verified. Both are facts. Facts cannot be insults.

sjc wrote:

ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS

And that has what to do with supporting positive liberty? Answer: nothing.

sjc wrote:

Positive versus Negative Liberty

At least there's something you're trying, even if it utilizes tactics like the xer apologists use when they say "atheism causes communism, which causes massive deaths". Example (with bald-faced lies in bold):

Quote:

It is doubtless well to remember that belief in negative freedom is compatible with, and (so far as ideas influence conduct) has played its part in generating great and lasting social evils . My point is that it was much less often defended or disguised by the kind of specious arguments and sleights-of-hand habitually used by the champions of `positive' freedom in its more sinister forms. Advocacy of non-interference (like `social Darwinism') was, of course, used to support politically and socially destructive policies which armed the strong, the brutal, and the unscrupulous against the humane and the weak, the able and ruthless against the less gifted. and the less fortunate. Freedom for the, wolves has often meant death to the sheep. The bloodstained story of economic individualism and unrestrained capitalist competition does not, I should have thought today need stressing. Nevertheless, in view of the astonishing opinions which some of my critics have imputed to me, I should, perhaps, have been wise to underline certain parts of my argument. I should have made even clearer that the evils of unrestricted laissez-faire, and of the social and legal systems. that permitted and encouraged it, led to brutal violations of `negative' liberty-- of basic human-rights (always a `negative' notion: a wall, against oppressors), including that of free expression or association without which there may exist justice and fraternity and even happiness of a kind, but not democracy.

I'd love to see where this "unrestricted laissez-faire" he is talking about was implemented. Too bad that neither you nor he can come up with anywhere. No, 19th century USA nor UK was, despite your ill-informed belief to the contrary.

sjc wrote:

Why and in what sense do we say we want people to be free?

That has almost nothing to say regarding positive/negative liberty. It also uses the traditional reification of "society" vis. "the health of society".

sjc wrote:

Freedom and Constraint

That has no justification for positive liberty at all, but simply re-states the claim.

btw, this topic belongs here.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

The USA has always prided itself on being a nation of laws. Are these laws a form of coercion, in your mind, and thus making them also a form of slavery? Do you see civilization itself as slavery because it has the power to enforce these laws on those who violate them? Any group that is set to create and enforce these laws and rules is by default a government because they govern. In the case of America to provide for the defense of the nation also.

You see liberty as an absolute when even the founding fathers didn't. This is also one reason why they chose a republic over a democracy as well because they thought that too much liberty was a dangerous thing. You have the liberty to believe whatever you want and to have any opinion. You never had the liberty, nor right, to kill others. You see no difference between the two.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Whatever. As always you are not actually interested in an answer. You just want to troll.

I just realized something. Above KnoB demanded that a mod, a member of the governing body of this set of forums, to enforce his authority over another member of this board in order to coerce their good behavior. And I might say a demand that you yourself were unwilling to follow as well. In other words you wanted him to violate my liberty..... Oh, that is just so priceless. And also classic. :rotf: This discussion is over because you just exposed your own hypocrisy. You don't actually practice what you preach.. Big surprise... Rolling Eyes

Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:40 am

sjc wrote:

The USA has always prided itself on being a nation of laws. Are these laws a form of coercion,

Since they come from a government, yes.

Canada refuses to allow its citizens to make their own choices regarding TV and radio broadcasts. Is that not coercion? Oh, if you deny the above:

http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/pubs/can-con/can_con.html

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/welcome.htm

Canadian government websites. Love to see you deny those. Love to.

sjc wrote:

Do you see civilization itself as slavery because it has the power to enforce these laws on those who violate them?

Nice begged question there. You must first demonstrate that only with a government and only with positive liberty can there be civilization. I'll not allow your begged question to stand. Re-write your statement without the fallacy.

sjc wrote:

Any group that is set to create and enforce these laws and rules is by default a government because they govern.

No, since a government is a coercive territorial monopolist.

sjc wrote:

You see liberty as an absolute when even the founding fathers didn't.

