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.


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?


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

Correct: because they have no authority to do so.

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.

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.


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.




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.

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.



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.



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.



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.


You're claiming rights so why can't they?

You don't understand rights. That's proof of how worthless your degree
is. You should know the difference between positive and negative
rights,
and clearly you don't.


Hah, that's a laugh.

Not for you, it isn't. We're the ones laughing at you.


I'm more than a little familiar with the terms.

No, you are not.


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.

On 2/18/2012 12:45 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 2:33 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:11:37 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


"John B." wrote:

Certainly they can go out and get a haircut. What most logical people
object to is having the Government pay for the haircut.


I've only been to a barber once since I got out of the Army in the
'70s. I cut my own hair.


Probably got a job somewhere too. Hardly Hawke's idea of society.

So you too are completely ignorant of sociology too, huh?

He is aware that sociology is nothing but poetry - it has zero
explanatory power regarding human behavior.

On 2/18/2012 12:41 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

You are funny. Want to see why?

Society is not an organic entity. It has no will, it does not act.
Individual people have will and undertake actions. When they act in
concert, it does not mean some "collective" is acting; it means
individual persons are acting collectively, in pursuit of their *shared*
individual interests.

You have no clue what teamwork is.

I do know exactly what it is, having been part of many teams. It is the
concerted effort of *individual* persons working toward a *shared*, not
"collective", goal. They do it because they see it as in the
*individual* interest of each of them, and that doing so together is
more effective than doing so as individual persons.

Wrong!



That's what teamwork is.

Wrong!

An individual person can voluntarily leave a society and go inhabit
another place with a different society, or live in isolation in no
society at all. Your eyeball cannot choose on its own to go live in
someone else's eye socket, or to live in isolation.

Society can banish an individual member

No, "society" cannot do that.

Wrong!

Every time you say "society" does this or that, you are *wrong*. Society
is not an organic entity - it does nothing.


All individuals are under the power of the society.

False.

Wrong!

You can't do anything without the approval of society unless it's a
triviality.

False.

Wrong!

You really should shut up about "society" - all your beliefs and
statements about it are wrong.

You mean in a layman's opinion, right?

I mean in absolute terms. The reason is because your statement of what
society is is 100% wrong.

Wrong!



So much for the argumentative power of Mr. Plimpton. You think
substituting your opinion for the facts is a winning argument for
whatever you claim. It's not.

Hawke

On 2/18/2012 12:55 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 12:41 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

You are funny. Want to see why?

Society is not an organic entity. It has no will, it does not act.
Individual people have will and undertake actions. When they act in
concert, it does not mean some "collective" is acting; it means
individual persons are acting collectively, in pursuit of their
*shared*
individual interests.

You have no clue what teamwork is.

I do know exactly what it is, having been part of many teams. It is the
concerted effort of *individual* persons working toward a *shared*, not
"collective", goal. They do it because they see it as in the
*individual* interest of each of them, and that doing so together is
more effective than doing so as individual persons.

Wrong!

No, it's right.


That's what teamwork is.

Wrong!

No, I have accurately described teamwork.



An individual person can voluntarily leave a society and go inhabit
another place with a different society, or live in isolation in no
society at all. Your eyeball cannot choose on its own to go live in
someone else's eye socket, or to live in isolation.

Society can banish an individual member

No, "society" cannot do that.

Wrong!

No, I'm right. "Society" has no will and can do nothing. People have
wills and do things.


Every time you say "society" does this or that, you are *wrong*. Society
is not an organic entity - it does nothing.


All individuals are under the power of the society.

False.

Wrong!

You can't do anything without the approval of society unless it's a
triviality.

False.

Wrong!

No, I'm right.


You really should shut up about "society" - all your beliefs and
statements about it are wrong.

You mean in a layman's opinion, right?

I mean in absolute terms. The reason is because your statement of what
society is is 100% wrong.

Wrong!

No, I'm right.

On 2/18/2012 12:37 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/18/2012 12:09 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/17/2012 2:16 PM, jk wrote:

That's one possibility. Here's another. You are not able to understand
the reasoning and the principles upon which the decisions are made
as to
how money is taxed and distributed throughout society. Instead of
really
knowing the why behind what is done you take the easy way out and
blindly follow people who mistakenly feel they have been taken
advantage
of. If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you would
see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed
fair.

OK, take that SAME logic and apply it to your earlier argument that
the fact that some people live below (an arbitrarily defined) poverty
line, and some live above it, is unfair.

Number one, the way the government defines poverty is not arbitrarily
defined.

Irrelevant. However and by whom the line is drawn, there is nothing
"unfair" about some people living above it and some living below it.

That's easy to conclude when you have no sense of morality. It's a lot
different when no one matters but the individual.



Number two is the context in how you use the word unfair. Fair means
equal.

No, it doesn't.

You think it doesn't say that in any dictionary? It does, so that is a
valid meaning.


If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you would
see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed
fair. And you would also understand (as pointed out before) that 1/2 =
1/2 no matter how much you call it unfair.

It depends on how I am using the word fair. In a moral sense is it fair
that 1/2 are rich and 1/2 are poor? That would be no.

The answer, of course is "yes", it is fair. Fair does not mean equal.

To you if one had everything and no one else had anything that would be
fair to you. That's bizarre thinking. In your mind whatever exists is
fair. But we don't have to accept your far out views, so we don't.

The problem
with that is you assume that is a fact but you have no evidence to
support your assumption.
The problem is not only that you assume, but you maintain the
assumption even in the face of contrary evidence.

Your problem is that you are not presenting any evidence that anything
I've said is demonstrably wrong or is incorrect.

It has been shown beyond all rational dispute that your definition of
"fairness" is worthless bull****.

Only to you. How I define it is how normal people do it. You can try to
justify having crazy views any way you want but they're still crazy. You
can say smoking tobacco is good for you all you want, but it's not. Your
idea of fair is equally nutty.


If you knew more about the reality of our
economy, our government, and how they work you would not simply recite
the words you hear from other people who are also misinformed.
You know nothing about what I know about any of the above, and yet
assume I know little or nothing. You claim to know much, and
understand more.

It's simple. When I hear you say things that I've just heard Rush
Limbaugh say on his show that morning it's pretty easy to conclude where
you got it from.

No, that's a completely invalid assumption. Maybe Rush got it from him.

Now that's irrational thinking. Maybe the talk show host heard from JK
and not the other way around. That makes sense? Only to a real kook.


I listen to what people on the right say all the time.
I'm a political junky.

You are a politically naïve fool. You have a little bit of exposure to
undergraduate Marxist political theory; in no way do you understand real
politics.

I forgot more about politics than you ever knew. I'm also the least
naive person you ever met. I'm a skeptic. Your judgment about me is so
far from reality it's stupid. Your views on just about everything else
are equally off base. You pretend to know things you have no way of
knowing. You strike me as one of the most arrogant people I've every run
into, and that's saying something. A super arrogant, know it all. How
right on is that?


You seem to have the classic "mind like a steel trap".
Slams shut at the slightest touch, hard to get open, destroys what it
does grasp in it's teeth, and everything falls out the sides.

Exactly. Hawke-Ptooey doesn't know even a minute fraction of what he
pretends to know.

Get out the mirror bro. The difference is that I am not exaggerating
what I know, which is probably what has your panties up in a bunch. I am
not the kind to say anything unless I know what I'm talking about. You
probably don't know many people like me who are for real, no bull****,
people. If I tell you something you can take it to the bank. Say what
you will. I know what I am. You saying the opposite doesn't make it so.
Just like you telling everyone how great you are doesn't make it so either.

Hawke

On 2/18/2012 1:34 PM, Hawke-Ptooey, totalitarian, wrote a lot of bull****:
On 2/18/2012 12:37 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/18/2012 12:09 PM, Hawke-Ptooey, totalitarian, wrote a lot of bull****:
On 2/17/2012 2:16 PM, jk wrote:

That's one possibility. Here's another. You are not able to understand
the reasoning and the principles upon which the decisions are made
as to
how money is taxed and distributed throughout society. Instead of
really
knowing the why behind what is done you take the easy way out and
blindly follow people who mistakenly feel they have been taken
advantage
of. If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you
would
see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed
fair.

OK, take that SAME logic and apply it to your earlier argument that
the fact that some people live below (an arbitrarily defined) poverty
line, and some live above it, is unfair.

Number one, the way the government defines poverty is not arbitrarily
defined.

Irrelevant. However and by whom the line is drawn, there is nothing
"unfair" about some people living above it and some living below it.

That's easy to conclude when you have no sense of morality.

Not a refutation.



Number two is the context in how you use the word unfair. Fair means
equal.

No, it doesn't.

You think it doesn't say that in any dictionary?

It doesn't mean equal in any valid sense when describing life outcomes.


If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you would
see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed
fair. And you would also understand (as pointed out before) that 1/2 =
1/2 no matter how much you call it unfair.

It depends on how I am using the word fair. In a moral sense is it fair
that 1/2 are rich and 1/2 are poor? That would be no.

The answer, of course is "yes", it is fair. Fair does not mean equal.

To you if one had everything and no one else had anything that would be
fair to you.

It could never happen that way, but yes, if it did happen, it would be
as fair as any other outcome. *Other* than repeating your falsehood
that "fair" means "equal", you can't give any meaning to it.


That's bizarre thinking.

Nope.


In your mind whatever exists is fair.

"Fair" has no usable meaning in talking about life outcomes and the
allocation of goods and resources.


The problem
with that is you assume that is a fact but you have no evidence to
support your assumption.
The problem is not only that you assume, but you maintain the
assumption even in the face of contrary evidence.

Your problem is that you are not presenting any evidence that anything
I've said is demonstrably wrong or is incorrect.

It has been shown beyond all rational dispute that your definition of
"fairness" is worthless bull****.

Only to you.

No, objectively.


If you knew more about the reality of our
economy, our government, and how they work you would not simply recite
the words you hear from other people who are also misinformed.
You know nothing about what I know about any of the above, and yet
assume I know little or nothing. You claim to know much, and
understand more.

It's simple. When I hear you say things that I've just heard Rush
Limbaugh say on his show that morning it's pretty easy to conclude where
you got it from.

No, that's a completely invalid assumption. Maybe Rush got it from him.

Now that's irrational thinking.

No, it isn't. It may not be how it actually happened, but it is
perfectly plausible. Among other things, Limbaugh is not an original
thinker at all - he has to get his ideas from someone. JK is as
plausible a source as anyone else.



I listen to what people on the right say all the time.
I'm a political junky.

You are a politically naïve fool. You have a little bit of exposure to
undergraduate Marxist political theory; in no way do you understand real
politics.

I forgot more about politics than you ever knew.

No.


You seem to have the classic "mind like a steel trap".
Slams shut at the slightest touch, hard to get open, destroys what it
does grasp in it's teeth, and everything falls out the sides.

Exactly. Hawke-Ptooey doesn't know even a minute fraction of what he
pretends to know.

Get out the mirror bro.

I'm holding it up so you can see yourself, girl.

On Feb 18, 3:44*pm, Hawke wrote:


What kind of a person rejects information and calls it bull**** when
they clearly have no idea if it's right or wrong? A dumb ****, doofus,
fool, idiot, or many others would do. Take your pick.

Hawke

Again attack the opponent if you can't attack his ideas.

Dan

On Feb 18, 3:52*pm, George Plimpton wrote:

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.

Not a logical argument.

Dan

On 2/18/2012 2:34 PM, wrote:
On Feb 18, 3:52 pm, George wrote:

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.

Not a logical argument.

It's an observation, not an argument.

On Feb 18, 4:34*pm, Hawke wrote:



It depends on how I am using the word fair. In a moral sense is it fair
that 1/2 are rich and 1/2 are poor? That would be no.

The answer, of course is "yes", it is fair. Fair does not mean equal.

It has been shown beyond all rational dispute that your definition of
"fairness" is worthless bull****.

Only to you. How I define it is how normal people do it. You can try to
justify having crazy views any way you want but they're still crazy. You
can say smoking tobacco is good for you all you want, but it's not. Your
idea of fair is equally nutty.


Hawke

I do not think that most people would agree with your definition of
fairness. I think most people would agree that it is perfectly fair
for 1/2 the people to be poor and the other half rich , if all the
people have an equal opportunity to be rich. In other words if the
rich are rich because they earned the money and the poor are poor
because they prefered to not spend any time or effort in earning
money, then it is fair that some are rich and some poor.

In our society not all people have an equal opportunity so some people
are unfairly poor and some are fairly poor. The same for riches. Some
inherit a lot and are unfairly rich and some are rich through their
own efforts and are fairly rich.

Dan

On 2/18/2012 2:59 PM, wrote:
On Feb 18, 4:34 pm, wrote:



It depends on how I am using the word fair. In a moral sense is it fair
that 1/2 are rich and 1/2 are poor? That would be no.

The answer, of course is "yes", it is fair. Fair does not mean equal.

It has been shown beyond all rational dispute that your definition of
"fairness" is worthless bull****.

Only to you. How I define it is how normal people do it. You can try to
justify having crazy views any way you want but they're still crazy. You
can say smoking tobacco is good for you all you want, but it's not. Your
idea of fair is equally nutty.


Hawke

I do not think that most people would agree with your definition of
fairness. I think most people would agree that it is perfectly fair
for 1/2 the people to be poor and the other half rich , if all the
people have an equal opportunity to be rich. In other words if the
rich are rich because they earned the money and the poor are poor
because they prefered to not spend any time or effort in earning
money, then it is fair that some are rich and some poor.


What people who believe in rough equality of opportunity don't
understand is that totalitarians like Hawke-Ptooey only believe in
equality of *results*. If you take two people of roughly equal innate
ability, give them roughly equal education, and then turn them loose,
then if one of them due to a superior work ethic accumulates a much
greater fortune than the other, Hawke-Ptooey and other "egalitarians"
like him would say the result is "unfair".


In our society not all people have an equal opportunity so some people
are unfairly poor and some are fairly poor. The same for riches. Some
inherit a lot and are unfairly rich and some are rich through their
own efforts and are fairly rich.

I don't see anything unfair about inheriting a fortune for which one
never worked. If I bust my ass and acquire a huge fortune legally and
ethically, and want to leave it to my son, why shouldn't he have it?
What would be unfair would be to interfere with my right to bequeath my
fortune as I see fit.

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 15:35:49 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 2/18/2012 2:59 PM, wrote:
On Feb 18, 4:34 pm, wrote:



It depends on how I am using the word fair. In a moral sense is it fair
that 1/2 are rich and 1/2 are poor? That would be no.

The answer, of course is "yes", it is fair. Fair does not mean equal.

It has been shown beyond all rational dispute that your definition of
"fairness" is worthless bull****.

Only to you. How I define it is how normal people do it. You can try to
justify having crazy views any way you want but they're still crazy. You
can say smoking tobacco is good for you all you want, but it's not. Your
idea of fair is equally nutty.


Hawke

I do not think that most people would agree with your definition of
fairness. I think most people would agree that it is perfectly fair
for 1/2 the people to be poor and the other half rich , if all the
people have an equal opportunity to be rich. In other words if the
rich are rich because they earned the money and the poor are poor
because they prefered to not spend any time or effort in earning
money, then it is fair that some are rich and some poor.


What people who believe in rough equality of opportunity don't
understand is that totalitarians like Hawke-Ptooey only believe in
equality of *results*. If you take two people of roughly equal innate
ability, give them roughly equal education, and then turn them loose,
then if one of them due to a superior work ethic accumulates a much
greater fortune than the other, Hawke-Ptooey and other "egalitarians"
like him would say the result is "unfair".

I've known some hard-core egalitarians, and, except for some college
students who were experimenting with ideas, I've never known one who
would say that a difference that resulted from "a superior work ethic"
is unfair. More likely they would say that being born with a silver
spoon in one's mouth, like, say, George W. Bush, leads to unfair
results with lesser effort than someone who works hard but who doesn't
know how to leap those hurdles of birth, crony connections, legacy
admission to the schools that tend to privilege even lazy students
with the right pedigrees, etc. is likely to wind up with an unfair
result.



In our society not all people have an equal opportunity so some people
are unfairly poor and some are fairly poor. The same for riches. Some
inherit a lot and are unfairly rich and some are rich through their
own efforts and are fairly rich.

I don't see anything unfair about inheriting a fortune for which one
never worked.

This brings up interesting social question, which Rawls addressed
better than anyone else. Most people think that parents have the right
to pass on their wealth to their children. They see the "fairness"
issue in terms of what's fair to the giver.

When you start probing the fairness to the one who receives the
wealth, you get a big split in opinion. The wealth itself still does
not offend most peoples' sense of justice. But when you introduce the
idea of entrenched power that accompanies wealth, and its
self-perpetuating property across generations, the answers tend to
swing the other way.

Defenders of inheritance point out that a lot of family fortunes don't
last through many generations. Opponents point out that a lot of
family fortunes *do* last through generations.

Again, the wealth itself is not much of an issue. Power over others,
and privileging generations to follow in terms of the opportunities
they're afforded which are not afforded to others, offends most
peoples' sense of justice. In those cases, inherited wealth upends our
basic approval of fortunes acquired through merit.

This is not a question of logic. It's a question of social views about
what constitutes fairness.

If I bust my ass and acquire a huge fortune legally and
ethically, and want to leave it to my son, why shouldn't he have it?
What would be unfair would be to interfere with my right to bequeath my
fortune as I see fit.

Again, you have wide agreement avout *your* right. You have less
agreement about your son's right.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:09:52 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/17/2012 2:16 PM, jk wrote:

That's one possibility. Here's another. You are not able to understand
the reasoning and the principles upon which the decisions are made as to
how money is taxed and distributed throughout society. Instead of really
knowing the why behind what is done you take the easy way out and
blindly follow people who mistakenly feel they have been taken advantage
of. If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you would
see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed fair.

OK, take that SAME logic and apply it to your earlier argument that
the fact that some people live below (an arbitrarily defined) poverty
line, and some live above it, is unfair.

Number one, the way the government defines poverty is not arbitrarily
defined. A specific process is used to determine exactly what
constitutes "poverty" so it's not arbitrary.

Number two is the context in how you use the word unfair. Fair means
equal. If you mean that half of the people have less than the other half
then by definition that is not fair. If you are using fair in a moral or
legal way then it can mean something completely different. So it all
depends on how you are using the word fair. There is a lot of leeway in
the word fair. So it all depends on which context you use it in.

Sorry but you are wrong (again?) the common meaning of "fair" is:

" free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception;
conforming with established standards or rules"

Although I will admit that if half the people work hard and enjoys the
fruits of their labor and half are lazy layabouts living on the
government tit then most people will say that it is hardly fair to the
worker bees who are being taxed by the government to pay for the
layabout's beers and chips.

--
Cheers,

John B.

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 we're talking about
you thinking you have an automatic right just because you were born. You
seem to think that because people in the 18th century believed that then
it must be true. Well it isn't. You aren't born with rights. Nobody gave
them to you and if you claim them it's only on your on volition that you
are doing it.

Don't even start with natural law. It's not valid. All it says is laws
came from god. Religious zealots love it. It just shows how desperate
you are to show you have rights you are born with. They only way you do
is if they are given to you by a supernatural being. Are you going to be
that stupid as to claim that?

For the record I also am trained as a paralegal so I've had all kinds of
law classes. How about you, is that part of your economics training?
Don't bother lying, you're again presuming to know things you haven't a
clue about. But at least you have the nerve to argue with people who do.
One other thing, education in a subject even at a crappy school puts one
way ahead of someone with no training at all.


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. It's the
21st century now and we know you aren't born with anything as far as
rights goes. You get rights that come along with being an American
citizen. You know, by joining American society.


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 they are the
ultimate power, not your freedom of choice.


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 are ignorant in that field. So why should anyone
listen to you talk about society? You know jack **** about it. Just
about everything you say about it is incorrect.



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. Kind of like
you're part of a society where your rights and other's duties are
closely intertwined. Not like you say, a bunch of separate individuals
doing whatever they want.


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. If you can
impose a duty on another then you have power over them.



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? Does everybody do that
for them self? So if I think you're doing something that is interfering
with me then I get to do on my own whatever I want to stop your behavior?



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. You having the right to live is
not the same thing as not having others interfere with you. You don't
get it, do you? Those are separate concepts. You can't see that and
you're calling me names. Give me a break.


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.



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.



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. It's up to no one but you. So you set your self up as
god. If you owe a duty to anyone you're the judge, right? Nothing is
higher than you. That view shows how weird you are.



You're claiming rights so why can't they?

You don't understand rights. That's proof of how worthless your degree
is. You should know the difference between positive and negative
rights,
and clearly you don't.


Hah, that's a laugh.

Not for you, it isn't. We're the ones laughing at you.


I'm more than a little familiar with the terms.

No, you are not.


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. When I told you what the Times published
you said it publishes a lot of bull**** opinion masquerading as fact.
You are entitled to that opinion. However, the Times article was stating
a statistic that it has the references for. So it was publishing a fact.
You rejected that without even knowing anything about it, which is what
ignorant, partisan, fools do.

Then you turn around and try to blame the messenger, me, for the Times
article, and then you follow it up with personal attacks. Which really
just shows that you're a spineless weasel, with a big mouth, and that
your degree is worthless because you act more like a street person than
someone with an education.

Hawke

On 2/18/2012 2:34 PM, wrote:
On Feb 18, 3:52 pm, George wrote:

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.

Not a logical argument.

Dan



You're getting better Dan. You see how he does it? When he can't find
anything wrong with what I have said he attacks me personally. He says I
can't classify anything as information, he calls me stupid, and a liar,
and ends by saying that whatever I say it's probably not true.

Unfortunately, all I did was say what the NY Times printed in an
article. That's it! He didn't even try to argue with what they said or
rebut the Times in any way. He just went directly to attacking me. When
you see someone do that it's a clear signal that they know they are
losing the argument. And he does. It shows desperation because he sees
he's losing.

Hawke

On 2/18/2012 12:53 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Probably got a job somewhere too. Hardly Hawke's idea of society.

So you too are completely ignorant of sociology too, huh?

He is aware that sociology is nothing but poetry - it has zero
explanatory power regarding human behavior.


Oh, so it's just like economics.

Hawke

On 2/18/2012 2:02 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

If you knew more about the reality of our
economy, our government, and how they work you would not simply
recite
the words you hear from other people who are also misinformed.
You know nothing about what I know about any of the above, and yet
assume I know little or nothing. You claim to know much, and
understand more.

It's simple. When I hear you say things that I've just heard Rush
Limbaugh say on his show that morning it's pretty easy to conclude
where
you got it from.

No, that's a completely invalid assumption. Maybe Rush got it from him.

Now that's irrational thinking.

No, it isn't. It may not be how it actually happened, but it is
perfectly plausible. Among other things, Limbaugh is not an original
thinker at all - he has to get his ideas from someone. JK is as
plausible a source as anyone else.



I listen to what people on the right say all the time.
I'm a political junky.

You are a politically naïve fool. You have a little bit of exposure to
undergraduate Marxist political theory; in no way do you understand real
politics.

I forgot more about politics than you ever knew.

No.


You seem to have the classic "mind like a steel trap".
Slams shut at the slightest touch, hard to get open, destroys what it
does grasp in it's teeth, and everything falls out the sides.

Exactly. Hawke-Ptooey doesn't know even a minute fraction of what he
pretends to know.

Get out the mirror bro.

I'm holding it up so you can see yourself, girl.


What you are seeing is your own vagina.

Hawke

On 2/18/2012 2:59 PM, wrote:
On Feb 18, 4:34 pm, wrote:



It depends on how I am using the word fair. In a moral sense is it fair
that 1/2 are rich and 1/2 are poor? That would be no.

The answer, of course is "yes", it is fair. Fair does not mean equal.

It has been shown beyond all rational dispute that your definition of
"fairness" is worthless bull****.

Only to you. How I define it is how normal people do it. You can try to
justify having crazy views any way you want but they're still crazy. You
can say smoking tobacco is good for you all you want, but it's not. Your
idea of fair is equally nutty.


Hawke

I do not think that most people would agree with your definition of
fairness. I think most people would agree that it is perfectly fair
for 1/2 the people to be poor and the other half rich , if all the
people have an equal opportunity to be rich.

See, Dan, you qualified your statement by saying if everyone had an
equal opportunity to be rich. But we all know that isn't the way it is,
right? So opportunity is not fairly distributed. That means my idea of
fairness is not so bad is it?



In other words if the
rich are rich because they earned the money and the poor are poor
because they prefered to not spend any time or effort in earning
money, then it is fair that some are rich and some poor.

That would be a much better argument, yes. But again, we know that it's
not just a matter of who puts out a good work effort and who didn't.
Many people work like dogs and remain poor. How people get rich isn't
equally doled out so lots of people who don't earn wealth get it anyway.



In our society not all people have an equal opportunity so some people
are unfairly poor and some are fairly poor. The same for riches. Some
inherit a lot and are unfairly rich and some are rich through their
own efforts and are fairly rich.

So what does that mean? Sometimes it is fair that someone is rich and
sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's fair to be poor and sometimes it's
not. But nothing here leads to any kind of conclusion. My main point is
that America's wealth is unfairly distributed with a few having way more
than they should. Many people agree with me.


Hawke

On 2/18/2012 4:26 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:


In our society not all people have an equal opportunity so some people
are unfairly poor and some are fairly poor. The same for riches. Some
inherit a lot and are unfairly rich and some are rich through their
own efforts and are fairly rich.

I don't see anything unfair about inheriting a fortune for which one
never worked.

This brings up interesting social question, which Rawls addressed
better than anyone else. Most people think that parents have the right
to pass on their wealth to their children. They see the "fairness"
issue in terms of what's fair to the giver.

When you start probing the fairness to the one who receives the
wealth, you get a big split in opinion. The wealth itself still does
not offend most peoples' sense of justice. But when you introduce the
idea of entrenched power that accompanies wealth, and its
self-perpetuating property across generations, the answers tend to
swing the other way.

Defenders of inheritance point out that a lot of family fortunes don't
last through many generations. Opponents point out that a lot of
family fortunes *do* last through generations.

Again, the wealth itself is not much of an issue. Power over others,
and privileging generations to follow in terms of the opportunities
they're afforded which are not afforded to others, offends most
peoples' sense of justice. In those cases, inherited wealth upends our
basic approval of fortunes acquired through merit.

This is not a question of logic. It's a question of social views about
what constitutes fairness.

If I bust my ass and acquire a huge fortune legally and
ethically, and want to leave it to my son, why shouldn't he have it?
What would be unfair would be to interfere with my right to bequeath my
fortune as I see fit.

Again, you have wide agreement avout *your* right. You have less
agreement about your son's right.


His problem is that all he knows about, sees, or cares about in any way
are his rights. Nothing else matters to him.


Hawke

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.

On 2/18/2012 6:56 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 12:53 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Probably got a job somewhere too. Hardly Hawke's idea of society.

So you too are completely ignorant of sociology too, huh?

He is aware that sociology is nothing but poetry - it has zero
explanatory power regarding human behavior.


Oh, so it's just like economics.

No. Economics has magnificent predictive power. Sociology has none.

On 2/18/2012 7:02 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 2:02 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

If you knew more about the reality of our
economy, our government, and how they work you would not simply
recite
the words you hear from other people who are also misinformed.
You know nothing about what I know about any of the above, and yet
assume I know little or nothing. You claim to know much, and
understand more.

It's simple. When I hear you say things that I've just heard Rush
Limbaugh say on his show that morning it's pretty easy to conclude
where
you got it from.

No, that's a completely invalid assumption. Maybe Rush got it from him.

Now that's irrational thinking.

No, it isn't. It may not be how it actually happened, but it is
perfectly plausible. Among other things, Limbaugh is not an original
thinker at all - he has to get his ideas from someone. JK is as
plausible a source as anyone else.

Your silence here speaks volumes.


I listen to what people on the right say all the time.
I'm a political junky.

You are a politically naïve fool. You have a little bit of exposure to
undergraduate Marxist political theory; in no way do you understand
real
politics.

I forgot more about politics than you ever knew.

No.

Here, too.


You seem to have the classic "mind like a steel trap".
Slams shut at the slightest touch, hard to get open, destroys what it
does grasp in it's teeth, and everything falls out the sides.

Exactly. Hawke-Ptooey doesn't know even a minute fraction of what he
pretends to know.

Get out the mirror bro.

I'm holding it up so you can see yourself, girl.


What you are seeing is

....the back of the mirror.

On 2/18/2012 7:12 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 2:59 PM, wrote:
On Feb 18, 4:34 pm, wrote:



It depends on how I am using the word fair. In a moral sense is it
fair
that 1/2 are rich and 1/2 are poor? That would be no.

The answer, of course is "yes", it is fair. Fair does not mean equal.

It has been shown beyond all rational dispute that your definition of
"fairness" is worthless bull****.

Only to you. How I define it is how normal people do it. You can try to
justify having crazy views any way you want but they're still crazy. You
can say smoking tobacco is good for you all you want, but it's not. Your
idea of fair is equally nutty.


Hawke

I do not think that most people would agree with your definition of
fairness. I think most people would agree that it is perfectly fair
for 1/2 the people to be poor and the other half rich , if all the
people have an equal opportunity to be rich.

See, Dan, you qualified your statement by saying if everyone had an
equal opportunity to be rich.

Everyone *does* have an equal opportunity to be rich.



In other words if the
rich are rich because they earned the money and the poor are poor
because they prefered to not spend any time or effort in earning
money, then it is fair that some are rich and some poor.

That would be a much better argument, yes.

That *is* the argument.


But again, we know that it's
not just a matter of who puts out a good work effort and who didn't.

That's almost entirely the argument.



In our society not all people have an equal opportunity so some people
are unfairly poor and some are fairly poor. The same for riches. Some
inherit a lot and are unfairly rich and some are rich through their
own efforts and are fairly rich.

So what does that mean?

It means that you need to keep your grubby totalitarian mitts off
people's money.

On 2/18/2012 7:21 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 4:26 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:


In our society not all people have an equal opportunity so some people
are unfairly poor and some are fairly poor. The same for riches. Some
inherit a lot and are unfairly rich and some are rich through their
own efforts and are fairly rich.

I don't see anything unfair about inheriting a fortune for which one
never worked.

This brings up interesting social question, which Rawls addressed
better than anyone else. Most people think that parents have the right
to pass on their wealth to their children. They see the "fairness"
issue in terms of what's fair to the giver.

When you start probing the fairness to the one who receives the
wealth, you get a big split in opinion. The wealth itself still does
not offend most peoples' sense of justice. But when you introduce the
idea of entrenched power that accompanies wealth, and its
self-perpetuating property across generations, the answers tend to
swing the other way.

Defenders of inheritance point out that a lot of family fortunes don't
last through many generations. Opponents point out that a lot of
family fortunes *do* last through generations.

Again, the wealth itself is not much of an issue. Power over others,
and privileging generations to follow in terms of the opportunities
they're afforded which are not afforded to others, offends most
peoples' sense of justice. In those cases, inherited wealth upends our
basic approval of fortunes acquired through merit.

This is not a question of logic. It's a question of social views about
what constitutes fairness.

If I bust my ass and acquire a huge fortune legally and
ethically, and want to leave it to my son, why shouldn't he have it?
What would be unfair would be to interfere with my right to bequeath my
fortune as I see fit.

Again, you have wide agreement avout *your* right. You have less
agreement about your son's right.


His problem is that all he knows about, sees, or cares about in any way
are his rights.

That's false, which is why it isn't a problem.

On 2/18/2012 5:14 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:09:52 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/17/2012 2:16 PM, jk wrote:

That's one possibility. Here's another. You are not able to understand
the reasoning and the principles upon which the decisions are made as to
how money is taxed and distributed throughout society. Instead of really
knowing the why behind what is done you take the easy way out and
blindly follow people who mistakenly feel they have been taken advantage
of. If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you would
see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed fair.

OK, take that SAME logic and apply it to your earlier argument that
the fact that some people live below (an arbitrarily defined) poverty
line, and some live above it, is unfair.

Number one, the way the government defines poverty is not arbitrarily
defined. A specific process is used to determine exactly what
constitutes "poverty" so it's not arbitrary.

Number two is the context in how you use the word unfair. Fair means
equal. If you mean that half of the people have less than the other half
then by definition that is not fair. If you are using fair in a moral or
legal way then it can mean something completely different. So it all
depends on how you are using the word fair. There is a lot of leeway in
the word fair. So it all depends on which context you use it in.

Sorry but you are wrong (again?) the common meaning of "fair" is:

" free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception;
conforming with established standards or rules"

Although I will admit that if half the people work hard and enjoys the
fruits of their labor and half are lazy layabouts living on the
government tit then most people will say that it is hardly fair to the
worker bees who are being taxed by the government to pay for the
layabout's beers and chips.

It needn't even be that drastic. Assume everyone works reasonably hard
and to the best of his ability; assume there are no layabouts. Assume
different people all have different innate abilities. Then it is
reasonable to assume there will be a distribution of unequal wages, with
some earning more than others. By statistical definition, there will be
a median wage: half will earn below the median, and half will earn
above it.

That would be fair. There is no reason to think that two people both
working the same amount of time with roughly the same degree of effort
"ought" to earn the same amount of money. This is what was always, and
is still, wrong with the feminists' "equal pay for equal work" mantra:
they are looking only at the amount of input - effort - without regard
to the *value* of the output.

On Feb 18, 10:12*pm, Hawke wrote:


See, Dan, you qualified your statement by saying if everyone had an
equal opportunity to be rich. But we all know that isn't the way it is,
right? So opportunity is not fairly distributed. That means my idea of
fairness is not so bad is it?

Actually it means your idea of fairness in flawed.

That would be a much better argument, yes. But again, we know that it's
not just a matter of who puts out a good work effort and who didn't.
Many people work like dogs and remain poor. How people get rich isn't
equally doled out so lots of people who don't earn wealth get it anyway.


But lots do, so your definition is flawed.


So what does that mean? Sometimes it is fair that someone is rich and
sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's fair to be poor and sometimes it's
not. But nothing here leads to any kind of conclusion. My main point is
that America's wealth is unfairly distributed with a few having way more
than they should. Many people agree with me.

Hawke

And many people disagree with you.

Dan

Hawke wrote:

However, the Times article was stating
a statistic that it has the references for.

No YOU assume they have the references for it, but you don't know they
have them.

So it was publishing a fact.

OR their opinion of how they interpret the statistics they have.


Their idea of "benefit" might not agree with mine, or yours, or
Georges. That doesn't make their statement a "fact"

jk

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:46:34 -0800, jk wrote:

Hawke wrote:

However, the Times article was stating
a statistic that it has the references for.

No YOU assume they have the references for it, but you don't know they
have them.

They have references for it. If you care, I'll post them for you. If
you're just arguing for argument's sake, don't bother.

As for who receives benefits, it's not the poor so much as the old.


So it was publishing a fact.

OR their opinion of how they interpret the statistics they have.

This isn't opinion. They have the stats, from different sources.



Their idea of "benefit" might not agree with mine, or yours, or
Georges. That doesn't make their statement a "fact"

jk

If you count money coming from the government and going directly to
individuals, it's a fact. It's also easy to measure and to confirm.

--
Ed Huntress

Hawke wrote:

On 2/17/2012 2:16 PM, jk wrote:



If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you would
see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed
fair. And you would also understand (as pointed out before) that 1/2 =
1/2 no matter how much you call it unfair.

It depends on how I am using the word fair. In a moral sense is it fair
that 1/2 are rich and 1/2 are poor? That would be no.
But you claim to be the big champion of fairness, so why haven't you
given ALL your money to those with less than you. Its the moral thing
to do, according to you.

You haven't, so by your own definition, you are being immoral.

But the ONLY way for that NOT to be the case would be if everyone had
the EXACT same things. Same living space, same TV, Same car, same
food, same clothes, every thing, heck we all even have to have the
same name. Oh heck we all have to have the same genes, and same
influences growing up. We all have to be educated the exact same way,
and get the exact same grades. Can't have sports, because having
winners and losers is immoral too.

So unless this is your idea of a "moral" world, I reject your concept
of "some people having more than others as being immoral" as absurd.



Those who want to take your valuables and in return give you nothing are
thieves. Okay, we've both made pretty much true statements about those
who take without giving back. So what does that have to do with
anything?

It has to do with everything., but you will never see it.

Because I see that taking from one person against their will, and
giving it to another, in the misguided effort to make them exactly
equal is wrong, and you seem to think it is a laudable goal.


If you are implying that the lower classes in America are
guilty of what you said then you see the poor as thieves.

I don't agree that we have a "lower" class, apparently you do. How
superior of you. I do see that we have a ruling class however.

So according to you we do have a ruling class but we don't have a lower
class. How about a middle class? Do we have one of those? How about the
working class? do we have one of those? I'm sorry to break you the news
but America is a class society and always has been. Even you admit to
some classes so there you go, the only difference is you see less
classes than others do. Others who know more about it than you.
Due to your reading comprehension issues I will reiterate.
I reject your use and intent, in the use of the word "lower".

Not that I agree that we are a "class society" in the same sense that
England has been, and continues to be, or that India has been and
continues to be


The problem
with that is you assume that is a fact but you have no evidence to
support your assumption.
The problem is not only that you assume, but you maintain the
assumption even in the face of contrary evidence.

Your problem is that you are not presenting any evidence that anything
I've said is demonstrably wrong or is incorrect. Show me some proof I am
wrong. Your opinions are proof of nothing.
Bull ****, and your own words about even you knowing some one who
violated a rule you set up [ALL people with belief X having Religion
C]
is in itself sufficient.

If you knew more about the reality of our
economy, our government, and how they work you would not simply recite
the words you hear from other people who are also misinformed.
You know nothing about what I know about any of the above, and yet
assume I know little or nothing. You claim to know much, and
understand more.

It's simple. When I hear you say things that I've just heard Rush
Limbaugh say on his show that morning it's pretty easy to conclude where
you got it from.
And you would be wrong, on those few occasions I have listened to the
junkie, I didn't find him particularly entertaining. As I said else
where When I originally heard him, I thought he was a comedian who
never reached the punch line.


I listen to what people on the right say all the time.
But It would appear from your statements, that you do so with a closed
mind.
I'm a political junky. So when you say the same things what am I
supposed to think?
Unlike you, I am not going to tell you what you should think.
I would rather that you ACTUALLY think, rather than parroting a line
of blather from the winged nutcase you follow.

You saying the same exact things are just
coincidental? Come off it. You think what you are saying is original?
I've heard it before.




You seem to have the classic "mind like a steel trap".
Slams shut at the slightest touch, hard to get open, destroys what it
does grasp in it's teeth, and everything falls out the sides.


Your mind seems to be one that makes judgments without evidence.

You seem to be quite good at that.
Since you know what I know on so many subjects.

Please tell me where I stand on these issues.
Abortion
The environment
Global Warming
Patriot Act
Nuclear Power
Decriminalization of Pot.
The peace corps
Complete Legalization of Pot.
NASA
The first gulf war
Space Travel in General
Nanotechnology
PBS/NPR
The War in Afghanistan
The second gulf war
Foreign Aid

I've seen nothing.
That is hard to do with your eyes closed.

jk

Hawke wrote:

On 2/17/2012 2:16 PM, jk wrote:



Number two is the context in how you use the word unfair. Fair means
equal.

How about you start using the word the way most of the world does, and
use a dictionary.
fair1 /f??r/ Show Spelled [fair] Show IPA adjective, fair·er,
fair·est, adverb, fair·er, fair·est, noun, verb
adjective
1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair
judge.
2. legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the
rules: a fair fight.
3. moderately large; ample: a fair income.
4. neither excellent nor poor; moderately or tolerably good: fair
health.
5. marked by favoring conditions; likely; promising: in a fair way to
succeed.
EXPAND
6. Meteorology .
a. (of the sky) bright; sunny; cloudless to half-cloudy.
b. (of the weather) fine; with no prospect of rain, snow, or hail; not
stormy.
7. Nautical . (of a wind or tide) tending to aid the progress of a
vessel.
8. unobstructed; not blocked up: The way was fair for our advance.
9. without irregularity or unevenness: a fair surface.
10. free from blemish, imperfection, or anything that impairs the
appearance, quality, or character: Her fair reputation was ruined by
gossip.
11. easy to read; clear: fair handwriting.
12. of a light hue; not dark: fair skin.
13. pleasing in appearance; attractive: a fair young maiden.
14. seemingly good or sincere but not really so: The suitor beguiled
his mistress with fair speeches.
15. courteous; civil: fair words.
16. Medicine/Medical . (of a patient's condition) having stable and
normal vital signs and other favorable indicators, as appetite and
mobility, but being in some discomfort and having the possibility of a
worsening state.




If you mean that half of the people have less than the other half
then by definition that is not fair. If you are using fair in a moral or
legal way then it can mean something completely different. So it all
depends on how you are using the word fair. There is a lot of leeway in
the word fair. So it all depends on which context you use it in.



If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you would
see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed
fair. And you would also understand (as pointed out before) that 1/2 =
1/2 no matter how much you call it unfair.

It depends on how I am using the word fair. In a moral sense is it fair
that 1/2 are rich and 1/2 are poor? That would be no.


Those who want to take your valuables and in return give you nothing are
thieves. Okay, we've both made pretty much true statements about those
who take without giving back. So what does that have to do with
anything?

It has to do with everything., but you will never see it.

Since you aren't able to even state why it has anything to do with
anything else then I must conclude that it's something you can't see
either. Or is it you just can speak it?


If you are implying that the lower classes in America are
guilty of what you said then you see the poor as thieves.

I don't agree that we have a "lower" class, apparently you do. How
superior of you. I do see that we have a ruling class however.

So according to you we do have a ruling class but we don't have a lower
class. How about a middle class? Do we have one of those? How about the
working class? do we have one of those? I'm sorry to break you the news
but America is a class society and always has been. Even you admit to
some classes so there you go, the only difference is you see less
classes than others do. Others who know more about it than you.


The problem
with that is you assume that is a fact but you have no evidence to
support your assumption.
The problem is not only that you assume, but you maintain the
assumption even in the face of contrary evidence.

Your problem is that you are not presenting any evidence that anything
I've said is demonstrably wrong or is incorrect. Show me some proof I am
wrong. Your opinions are proof of nothing.


If you knew more about the reality of our
economy, our government, and how they work you would not simply recite
the words you hear from other people who are also misinformed.
You know nothing about what I know about any of the above, and yet
assume I know little or nothing. You claim to know much, and
understand more.

It's simple. When I hear you say things that I've just heard Rush
Limbaugh say on his show that morning it's pretty easy to conclude where
you got it from. I listen to what people on the right say all the time.
I'm a political junky. So when you say the same things what am I
supposed to think? You saying the same exact things are just
coincidental? Come off it. You think what you are saying is original?
I've heard it before.

You seem to have the classic "mind like a steel trap".
Slams shut at the slightest touch, hard to get open, destroys what it
does grasp in it's teeth, and everything falls out the sides.


Your mind seems to be one that makes judgments without evidence. Show me
some time where you showed some proof that supported your statements.
I've seen nothing.

Hawke
jk

Hawke wrote:

On 2/18/2012 12:37 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/18/2012 12:09 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/17/2012 2:16 PM, jk wrote:

That's one possibility. Here's another. You are not able to understand
the reasoning and the principles upon which the decisions are made
as to
how money is taxed and distributed throughout society. Instead of
really
knowing the why behind what is done you take the easy way out and
blindly follow people who mistakenly feel they have been taken
advantage
of. If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you would
see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed
fair.

OK, take that SAME logic and apply it to your earlier argument that
the fact that some people live below (an arbitrarily defined) poverty
line, and some live above it, is unfair.

Number one, the way the government defines poverty is not arbitrarily
defined.

Irrelevant. However and by whom the line is drawn, there is nothing
"unfair" about some people living above it and some living below it.

That's easy to conclude when you have no sense of morality. It's a lot
different when no one matters but the individual.



Number two is the context in how you use the word unfair. Fair means
equal.

No, it doesn't.

You think it doesn't say that in any dictionary? It does, so that is a
valid meaning.

Exactly what dictionary.
Perhaps "Hawke's NonStandard Abuse of the English Language"?
jk

Hawke wrote:



So what does that mean? Sometimes it is fair that someone is rich and
sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's fair to be poor and sometimes it's
not.


Which contradicts what you said earlier.

jk

On 2/18/2012 8:08 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

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.

I'm not interested in Jefferson's views for two reasons. One, I know
them, and two, they are not applicable here. Third, where does a
Fascist, control freak like you get off calling someone else a totalitarian?


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

It is valid.

Not valid because you can't interpret it without clergy.


For the record I also am trained as a paralegal so

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

You call it whatever kind of job you like. What it means though is that
once again you are in over your head arguing law with a paralegal when
you don't know anything about the subject. You presume to know when you
are ignorant. That's how fools operate.



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.

Not when you're talking about natural law. Neither Marx, Lenin, or Mao,
care about it either because they were atheists. So neither do I. You
pretend that you got some rights handed to you by a spiritual being if
you want. All that does is make you look like an even worse crackpot
than before. You have to go to spirits to justify yourself. What a buffoon.



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.

You are so ignorant about politics it should shame you. People are the
ultimate source from which all your rights come. They are what
legitimizes the power of the state to grant or deprive you of your
rights. Your ignorance of how things work is amazing.


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.

So says a man who has not taken the time or made the effort to learn
what sociology does teach.


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.

Maybe the problem is you don't know what the word entity means. Or maybe
you just don't understand how an organization works. You probably
believe that a corporation is a person, right? Well, that's how a group
of individuals is a society and acts as a society and not as simply a
group of individuals. So your fact is not a fact. It's your opinion.



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.

You are connected to them. You are connected to everyone by being part
of society. You mistakenly think you are only connected to someone if
you interact with them directly but that's not how it is. Is a society
you are connected to everyone else, in one way or another. You are a cog
in the machine no matter how much you say you aren't. Everybody is
depending on everybody else. The soldiers fighting in Afghanistan are
connected to you, for example. The duties and rights you talk about are
in effect between you and them and between every one else too. You can't
be a part of society and outside of society at the same time. You are
either in it or you are not. YOU ARE IN THIS SOCIETY! Too bad for you.
So you have to go along with it or pay the price.



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.

You are. By demanding your right to life you are imposing duties on
them. So your right to life is putting you in a position where you have
the power to impose your view of what duties they owe to you. Maybe they
don't want to owe you any duties. Will you give up your right to live so
they won't? Hell no, so you are forcing your will on others. But then
you're a Fascist so that's normal for you.

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.

Sounds like it's you that gets to decide exactly what constitutes
interfering in your life or not, doesn't it? Like always you are the one
who gets to make the decision. Mr. Pimpton, the little dictator. You're
everybody's boss. Notice that? At every turn it's you who decides
everything. And you accuse me of being a totalitarian? What a joke.
You're a baby dictator. Good thing you have no power in "society".

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.

No it isn't. It's an observation.


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.

No it is not and you would have to be pretty dumb not to be able to see
the difference. I won't bother explaining it again, you won't get it.



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?

What can one say to such utter nonsense? It doesn't deserve a reply. I
mean you using the word moral just doesn't fit. Your philosophy is amoral.




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?

Huh, uh, I don't. But I bet you think you do though, right? Tell me
about him or her or whatever? Oh, and where did you learn about it from?
Church?


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?

What I get is that you are not rational. Your conclusions do not
logically follow from your premise. You jump radically from one thing to
another with no connection between them. Then you say it makes sense.

The reality is you are setting yourself up as judge, jury, and
executioner, over everything and everybody. You concoct one excuse or
irrational argument after another so that in the end all that matters is
that whatever you decide that is what is right. The truth is that's
getting into the realm of real mental disease. At least it demonstrates
some kind of thought disorder. You wind up sounding like some kind of
little child demanding he get everything done his way or else.

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.

So you end with childish personal insults as you usually do because you
have nothing of value to say. Thanks for showing everyone how ignorant
someone can be when all they have is an old outdated degree in
economics. As many have pointed out, a college degree doesn't mean very
much as far as brains or knowledge are concerned. You're worthless and
unsupported arguments have more than proven you got nothing from going
to college. You should have saved your money.

Hawke

On 2/18/2012 8:09 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/18/2012 6:56 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 12:53 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Probably got a job somewhere too. Hardly Hawke's idea of society.

So you too are completely ignorant of sociology too, huh?

He is aware that sociology is nothing but poetry - it has zero
explanatory power regarding human behavior.


Oh, so it's just like economics.

No. Economics has magnificent predictive power. Sociology has none.


Yeah, so you say. I get it. What you don't get is that is just one man's
opinion, yours. And that's worthless.

Hawke

On Feb 19, 6:17*pm, Hawke wrote:

No. Economics has magnificent predictive power. Sociology has none.

Yeah, so you say. I get it. What you don't get is that is just one man's
opinion, yours. And that's worthless.

Hawke

At least two men's opinion and actually an opinion that is worth
paying attention to.

Dan

On 2/18/2012 9:12 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/18/2012 7:21 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 4:26 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:


In our society not all people have an equal opportunity so some people
are unfairly poor and some are fairly poor. The same for riches. Some
inherit a lot and are unfairly rich and some are rich through their
own efforts and are fairly rich.

I don't see anything unfair about inheriting a fortune for which one
never worked.

This brings up interesting social question, which Rawls addressed
better than anyone else. Most people think that parents have the right
to pass on their wealth to their children. They see the "fairness"
issue in terms of what's fair to the giver.

When you start probing the fairness to the one who receives the
wealth, you get a big split in opinion. The wealth itself still does
not offend most peoples' sense of justice. But when you introduce the
idea of entrenched power that accompanies wealth, and its
self-perpetuating property across generations, the answers tend to
swing the other way.

Defenders of inheritance point out that a lot of family fortunes don't
last through many generations. Opponents point out that a lot of
family fortunes *do* last through generations.

Again, the wealth itself is not much of an issue. Power over others,
and privileging generations to follow in terms of the opportunities
they're afforded which are not afforded to others, offends most
peoples' sense of justice. In those cases, inherited wealth upends our
basic approval of fortunes acquired through merit.

This is not a question of logic. It's a question of social views about
what constitutes fairness.

If I bust my ass and acquire a huge fortune legally and
ethically, and want to leave it to my son, why shouldn't he have it?
What would be unfair would be to interfere with my right to bequeath my
fortune as I see fit.

Again, you have wide agreement avout *your* right. You have less
agreement about your son's right.


His problem is that all he knows about, sees, or cares about in any way
are his rights.

That's false, which is why it isn't a problem.


All you have to do is read what you have written and it is as plain as
the nose on your face. You put yourself and your rights at the center of
the universe. The selfishness that your views show is so blatant that
everyone reading what you write can see how highly you think of
yourself. They can also see how much you like to put down others too.

Hawke

On 2/19/2012 3:16 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 8:08 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

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.

I'm not interested in Jefferson's views for two reasons.

You're not interested in them because they are the antithesis of your
totalitarianism.


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

It is valid.

Not valid

It is valid. It has nothing to do with religion.


For the record I also am trained as a paralegal so

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

You call it whatever kind of job you like.

You don't know the law.


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.

Not when you're talking about natural law. Neither Marx, Lenin, or Mao,
care about it either because they were atheists.

You worship Marx, Lenin and Mao.

Natural law has nothing to do with religion - zero.


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.

You are so ignorant about politics it should shame you.

You are the one who is ignorant of politics, law and philosophy. Oh,
and economics, too.



People are the
ultimate source from which all your rights come.

No.



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.

So says a man who has not taken the time or made the effort to learn
what sociology does teach.

I had a couple of sociology classes. They were utter bull**** - nothing
but opinion; no theory.


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.

Maybe the problem is you don't know what the word entity means.

I know what it means, and I know society isn't one. It's a description;
nothing more.



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.

You are connected to them.

Prove it.


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.

You are.

Nope.


By demanding your right to life you are imposing duties on
them.

No, it isn't my "demand" that does that - it is the *fact* of my right
to my life.



So your right to life is putting you in a position where you have
the power to impose your view

Nope - no imposition of any view. This is the meaning of a person
having a right to his own life: others must not interfere in it.


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.

Sounds like it's you that gets to decide exactly what constitutes
interfering in your life or not, doesn't it?

Who else would it be, Hawke-Ptooey, you ****wit?


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.

No it isn't.

It's just bull****.


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.

No it is not

It is, of course.



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?

What can one say to such utter nonsense?

Your silence indicates you're stuck.



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?

Huh, uh, I don't.

You don't know anything about any of this, Hawke-Ptooey, you flatulent
bitch.


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?

What I get is that you are not rational.

/non sequitur/, Hawke-Ptooey - that was just a stupid comment.


The reality is you are setting yourself up as judge, jury, and
executioner,

No.


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.

So you end with childish personal insults as you usually do because

Because you're not worthy of anything more.

On 2/19/2012 3:17 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 8:09 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/18/2012 6:56 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 12:53 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Probably got a job somewhere too. Hardly Hawke's idea of society.

So you too are completely ignorant of sociology too, huh?

He is aware that sociology is nothing but poetry - it has zero
explanatory power regarding human behavior.


Oh, so it's just like economics.

No. Economics has magnificent predictive power. Sociology has none.


Yeah, so you say.

So a comparison of the two proves.

On 2/18/2012 9:11 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

I do not think that most people would agree with your definition of
fairness. I think most people would agree that it is perfectly fair
for 1/2 the people to be poor and the other half rich , if all the
people have an equal opportunity to be rich.

See, Dan, you qualified your statement by saying if everyone had an
equal opportunity to be rich.

Everyone *does* have an equal opportunity to be rich.

Just like everyone has an equal opportunity to play in the NBA. We all
do don't we? We all have an equal shot at it? Yeah, sure we do.


In other words if the
rich are rich because they earned the money and the poor are poor
because they prefered to not spend any time or effort in earning
money, then it is fair that some are rich and some poor.

That would be a much better argument, yes.

That *is* the argument.

I said "if" because anyone with any brains knows that isn't the way it
is in the real world.

But again, we know that it's
not just a matter of who puts out a good work effort and who didn't.

That's almost entirely the argument.

That's not the argument at all. Because if it was then that would mean
Paris Hilton has put in far more work effort to earn money than you
have. She's worked far harder than you and has earned more because of
her superior effort. But something tells me you think you put in more
work than she has in making a living. So the fact she makes a lot more
than you do has nothing to do with the effort put into it does it?


In our society not all people have an equal opportunity so some people
are unfairly poor and some are fairly poor. The same for riches. Some
inherit a lot and are unfairly rich and some are rich through their
own efforts and are fairly rich.

So what does that mean?

It means that you need to keep your grubby totalitarian mitts off
people's money.

Or it means quit working so that way you won't have any duty to pay into
the American system you are a part of. But as long as you are going to
work then you are going to be obligated to pay taxes.

Hawke

On 2/19/2012 5:12 AM, wrote:
On Feb 18, 10:12 pm, wrote:


See, Dan, you qualified your statement by saying if everyone had an
equal opportunity to be rich. But we all know that isn't the way it is,
right? So opportunity is not fairly distributed. That means my idea of
fairness is not so bad is it?

Actually it means your idea of fairness in flawed.

That would be a much better argument, yes. But again, we know that it's
not just a matter of who puts out a good work effort and who didn't.
Many people work like dogs and remain poor. How people get rich isn't
equally doled out so lots of people who don't earn wealth get it anyway.


But lots do, so your definition is flawed.


So what does that mean? Sometimes it is fair that someone is rich and
sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's fair to be poor and sometimes it's
not. But nothing here leads to any kind of conclusion. My main point is
that America's wealth is unfairly distributed with a few having way more
than they should. Many people agree with me.

Hawke

And many people disagree with you.

Dan



Many more agree. That's why we have the occupy movement and why people
are always talking about the 1% these days. It's because everybody knows
now that what we have is not fair. It may seem fair to the 1% but not to
the 99%. I tend to believe what the 99% say. What about you? Do you
agree with the 1% that they don't have too much of the country's wealth?

Hawke