On 2/18/2012 6:48 PM, Hawke-Ptooey, totalitarian, wrote a lot of bull****:
On 2/18/2012 12:52 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/18/2012 12:44 PM, Hawke-Ptooey, totalitarian, wrote a lot of
bull****:
On 2/18/2012 11:43 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

You claim you have a right to live.

That is a negative right that implies a duty on others not to
interfere
with my life.

The hell it does.

That is *exactly* what it does. That is *all* it does.


It implies nothing about any duties of others.

Yes, that is exactly what it implies. It implies a duty of others
not to
interfere with my life, provided I am not interfering with theirs.


You are the one claiming ownership of a right.

Correct.


You claim that somehow you obtained a right to live.

I was endowed with it at birth. It is the very essence of my
relationship with other humans.

Oh, you were "endowed" with it, huh? Just by being born you got it? Was
that like magic? It sounds kind of supernatural to me.

No, it is exactly the opposite of that. It is what Jefferson and the
other founders saw as the essence of natural law. Natural law is another
topic of which you, as the holder of a worthless degree in a worthless
"discipline" scoff from a ****ty university, know nothing.

I'm not interested in Jefferson's views here because

Because you're a totalitarian, and Jefferson was a democratic republican.


Don't even start with natural law. It's not valid.

It is valid.


For the record I also am trained as a paralegal so

Good for you. That's a clerical job, you know.


Where you got this right is the question.

I am endowed with it (by the "Creator", if you wish) at birth. End Of
Story, Hawke-Ptooey - no one "gives" me the right, no "society"
gives it
to me, I do not have to purchase it. I am endowed with it simply for
being born human.

So you're claiming god or creator or whatever name you want to use for
some non human being gave you this right.

Check to see what Jefferson said about it, okay, Hawke-Ptooey?

He's dead and I don't care about his opinion on the subject.

You don't care about the opinion of any great philosophers and notable
political figures except for far-left crazies like Marx and Lenin and Mao.


You don't admit to getting any rights from
society or government

Correct: because they have no authority to do so.

That authority comes from the people themselves and

No. "The people" do not have any power to grant or withhold rights.
They may not *recognize* rights, as the majority of southerners in the
US didn't recognize the basic human rights of Negroes for a long time,
but the people do not have any valid authority to grant or refuse to
grant any rights.


Once again, since you're stupid and forgetful: "society" is not an
organic entity. It is merely a description of individual persons living
in loose association with one another. "Society" has no will, no
independent or autonomous existence. Humans don't even create society,
except indirectly by living in association with one another.

But you are acting like you know all about society when you have not
studied sociology and

Sociology is worthless for understanding any legitimate aspect of
society. As I've said several times already, "society" is not an entity
- it is a description of people living in some kind of association with
one another. Society has no will, no organic existence of any kind; it
does not act. *People* who have their hands on the levers of power act,
ostensibly in the name of society, but it is always a matter of
individual persons. "Society" is not an entity.

That is a fact. Get used to it.


Individual persons *do* create governments.


It has nothing to do with the duty of others.

It *defines* duties of others, Hawke-Ptooey.

Your right defines their duties?

Absolutely, Hawke-Ptooey. That's exactly what a right does.

So that means you are automatically connected to them.

No. It means that *IF* I am connected to them, they have certain duties
based on my rights. I may not be connected to others at all, but *if* I
am, there are certain duties imposed on all of us. The only legitimate
duties are all negative - duties not to interfere. There are no
positive rights - there *cannot* be, without violating the most basic
right of all: the right to one's life.


Doesn't that kind of make you boss of them?

No, negative rights don't do that at all, Hawke-Ptooey. However, your
sense of positive rights would do that.

Sounds a lot like your right is imposing duties on them.

That's exactly what rights do, Hawke-Ptooey.


If you can impose a duty on another

*I* imposed nothing on them, Hawke-Ptooey.


then you have power over them.

See above, Hawke-Ptooey.





They have no part in your claim to a right to life.

They are obliged not to interfere in my life, subject to the proviso
that I am not interfering in theirs. That is what it means,
Hawke-Ptooey, you stupid cretin.

First off. who is it that determines whether you are interfering in the
lives of others or they are interfering in yours?

If you are attempting to seize some value I create, Hawke-Ptooey, or if
you are trying to suppress or tax a voluntary transaction into which I
and someone else wish to engage, then you are interfering in my life.


You're to thick to see that others not interfering with you is one
thing, and you having a right to live at all is another?

They are not different; they are the same.

Oh brother, you really are the dull one.

That's not an argument, Hawke-Ptooey.


You having the right to live is
not the same thing as not having others interfere with you.

That is *EXACTLY* what it is, Hawke-Ptooey.


So why can't "those people" claim a
right to clothing, shelter, medical care, haircuts, shoeshines,
etc.?

Those are positive rights that would imply a duty imposed on someone
else to give them those things, and there is no such duty.

Yes, so you say.

It is so.


Other people say the opposite.

They have no moral basis for it. All they're doing is advocating force.

Heh heh heh...cat got your tongue, eh, bitch?


You forgot to add, in my opinion to the end of your sentence.

Nope; I didn't forget anything. I have no innate moral duty to give any
good or service to anyone.

But the creator says you do and

No.

Heh heh heh... You don't know a ****ing thing about any "creator", do
you, Hawke-Ptooey?



I may choose to take on such a duty
voluntarily, but absent that, no one has any moral right to compel
me to
furnish any good or service to him - none whatever. If you're naked and
starving in the street and I find you there, I am not under any innate
moral obligation to feed or clothe you.

So you set yourself up as the highest and best judge of whatever is to
be done.

Nope - just as the only valid judge of my positive duties to others. It
is so: I *am* the only valid judge of my positive duties to others.

What you are saying is that nothing but your decision matters in how you
treat anyone else.

No, I'm *not* saying that, you liar. I'm saying only my decision
matters in deciding what my positive duties to others are.

I have no say in what my negative duties to others are. My negative
duties are imposed by their rights. I must not interfere in their
lives, as long as they aren't immorally interfering in mine. A dirty
homeless person may beg from me, because that isn't an interference. If
he assaults me and tries to force me to give him something, that's an
interference, and I am entitled to kill him.

Get it, Hawke-Ptooey?


I saw from an article in the NY Times yesterday that at least 48% of
Americans are receiving some kind of government benefits although many
don't even know it.

The NY Times publishes a lot of bull**** opinion masquerading as fact.


What kind of a person rejects information and calls it bull**** when

I reject completely *your* classification of anything as information.
You are stupid and a known liar, so if you call something "information",
it almost assuredly isn't.

You're just one major weasel.

You're just one minor and inconsequential lying totalitarian,
Hawke-Ptooey. You're a ****bag, but you're basically just a minor
annoyance. I toy with you.