That doesn't mean anything. And it's quite telling that you do not see liberty as an absolute.

sjc wrote:

This is also one reason why they chose a republic over a democracy as well because they thought that too much liberty was a dangerous thing.

No, they didn't. But that's neither here nor there for this topic.

sjc wrote:

You have the liberty to believe whatever you want and to have any opinion. You never had the liberty, nor right, to kill others. You see no difference between the two.

So you claim that I believe that people have the right to kill others, presumably at any time? Is that your claim? I don't wish to misunderstand you or mis-state what your are claiming. Because if that is what you're claiming, oh boy are you going to be fucked on your own lie. So if that is your claim, you get one chance to retract it before I tear apart your lie.

Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:42 am

sjc wrote:

Whatever. As always you are not actually interested in an answer. You just want to troll.

And there we have the concession that sjc has no idea what he's talking about and cannot support his beliefs at all.

sjc wrote:

I just realized something. Above KnoB demanded that a mod, a member of the governing body of this set of forums, to enforce his authority over another member of this board in order to coerce their good behavior.

Yes, since we've agreed to certain rules about this private property. Thus, there is no hypocrisy, but there is a blatant lie on your part.

If only you had any idea of what you speak....

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

KnoB wrote:

I'm a HYPOCRITE .

Yes, you are. It makes no difference where it happened. He is still a member of the governing body of this public forum. All members have unrestricted access here. Membership is free and open to anyone on here as well.

Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:47 am

How lovely. No one believes you, you know. Everyone is just laughing at you, you know. Everyone is thinking how childish you are, you know.

You really cannot have a discussion regarding economics or politics. You're incapable of it. Why you pretend that you can is beyond everyone here, really.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

KnoB wrote:

I'm a HYPOCRITE .

You keep saying the obvious.

BTW, this wasn't a discussion about politics or economics. It is about society and civilization. This BBS is a society with set rules just like any other. Public or private makes no difference. You just violated your own beliefs. Do you believe that a person has a right to kill someone as long as it is on their "private" property? "But officer he was on my land and I didn't like him..." Human rights don't apply when it is in private?

Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:59 am

sjc wrote:

BTW, this wasn't a discussion about politics or economics.

Actually, it was. That you cannot see such is your own fault.

sjc wrote:

It is about society. This BBS is a society with set rules just like any other.

The difference being that this is private property.

sjc wrote:

Public or private makes no difference.

Yes, it does.

sjc wrote:

You just violated your own beliefs.

No, I didn't.

I'm willing to listen if you put forth real evidence for your claim, rather than just re-stating your claim. But you'll do the latter. You cannot ever put forth evidence for your claims--it's against your nature.

sjc wrote:

Do you believe that a person has a right to kill someone as long as it is on their "private" property?

Do you believe that a person cannot fight back against an attacker, and that any attempt to fight back is inherently wrong?

If you don't a problem with your question, but one with mine, then you're the hypocrite.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

You assert that one's personal liberty is an absolute. That any interference with it is nothing more than coercion. No, you are a hypocrite and lost any justification for this discussion to continue any further. Goodbye, troll.

Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:13 am

sjc wrote:

You assert that one's personal liberty is an absolute.

Yes, in the sense of violating it is wrong, not that it cannot be so violated.

sjc wrote:

That any interference with it is nothing more than coercion.

Yes.

sjc wrote:

No, you are a hypocrite

Aha. So your argument is of this form:

Roses are red
Violets are blue
God exists
Therefore god exists

Thanks for living up to my expectations and refusing to provide evidence for your claims. It's been a pleasure to once again show everyone your true color.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

The problem with you guys, among many, is that you are only arguing politics and economics directly as abstract entities. I'm arguing their effects on society as a whole. Two different things. This is why you are totally clueless and also why I never actually took any of you seriously.

You ignore the human side of it, or simply quality of life issues. You believe that wealth, along with possessions, ALONE makes you better off than everyone else. The more the better while making sure that others get less. That is a shallow way to live and I pity you all for it. Of course the one I pity the most, on here, has always been and will aways be KnoB.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore