In order to counter the doctrine of 'Divine Right of Kings", 18th century classical liberal philosophers invented the theory "all are created equal before the law, with certain 'inalienable rights'".

Note:  Divine Right of Kings:
in European history, a political doctrine in defense of monarchical absolutism, which asserted that kings derived their authority from God and could not therefore be held accountable for their actions by any earthly authority such as a parliament.

Interestingly, many centuries earlier a check on royal power had already been enacted in Britain:

Magna Carta was issued in June 1215 and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law. It sought to prevent the king from exploiting his power, and placed limits of royal authority by establishing law as a power in itself.

...obviously resisted by kings themselves in succeeding centuries.

But the classical liberal formulation "all are created equal before the law" defines the law in terms of itself, namely, "all are created equal" - which is obvious nonsense; some are literally imbeciles, some are geniuses - implying remarkably different outcomes 'before the law'.

As for "inalienable rights", nature doesn't give two hoots about them, so "rights"  also need to be defined in created law.

So obviously the correct formulation regarding law is:"all are equal before (in front of) created law.
with "rights" to be determined by that created law.

That's why it's time to create law upholding the principles of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (UNUDHR) to supersede the delusional concepts of "inalienable rights", "sovereign citizens", and "national sovereignty". 

More on 'classical liberalism':

https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-classical-liberal-approach-to-human-rights-24452

What is a ‘classical liberal’ approach to human rights?

Tim Wilson, (formerly) Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner, has announced that he will take a “classical liberal” approach to human rights. There is a fair degree of confusion about what this means.

Classical liberalism is not a coherent body of political philosophy. However, in relation to human rights, there are three key ideas that most classical liberals subscribe to.

The first is the idea that all people are born with rights, which they hold simply because they are human. This is the idea that underpins Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

My observation: note the difference in the UN formulation, compared with the 18th century's "all are created equal before the law".


But there are several reasons why a classical liberal approach to human rights does not necessarily reflect the needs and aspirations of contemporary Australian society.

First, the philosophical foundation for the classical liberal idea of human rights is very shaky, as argued by the likes of philosopher Joseph Raz. Historically, classical liberals view rights as bestowed by God or derived from some essential human essence.

But many Australians seem to take a more pragmatic view of human rights, as noted by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commissioner Mick Gooda. Rights are the important interests and values that democracies have decided to protect. Far from making rights less important, this makes them more so.

Community consultations show that many Australians are also more ambitious than many classical liberals about what these rights should consist of. Brandis has said that freedom is the core human right without which nothing else is possible. But food, work, education and social security are also important. Rights are inter-related and inter-dependent. It is a mistake to think that something like a right to adequate health care is too vague to be an enforceable right.

Ensuring that certain groups of people are not discriminated against is a central part of an equal society. As Brandis points out, since its establishment in 1986, the Australian Human Rights Commission has spent much of its time advancing the idea in Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which reads:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

But Brandis thinks freedom (of the individual) is the "core human right", obviously based on the delusional concept [i]"all are created equal before the law", when  the truth is "all should be equal before created law."[/i]

And another view of 'classical liberalism' in relation to economics:

"Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; civil liberties under the rule of law with especial emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech".

Hence the current crop of mainstream neoliberal/neoclassical economists masquerading as macroeconomists when in fact they are microeconomists working from "individual autonomy". 

Resulting in the erroneous 'great simplification' of the neoclassicists,  examined by Prof. Steve Keen: 

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1645944963/330#332

#331.

All very nice, but Classical Liberalism does not seem have position on religions that claim to be God chosen people. Or they don't want to open that can of worms when it is easier to advocate open borders and cultural equality, both bad Liberal ideals.

issuevoter wrote on Jan 8^th, 2023 at 12:38pm:

All very nice, but Classical Liberalism does not seem have position on religions that claim to be God chosen people. Or they don't want to open that can of worms when it is easier to advocate open borders and cultural equality, both bad Liberal ideals.

Yes.

In fact,  Thomas Paine (an 'enlightenment' era non-conformist agnostic), one of the founding fathers of US classical liberalism, wrote:

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.

Just to add confusion upon confusion re classical liberalism with its "inalienable rights bestowed by God or nature", and its associated  delusional 'natural individual rights'. 

A few things about this out-dated and archaic aspect of civilisation is that a King & Queen, especially from 'primitive' times, are Masters of Ceremony. That is - the Kings (like Elvis) and Queens are the Highest position of Entertainers, the Musicians, the Actors, etc.

In puritant absolutism - they are as far from Politics as Europe is from North America.

The Highest position of Politics seems to be a President (Presidentess - if female version allowed).

The Highest position of Military is Emperor (Empress) in regards to 'Empires'.

When you get 'Entertainers' like Kings and Queens getting involved in Political or Military actions just to keep hold of 'absolute power' - it hardly ever works smoothly and as a Court Jester will remind his King, it can send many of them 'Mad'.

That's the Curse of Total Power.

Religion is looking for it's highest position - from the Poor of the Middle-East (Ruled over by all things Military & Emperor) to their 'GOD' in South America.

Maybe Sport is looking from its poor northern hemisphere Olympians to someone in the southern hemisphere to be their ultimate 'Champion'.

...and so on around the world. Everything will fit 'EQUALLY' like a Rubiks Cube - in time, like tears in rain. ;)

Well - now one of you is progressing slowly toward the ultimate concept - whether or not there is a divine right of an elected government.... let alone of a government elected by a self-appointed minority, as used to occur even here pre-universal suffrage.

You know who I mean here.... you don't get to vote unless you are a Party member....

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 8^th, 2023 at 1:31pm:

Well - now one of you is progressing slowly toward the ultimate concept - whether or not there is a divine right of an elected government.... let alone of a government elected by a self-appointed minority, as used to occur even here pre-universal suffrage. You know who I mean here.... you don't get to vote unless you are a Party member....

There is no "divine right" of elected government, or unelected government, or anything else; there is only created law on behalf of (or rather, hopefully  to achieve) "good governance"....for all, not only the powerful, or privileged, or the 'unduly clever'..


Jesus suggested " Love God and love one-another",  as a guide to good community relations under law. 
  ("render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's")

Confucius suggested " benevolent authority",  surely the same thing expressed in different words. ("god"= "benevolence").   

You got it, kid...... now keep working.

A majority of voters decides which rights we have, or don't have. The Labs and the Conservatives have decided for everyone ever since 1901 in Australia

Voters who are in the minority on an issue are dictated to by the majority

So we are not all equal, the majority wins every time, and the minority is left out in the cold every time. Rights of the minority are less than the majority"s

The Libs and Labs have dictated to us that a newly formed politic party doesn't have the right to claim certain benefits unless it has 1,500 members. And we don't have the right to freedom any longer if they bring back military conscription, some will lose their freedom, a lot won't - inequality at it's worst

We don't have the right to voluntarily buy third party motoring insurance, the Libs and Labs said so. And those two arrogant groups also said we don't have the right to vote voluntarily

The Libs and Labs get their jollies by diminishing our human rights, ever since 1901 it's been happening, and the longer they are ruling us, the less rights we'll have. We hardly even have the right to self-defense, and again, the Libs and Labs have made it that way

The Libs and Labs and their supporters pick and choose which rights we can have, all because that duo LibLab majority get to dictate how things are going to be

It's always the majority versus the minority ... and the majority is perpetually the Libs and Labs ... and I would argue, they mostly ignore Human Rights and selfishly make up rights as they go along according to their expediency to keep ruling Australia, stay in power.

One day it has to come to an end, this century hopefully, for the sake of younger generations

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2023 at 4:27pm:

A majority of voters decides which rights we have, or don't have. The Labs and the Conservatives have decided for everyone ever since 1901 in Australia

 

Indeed , there are no "inalienable rights".


Quote:

Voters who are in the minority on an issue are dictated to by the majority

Correct. In China, issues are decided by consensus...but even so, someone's views will be brushed aside ..hopefully,  the least  efficacious views...


Quote:

So we are not all equal, the majority wins every time, and the minority is left out in the cold every time. Rights of the minority are less than the majority"s

Correct, but we cannot all have our own views accepted in government, by definition.  Only the consensus, or majority view in a democracy, can manifest itself as law.


Quote:

The Libs and Labs have dictated to us that a newly formed politic party doesn't have the right to claim certain benefits unless it has 1,500 members. And we don't have the right to freedom any longer if they bring back military conscription, some will lose their freedom, a lot won't - inequality at it's worst

Yes.


Quote:

We don't have the right to voluntarily buy third party motoring insurance, the Libs and Labs said so. And those two arrogant groups also said we don't have the right to vote voluntarily

Quote:

The Libs and Labs get their jollies by diminishing our human rights, ever since 1901 it's been happening, and the longer they are ruling us, the less rights we'll have. We hardly even have the right to self-defense, and again, the Libs and Labs have made it that way

Now you are straying:  you need to define those "rights".

Certainly the bastards who attacked a man and woman in their own home, killing the woman with a knife, while the couple were attempting to prevent their vehicle from being stolen, should be 'hung out to dry'.   


Quote:

The Libs and Labs and their supporters pick and choose which rights we can have, all because that duo LibLab majority get to dictate how things are going to be

That's the adversarial 2 party system; it appears to be breaking down as more independents are being elected, and the primary vote of both Lib and Lab  are now in the low30%s.


Quote:

It's always the majority versus the minority ... and the majority is perpetually the Libs and Labs ... and I would argue, they mostly ignore Human Rights and selfishly make up rights as they go along according to their expediency to keep ruling Australia, stay in power. One day it has to come to an end, this century hopefully, for the sake of younger generations

Perhaps the nation can introduce better law,  if we replace  the misleading proposition: "we are all created equal" (ie, before the law, or in the sight of God),   with "we are all equal before created (man-made) law".

The Creator created the world and with it, life -  not the "rights" which we claim for ourselves.   

I would like to see both Libs/Labs and the entire Police Force and Australian 'Boutique' Defence Force try to subjugate MILLIONS of Australians who refuse to be ENSLAVED for AMERICAN WARS, let alone any 'foreign' War rubbish.

Volunteer - or Nothing!!

Jasin wrote on Jan 8^th, 2023 at 8:06pm:

I would like to see both Libs/Labs and the entire Police Force and Australian 'Boutique' Defence Force try to subjugate MILLIONS of Australians who refuse to be ENSLAVED for AMERICAN WARS, let alone any 'foreign' War rubbish. Volunteer - or Nothing!!

What if they are ordered to stamp out the Black Uprising - the Mau Mau?

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 8^th, 2023 at 5:55pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 8th, 2023 at 4:27pm: A majority of voters decides which rights we have, or don't have. The Labs and the Conservatives have decided for everyone ever since 1901 in Australia   Indeed , there are no "inalienable rights". Quote: Voters who are in the minority on an issue are dictated to by the majority Correct. In China, issues are decided by consensus...but even so, someone's views will be brushed aside ..hopefully,  the least  efficacious views... [quote]So we are not all equal, the majority wins every time, and the minority is left out in the cold every time. Rights of the minority are less than the majority"s

Correct, but we cannot all have our own views accepted in government, by definition.  Only the consensus, or majority view in a democracy, can manifest itself as law.


Quote:

The Libs and Labs have dictated to us that a newly formed politic party doesn't have the right to claim certain benefits unless it has 1,500 members. And we don't have the right to freedom any longer if they bring back military conscription, some will lose their freedom, a lot won't - inequality at it's worst

Yes.


Quote:

We don't have the right to voluntarily buy third party motoring insurance, the Libs and Labs said so. And those two arrogant groups also said we don't have the right to vote voluntarily

Quote:

The Libs and Labs get their jollies by diminishing our human rights, ever since 1901 it's been happening, and the longer they are ruling us, the less rights we'll have. We hardly even have the right to self-defense, and again, the Libs and Labs have made it that way

Now you are straying:  you need to define those "rights".

Certainly the bastards who attacked a man and woman in their own home, killing the woman with a knife, while the couple were attempting to prevent their vehicle from being stolen, should be 'hung out to dry'.   


Quote:

The Libs and Labs and their supporters pick and choose which rights we can have, all because that duo LibLab majority get to dictate how things are going to be

That's the adversarial 2 party system; it appears to be breaking down as more independents are being elected, and the primary vote of both Lib and Lab  are now in the low30%s.


Quote:

It's always the majority versus the minority ... and the majority is perpetually the Libs and Labs ... and I would argue, they mostly ignore Human Rights and selfishly make up rights as they go along according to their expediency to keep ruling Australia, stay in power. One day it has to come to an end, this century hopefully, for the sake of younger generations

Perhaps the nation can introduce better law,  if we replace  the misleading proposition: "we are all created equal" (ie, before the law, or in the sight of God),   with "we are all equal before created (man-made) law".

The Creator created the world and with it, life -  not the "rights" which we claim for ourselves.   








[/quote]

The two of you confuse inalienable rights with the rights we are currently allowed to hold.... THAT, my children - is why I am here to lead you out of the wilderness.  We need a total change of governance to bring about those inalienable rights.... not just your idle acceptance of what we currently hold....

Are you with me?  Sign here - if I get the required number I will stand for election next time.... you know my policies.... they're called Simple Truths...

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 8^th, 2023 at 8:08pm:

Jasin wrote on Jan 8th, 2023 at 8:06pm: I would like to see both Libs/Labs and the entire Police Force and Australian 'Boutique' Defence Force try to subjugate MILLIONS of Australians who refuse to be ENSLAVED for AMERICAN WARS, let alone any 'foreign' War rubbish. Volunteer - or Nothing!! What if they are ordered to stamp out the Black Uprising - the Mau Mau?

Ordered by 'Whom' Grapps?
C'mon - cough it up.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 8^th, 2023 at 12:16pm:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

That is basically a pipe dream

But the crowd in this link could possibly give us an understanding of how it could be achieved

https://www.humancondition.com/about-the-world-transformation-movement/

In the meantime, our politicians will continue to be self interested bastards intent on imposing their will on us whether we like it or not, they carry on like a God, much like the Communist party in China

Actually, we don't have rights in Australia, inalienable or otherwise, why we're talking about existing rights, I don't know ... and laws are not rights, laws can be changed when Lib Lab politicians feel like changing them

What we need to do, is get rid of the "bastard" in the Libs and Labs ... but that won't be easy to do because once a bastard, always a bastard

I'll grant you one thing, we need to change our ethos of character and disposition in political matters, and not leave it to just two parties to tell us what common sense we should live under, it's only their opinion, compared to, and versus, everyone elses' opinions. And while ever the Libs and Labs rule Australia, it's their opinions that prevail ... and that's contrary to their preached principle of "diversity"

The Prime Ministers of 'both' Parties serve the USA.

The Governor-Generals serve the UK.

Australia does not have a 'domestic' political representation - unless it fractures into many small 'independent' nations of their own accord all being empowered by an 'individual' who was sacrificed upon the Southern Cross for some Republic outcry like a lamb to the slaughter. ;)

Who's it gonna be?

Can someone list my inalienable rights (that I currently enjoy) that
would be (or are) denied me by any past, future, or present Australian
federal governments?

I'm nor aware of any. 

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 8^th, 2023 at 8:11pm:

The two of you confuse inalienable rights with the rights we are currently allowed to hold.... THAT, my children - is why I am here to lead you out of the wilderness.  We need a total change of governance to bring about those inalienable rights.... not just your idle acceptance of what we currently hold...

Do you agree with the idea of birth certificates?

Birth certificates were probably used to identify 20 year olds who failed to register for conscription in the 60s, and possibly tax returns too, but they would have been unreliable, however, a tax file number would have date of birth

I can see no other ways the Libs and the govt departments could have zeroed in on draft dodgers but to use birth certificates and tax details

Now, when we're born, we can't do anything about it, b/certificates get filed away in govt departments and they're there for life

But did you ever think that they can be used against you to ultimately lose all your rights, as in military conscription?

Imagine. You spend your life's early efforts to become a School Teacher, Uni Lecturer even, Tradesman, even Master Tradesman, Engineer, Archeologist, Librarian and more. Also including those who dedicate themselves to propping up this country's lame population growth.

...then along comes some Wanker in Military Green to bonk you on the head and drag you away to be enslaved to their Military way of life -  Or you get thrown in prison and abused. And all because of 'other' nations.  ::)

Nothing like 'arming the civilians' right? :-?

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 8^th, 2023 at 8:11pm:

The two of you confuse inalienable rights with the rights we are currently allowed to hold....

I don't do that (though bias does); I'm showing you that "inalienable rights" don't exist, whereas the rights we do have are - and can only be - determined by legislation. 

Note: the Americans have "a right to carry", we don't.    


Quote:

THAT, my children - is why I am here to lead you out of the wilderness.  We need a total change of governance to bring about those inalienable rights.... not just your idle acceptance of what we currently hold....

Can you begin by identifying these postulated "inalienable rights", and explain WHY they are inalienable, other than merely saying they are 'self-evident' (or "God given")?

Jasin wrote on Jan 8^th, 2023 at 9:11pm:

Imagine. You spend your life's early efforts to become a School Teacher, Uni Lecturer even, Tradesman, even Master Tradesman, Engineer, Archeologist, Librarian and more. Also including those who dedicate themselves to propping up this country's lame population growth. ...then along comes some Wanker in Military Green to bonk you on the head and drag you away to be enslaved to their Military way of life -  Or you get thrown in prison and abused. And all because of 'other' nations. Nothing like 'arming the civilians' right?

Mate... you need to keep up with the times LOL.

Australia abolished conscription fifty years ago.

AusGeoff wrote on Jan 8^th, 2023 at 8:42pm:

Can someone list my inalienable rights (that I currently enjoy) that would be (or are) denied me by any past, future, or present Australian federal governments? I'm nor aware of any.

I would ask: what are these "inalienable rights" possessed by all humans, how and why do they exist, other than simply saying they are 'self-evident' or 'God-given'. 

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2023 at 8:26pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 8th, 2023 at 12:16pm: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. That is basically a pipe dream

I think all the words before "should"  are NOT a pipe dream.....even the "dignity" bit: Jesus was born in a cow- shed...and "rights" are what "reason and conscience" decide them to be.


Quote:

But the crowd in this link could possibly give us an understanding of how it could be achieved https://www.humancondition.com/about-the-world-transformation-movement/

I loved, for a while,  Jeremy Griffith's WTM, but apparently most of us are too 'psychologically conflicted' to join - I was refused admission....


Quote:

In the meantime, our politicians will continue to be self interested bastards intent on imposing their will on us whether we like it or not, they carry on like a God, much like the Communist party in China

Well, we are all blindly groping toward "good governance"...


Quote:

Actually, we don't have rights in Australia, inalienable or otherwise, why we're talking about existing rights, I don't know ... and laws are not rights, laws can be changed when Lib Lab politicians feel like changing them

So -  like graps, you need to define "rights"; presumably you have in mind "rights" which don't require governments to establish, but exist through "reason and conscience"?  


Quote:

What we need to do, is get rid of the "bastard" in the Libs and Labs ... but that won't be easy to do because once a bastard, always a bastard I'll grant you one thing, we need to change our ethos of character and disposition in political matters, and not leave it to just two parties to tell us what common sense we should live under, it's only their opinion, compared to, and versus, everyone elses' opinions. And while ever the Libs and Labs rule Australia, it's their opinions that prevail ... and that's contrary to their preached principle of "diversity"

So ...a parliament  composed entirely of independents?

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 12:29am:

So -  like graps, you need to define "rights"; presumably you have in mind "rights" which don't require governments to establish, but exist through "reason and conscience"?

One that needs reviewing is the compulsory acquisition of private property without offering market value in compensation plus expenses for having to set up home in another location

AusGeoff wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 12:00am:

Jasin wrote on Jan 8th, 2023 at 9:11pm: Imagine. You spend your life's early efforts to become a School Teacher, Uni Lecturer even, Tradesman, even Master Tradesman, Engineer, Archeologist, Librarian and more. Also including those who dedicate themselves to propping up this country's lame population growth. ...then along comes some Wanker in Military Green to bonk you on the head and drag you away to be enslaved to their Military way of life -  Or you get thrown in prison and abused. And all because of 'other' nations. Nothing like 'arming the civilians' right? Mate... you need to keep up with the times LOL. Australia abolished conscription fifty years ago.

Geoff.
You're off your perch, if you think the Government's' won't bring it back for a World War, expecially if hardly anyone volunteers to be nuked on foreign soils.

AusGeoff wrote on Jan 8^th, 2023 at 8:42pm:

Can someone list my inalienable rights (that I currently enjoy) that would be (or are) denied me by any past, future, or present Australian federal governments? I'm nor aware of any.

Life, thought, speech, property.

Frank wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 6:49am:

AusGeoff wrote on Jan 8th, 2023 at 8:42pm: Can someone list my inalienable rights (that I currently enjoy) that would be (or are) denied me by any past, future, or present Australian federal governments? I'm nor aware of any.  Life, thought, speech, property.

Life ... universal health care ... let's hope the ALP manage to restore Medicare.

Thought ... free eduaction for all. Dropped the ball on that one, didn't we.

Speech ... well, with all you get away with on here, i've no idea why your complaining. You get to say what you want you blithering snowflake. You just don't like that people tell you that you're an arsehole for it. Or that you're comments are unpopular. You refuse to take either hint so we're all just waiting patiently for you to die.

Property ... guaranteed housing for all? An end to homelessness? Sign me up!

Strike me pink old boy. Aside from the whinging, i think you're a socialist!

mothra wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 7:43am:

Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 6:49am: AusGeoff wrote on Jan 8th, 2023 at 8:42pm: Can someone list my inalienable rights (that I currently enjoy) that would be (or are) denied me by any past, future, or present Australian federal governments? I'm nor aware of any.  Life, thought, speech, property. Life ... universal health care ... let's hope the ALP manage to restore Medicare. Thought ... free eduaction for all. Dropped the ball on that one, didn't we. Speech ... well, with all you get away with on here, i've no idea why your complaining. You get to say what you want you blithering snowflake. You just don't like that people tell you that you're an arsehole for it. Or that you're comments are unpopular. You refuse to take either hint so we're all just waiting patiently for you to die. Property ... guaranteed housing for all? An end to homelessness? Sign me up! Strike me pink old boy. Aside from the whinging, i think you're a socialist!

Totally unsurprisingly, Mrs Bbwian, you are hopelessly confused about natural and civil rights. But then you are both socialists so confusion and misunderstanding ARE your angle on everything.
Carry on, scatter them knickers.

Btw, I wasnt "winging", frightbat, I was responding to the Sage of Gippsland.
Have you done all the sweeping, washing up, ironing already?

Frank wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 8:31am:

mothra wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 7:43am: Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 6:49am: AusGeoff wrote on Jan 8th, 2023 at 8:42pm: Can someone list my inalienable rights (that I currently enjoy) that would be (or are) denied me by any past, future, or present Australian federal governments? I'm nor aware of any.  Life, thought, speech, property. Life ... universal health care ... let's hope the ALP manage to restore Medicare. Thought ... free eduaction for all. Dropped the ball on that one, didn't we. Speech ... well, with all you get away with on here, i've no idea why your complaining. You get to say what you want you blithering snowflake. You just don't like that people tell you that you're an arsehole for it. Or that you're comments are unpopular. You refuse to take either hint so we're all just waiting patiently for you to die. Property ... guaranteed housing for all? An end to homelessness? Sign me up! Strike me pink old boy. Aside from the whinging, i think you're a socialist! Totally unsurprisingly, Mrs Bbwian, you are hopelessly confused about natural and civil rights. But then you are both socialists so confusion and misunderstanding ARE your angle on everything. Carry on, scatter them knickers. Btw, I wasnt "winging", frightbat, I was responding to the Sage of Gippsland. Have you done all the sweeping, washing up, ironing already?

Would you care to point out to me where i was wrong in your interpretation?

Surely you didn't just mean all of those rights for "some", did you?

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 12:05am:

I would ask: what are these "inalienable rights" possessed by all humans, how and why do they exist, other than simply saying they are 'self-evident' or 'God-given'.

If only you stopped toggling btwn your fake shared ids and googled the term instead 😐

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 2:12am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 12:29am: So -  like graps, you need to define "rights"; presumably you have in mind "rights" which don't require governments to establish, but exist through "reason and conscience"? One that needs reviewing is the compulsory acquisition of private property without offering market value in compensation plus expenses for having to set up home in another location

That didn't answer the question.

You claim "laws aren't rights". I'm seeking clarification from you on that important point. 

It seems to me the conclusion is that government and law is injurious to "rights". 

As to your point about unjust compulsory property acquisition by the government -   yes, a review is certainly in order.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 8:47am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 12:05am: I would ask: what are these "inalienable rights" possessed by all humans, how and why do they exist, other than simply saying they are 'self-evident' or 'God-given'.  If only you stopped toggling btwn your fake shared ids and googled the term instead 😐

Oh dear Lisa, you could try using your own brain to define what "inalienable rights" are, and explain how and why they exist. The 1st 2 pages in the thread give you plenty to go on.

mothra wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 8:40am:

Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 8:31am: mothra wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 7:43am: Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 6:49am: AusGeoff wrote on Jan 8th, 2023 at 8:42pm: Can someone list my inalienable rights (that I currently enjoy) that would be (or are) denied me by any past, future, or present Australian federal governments? I'm nor aware of any.  Life, thought, speech, property. Life ... universal health care ... let's hope the ALP manage to restore Medicare. Thought ... free eduaction for all. Dropped the ball on that one, didn't we. Speech ... well, with all you get away with on here, i've no idea why your complaining. You get to say what you want you blithering snowflake. You just don't like that people tell you that you're an arsehole for it. Or that you're comments are unpopular. You refuse to take either hint so we're all just waiting patiently for you to die. Property ... guaranteed housing for all? An end to homelessness? Sign me up! Strike me pink old boy. Aside from the whinging, i think you're a socialist! Totally unsurprisingly, Mrs Bbwian, you are hopelessly confused about natural and civil rights. But then you are both socialists so confusion and misunderstanding ARE your angle on everything. Carry on, scatter them knickers. Btw, I wasnt "winging", frightbat, I was responding to the Sage of Gippsland. Have you done all the sweeping, washing up, ironing already? Would you care to point out to me where i was wrong in your interpretation? Surely you didn't just mean all of those rights for "some", did you?

Natural rights are based on our 'nature', being human. They are not dependent on social organisation.

Civil rights are about rights in a particular society, 'city' (civitas - citizenship, civil society). They vary from society to society, age to age. They are negotiated, if you like, by each society and so they unfold and change.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 9:26am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 8:47am: thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 12:05am: I would ask: what are these "inalienable rights" possessed by all humans, how and why do they exist, other than simply saying they are 'self-evident' or 'God-given'.  If only you stopped toggling btwn your fake shared ids and googled the term instead 😐 Oh dear Lisa, you could try using your own brain to define what "inalienable rights" are, and explain how and why they exist. The 1st 2 pages in the thread give you plenty to go on.

I ignore BS. Especially YOUR BS!

Frank wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 9:28am:

mothra wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 8:40am: Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 8:31am: mothra wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 7:43am: Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 6:49am: AusGeoff wrote on Jan 8th, 2023 at 8:42pm: Can someone list my inalienable rights (that I currently enjoy) that would be (or are) denied me by any past, future, or present Australian federal governments? I'm nor aware of any.  Life, thought, speech, property. Life ... universal health care ... let's hope the ALP manage to restore Medicare. Thought ... free eduaction for all. Dropped the ball on that one, didn't we. Speech ... well, with all you get away with on here, i've no idea why your complaining. You get to say what you want you blithering snowflake. You just don't like that people tell you that you're an arsehole for it. Or that you're comments are unpopular. You refuse to take either hint so we're all just waiting patiently for you to die. Property ... guaranteed housing for all? An end to homelessness? Sign me up! Strike me pink old boy. Aside from the whinging, i think you're a socialist! Totally unsurprisingly, Mrs Bbwian, you are hopelessly confused about natural and civil rights. But then you are both socialists so confusion and misunderstanding ARE your angle on everything. Carry on, scatter them knickers. Btw, I wasnt "winging", frightbat, I was responding to the Sage of Gippsland. Have you done all the sweeping, washing up, ironing already? Would you care to point out to me where i was wrong in your interpretation? Surely you didn't just mean all of those rights for "some", did you? Natural rights are based on our 'nature', being human. They are not dependent on social organisation. Civil rights are about rights in a particular society, 'city' (civitas - citizenship, civil society). They vary from society to society, age to age. They are negotiated, if you like, by each society and so they unfold and change.

👆Frank teaching someone who alleges she/he/it has 3 University degrees (whilst living on the streets mind you) the basics of Yr 12 Legal Studies.

😂🤣😆

Frank wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 9:28am:

Natural rights are based on our 'nature', being human. They are not dependent on social organisation.

Ah ..another voice for the proposition 'laws aren't "rights"', ie, laws legislated by government on behalf of efficacious social organization are not "inalienable rights".

You say inalienable rights are based on human nature, but you abandoned the debate re human nature a couple of days back...

You failed to understand different individuals see their own interests differently  (courtesy the triune brain ...), resulting in the reality that  competitive, egotistic  self-interest will trump co-operation re "inalienable rights", in the absence of law.   


Quote:

Civil rights are about rights in a particular society, 'city' (civitas - citizenship, civil society). They vary from society to society, age to age. They are negotiated, if you like, by each society and so they unfold and change.

Nicely put.   

But of your listed "inalienable rights" to life, thought, speech, and property, the last is immediately problematic because not all possess property, despite the fact affordable housing is an essential human requirement.

   

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 9:37am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 9:26am: Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 8:47am: thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 12:05am: I would ask: what are these "inalienable rights" possessed by all humans, how and why do they exist, other than simply saying they are 'self-evident' or 'God-given'.  If only you stopped toggling btwn your fake shared ids and googled the term instead 😐 Oh dear Lisa, you could try using your own brain to define what "inalienable rights" are, and explain how and why they exist. The 1st 2 pages in the thread give you plenty to go on. I ignore BS. Especially YOUR BS!

Er,  dear Lisa, that's not debate, show us you are capable of engaging your brain . Have a go at critiquing the Articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter, shown in red in #1 of this thread (after the OP).  

The defeated Right is rampaging in Brazil, destroying government property.

Are they worried the new Leftist  govt. will increase taxes, and govt. debt,  in order to reduce poverty and inequality in Brazil?

Are they worried their perceived "rights" will be compromised by the Left?

You can negotiate civil rights only with beings whom you mutually recognise as having the same natural rights as you - human beings with natural rights equal to yours.

You cannot negotiate civil rights and laws that regulate them with apes, bees or ants, no matter how organised their 'societies' are.

Frank wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 10:13am:

You can negotiate civil rights only with beings whom you mutually recognise as having the same natural rights as you - human beings with natural rights equal to yours.

Ah...you mean  the  'natural right' to an elected adversarial democracy, in which the negotiated civil rights are determined by 50% + 1 of the citizens.

What about the 'civic rights' of the 49%?


Quote:

You cannot negotiate civil rights and laws that regulate them with apes, bees or ants, no matter how organised their 'societies' are.

The 49% are still human, even if their concept of rights - natural/inalienable or civic - are rejected by the majority.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 10:25am:

Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 10:13am: You can negotiate civil rights only with beings whom you mutually recognise as having the same natural rights as you - human beings with natural rights equal to yours. Ah...you mean  the  'natural right' to an elected adversarial democracy, in which the negotiated civil rights are determined by 50% + 1 of the citizens. What about the 'civic rights' of the 49%? Quote: You cannot negotiate civil rights and laws that regulate them with apes, bees or ants, no matter how organised their 'societies' are. The 49% are still human, even if their concept of rights - natural/inalienable or civic - are rejected by the majority.

Don't be a Bbwianesque idiot on purpose ALL the time.  Natural right are not for the 51% and civil rights for the 49%, FFS.

If you do not accept that humans share their fundamental humanity by which we recognise each other AS humans, say so.

But don't  come the moronic repetitious parrot with the same dogma about "adversarial freedom ideology shite, as if you have not been given another, broader horizon to take in and engage with.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 9:42am:

Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 9:28am: mothra wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 8:40am: Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 8:31am: mothra wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 7:43am: Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 6:49am: AusGeoff wrote on Jan 8th, 2023 at 8:42pm: Can someone list my inalienable rights (that I currently enjoy) that would be (or are) denied me by any past, future, or present Australian federal governments? I'm nor aware of any.  Life, thought, speech, property. Life ... universal health care ... let's hope the ALP manage to restore Medicare. Thought ... free eduaction for all. Dropped the ball on that one, didn't we. Speech ... well, with all you get away with on here, i've no idea why your complaining. You get to say what you want you blithering snowflake. You just don't like that people tell you that you're an arsehole for it. Or that you're comments are unpopular. You refuse to take either hint so we're all just waiting patiently for you to die. Property ... guaranteed housing for all? An end to homelessness? Sign me up! Strike me pink old boy. Aside from the whinging, i think you're a socialist! Totally unsurprisingly, Mrs Bbwian, you are hopelessly confused about natural and civil rights. But then you are both socialists so confusion and misunderstanding ARE your angle on everything. Carry on, scatter them knickers. Btw, I wasnt "winging", frightbat, I was responding to the Sage of Gippsland. Have you done all the sweeping, washing up, ironing already? Would you care to point out to me where i was wrong in your interpretation? Surely you didn't just mean all of those rights for "some", did you? Natural rights are based on our 'nature', being human. They are not dependent on social organisation. Civil rights are about rights in a particular society, 'city' (civitas - citizenship, civil society). They vary from society to society, age to age. They are negotiated, if you like, by each society and so they unfold and change. 👆Frank teaching someone who alleges she/he/it has 3 University degrees (whilst living on the streets mind you) the basics of Yr 12 Legal Studies. 😂🤣😆

Did Methra attempt to mention FREE EDUCATION?

Oh the irony!

... because most of you simply do not understand the difference between 'inalienable rights' and 'your rights as accorded by your government'.... though I'll bet most of you who criticise that phrase adhere slavishly to the UN's Universal Declaration(s) of Human Rights..... and I'll bet most of you would differ about what your 'inalienable rights' are if you were a woman living in Afghanistan..... where their government allocates rights by .... divine right....

Such is the state of 'education' these days and of 'reasoning' ... no wonder the Marxists considered the common folk as not above cattle in the fields....

Sometimes in order to create Right, you must remove government's control over Rights.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

In the Northern Hemisphere - such things as Politics and Military have been a source of 'empowerment' in regards to material advantage and control.
While such things as Art and Religion have been for the poor, but the greater population of racial empowerment.

Politics and Military only look after one thing - their own people within the establishment and who serve the establishment and whoever rules it.
Anyone else outside of that is 'off the grid' you could say, to use a modern term.
Theresa May resigned once she realised that although the people voted 'No', the Establishment over-ruled and ignored the people vote.
Even if the majority of people were behind Trump.
Biden and the political Establishment would 'legally' void the people's support of Trump and make it a 'crime'.
Hence why Obama with his hand up Biden's arse, is saying that anything other than what the Democrats say or do - is an attack on Democracy.
Desperate measures indeed - but basically that's what all forms of Politics in the Northern Hemisphere do, protect themselves from the 'outsiders' of Politics.

...meanwhile in Australia - Politics only exists by default via the Governor-Generals for Britain and the Prime Ministers for the USA. Further south than that and Politics fractures away to become nothing but a 'Racial Population Growth' in the image of Politics. Which in truth, is the only way Politics goes in this country.

But I'm sure most of you can't even get your heads wrapped around this one because you all think with just half a brain and its just the 'northern' half.  ::)

Frank wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 11:19am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 10:25am: Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 10:13am: You can negotiate civil rights only with beings whom you mutually recognise as having the same natural rights as you - human beings with natural rights equal to yours. Ah...you mean  the  'natural right' to an elected adversarial democracy, in which the negotiated civil rights are determined by 50% + 1 of the citizens. What about the 'civic rights' of the 49%? Quote: You cannot negotiate civil rights and laws that regulate them with apes, bees or ants, no matter how organised their 'societies' are. The 49% are still human, even if their concept of rights - natural/inalienable or civic - are rejected by the majority. Don't be a Bbwianesque idiot on purpose ALL the time.  Natural right are not for the 51% and civil rights for the 49%, FFS.

So... is housing a natural, or civil right?


Quote:

If you do not accept that humans share their fundamental humanity by which we recognise each other AS humans, say so.

Humans have a conscience and capacity for reason; yet we often "recognize" one another as 's**tbags'.....

...because.....(fill in your answer).

So what is this 'fundamental humanity', apart from being a member of the species 'homo sapiens'?


Quote:

But don't  come the moronic repetitious parrot with the same dogma about "adversarial freedom ideology shite, as if you have not been given another, broader horizon to take in and engage with.

So please engage/answer the above points re 'fundamental humanity'. 

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 11:24am:

Did Methra attempt to mention FREE EDUCATION? Oh the irony!

Education is a (civil or natural?) right, by law. 

And the state can provide it for free because education is merely the transfer of knowledge from teacher to student; the resources consumed (once the education infrastructure is built), are the mental energy and time of the participants.

.....Free, if the participants are willing to expend the required mental energy and time.   

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 9:22am:

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 2:12am: thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 12:29am: So -  like graps, you need to define "rights"; presumably you have in mind "rights" which don't require governments to establish, but exist through "reason and conscience"? One that needs reviewing is the compulsory acquisition of private property without offering market value in compensation plus expenses for having to set up home in another location That didn't answer the question. You claim "laws aren't rights". I'm seeking clarification from you on that important point.  It seems to me the conclusion is that government and law is injurious to "rights".  As to your point about unjust compulsory property acquisition by the government -   yes, a review is certainly in order.

Laws can be changed, and do get changed. If a law is a "right", and it gets changed, then your so-called right gets changed with that changed law

What we need is permanent rights, that can't be touched by anyone, not by politicians who think they know best, nor the the judiciary

Justice must revolve around those permanent rights and not be extinguished during judicial procedures or any other time

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 1:13pm:

Laws can be changed, and do get changed. If a law is a "right", and it gets changed, then your so-called right gets changed with that changed law What we need is permanent rights, that can't be touched by anyone, not by politicians who think they know best, nor the the judiciary Justice must revolve around those permanent rights and not be extinguished during judicial procedures or any other time

"permanent rights"...which are ?.... based on?...

How about this as a starting point: 

Article 1. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. (Humans) are endowed with reason and conscience...."

AusGeoff wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 12:00am:

Jasin wrote on Jan 8th, 2023 at 9:11pm: Imagine. You spend your life's early efforts to become a School Teacher, Uni Lecturer even, Tradesman, even Master Tradesman, Engineer, Archeologist, Librarian and more. Also including those who dedicate themselves to propping up this country's lame population growth. ...then along comes some Wanker in Military Green to bonk you on the head and drag you away to be enslaved to their Military way of life -  Or you get thrown in prison and abused. And all because of 'other' nations. Nothing like 'arming the civilians' right? Mate... you need to keep up with the times LOL. Australia abolished conscription fifty years ago.

Nahh, it wasn't abolished, that was only for public consumption by Whitlam the win the 72 election

Conscription is still on the books

In here, they were even talking it about in 1999 ... and by ballot no less, the same rotten method as in the 60s

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib9900/2000CIB07

If they try to bung it on again, the youngsters should ask them which flag they will need to fly, the hammer and sickle? the crescent moon?, the Indian flag? the flag of Vietnam? the flag of Sudan? the Aboriginal flag?

I saw a street parade in Blacktown some years ago, and a group was marching with all the international flags, dozens of them, and the Australian flag was just one more flag, the same small size as all the rest, and not out front, it was in there somewhere, if you weren't looking for it, you'd easily miss it

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 1:33pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 1:13pm: Laws can be changed, and do get changed. If a law is a "right", and it gets changed, then your so-called right gets changed with that changed law What we need is permanent rights, that can't be touched by anyone, not by politicians who think they know best, nor the the judiciary Justice must revolve around those permanent rights and not be extinguished during judicial procedures or any other time "permanent rights"...which are ?.... based on?... How about this as a starting point:  Article 1. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. (Humans) are endowed with reason and conscience...."

You won't find much dignity in our public hospitals or agecare homes, patients get treated like objects ... so we need permanent rights enshrined to let staff and carers know they are treating other humans, and get punished if they consider other humans as sub-humans. Since the advent of multiculturalism, this is what happens, an Asian carer will hate a whitie patient, and so on

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 3:09pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 1:33pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 1:13pm: Laws can be changed, and do get changed. If a law is a "right", and it gets changed, then your so-called right gets changed with that changed law What we need is permanent rights, that can't be touched by anyone, not by politicians who think they know best, nor the the judiciary Justice must revolve around those permanent rights and not be extinguished during judicial procedures or any other time "permanent rights"...which are ?.... based on?... How about this as a starting point:  Article 1. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. (Humans) are endowed with reason and conscience...." You won't find much dignity in our public hospitals or agecare homes, patients get treated like objects ... so we need permanent rights enshrined to let staff and carers know they are treating other humans, and get punished if they consider other humans as sub-humans. Since the advent of multiculturalism, this is what happens, an Asian carer will hate a whitie patient, and so on

Wrong analysis. Aged care facilities are under-staffed and the workers are underpaid, as revealed by the Royal Commision; cases of resident abuse by staff are rare.

So ...regarding these "permanent rights", let's start with:

"All human beings are born free and equal  - NOT "created" equal; humans are born of other humans, not created by the Creator who 'only' caused the 'big bang' (... no ... not that one, the other one....);  and they possess certain universal rights  as a result of being  endowed with reason and conscience".

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 11:58am:

Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 11:19am: thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 10:25am: Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 10:13am: You can negotiate civil rights only with beings whom you mutually recognise as having the same natural rights as you - human beings with natural rights equal to yours. Ah...you mean  the  'natural right' to an elected adversarial democracy, in which the negotiated civil rights are determined by 50% + 1 of the citizens. What about the 'civic rights' of the 49%? Quote: You cannot negotiate civil rights and laws that regulate them with apes, bees or ants, no matter how organised their 'societies' are. The 49% are still human, even if their concept of rights - natural/inalienable or civic - are rejected by the majority. Don't be a Bbwianesque idiot on purpose ALL the time.  Natural right are not for the 51% and civil rights for the 49%, FFS. So... is housing a natural, or civil right? [quote]If you do not accept that humans share their fundamental humanity by which we recognise each other AS humans, say so.

Humans have a conscience and capacity for reason; yet we often "recognize" one another as 's**tbags'.....

...because.....(fill in your answer).

So what is this 'fundamental humanity', apart from being a member of the species 'homo sapiens'?


Quote:

But don't  come the moronic repetitious parrot with the same dogma about "adversarial freedom ideology shite, as if you have not been given another, broader horizon to take in and engage with.

So please engage/answer the above points re 'fundamental humanity'. 
[/quote]

The idea of natural law is an ancient Greek one. The concept of natural rights comes from the New Testament ('thought and written in Greek)  - God created human beings equal. Medieval philosophers,  the Angelic Doctor in particular, articulated it. Enlightenment philosophers like Hobbes,  Locke, Rousseau refined.
The concept is has animated the Right of Man by Thomas Paine, the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen de 1789 and the American declaration of independence and constitution as well the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, and philosophical and political discussions of all sorts.
It has a history of 2500 years of discussion, refinement, argumentation, it has influenced every aspect of life, p ol optics, philosophy, art. It is not reducible to lazy slogans like 'job guarantee, evil freedom ideology, print mo's money for common prosperity'.


https://youtu.be/p-LMh8GoBZE

Frank wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 9:28am:

mothra wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 8:40am: Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 8:31am: mothra wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 7:43am: Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 6:49am: AusGeoff wrote on Jan 8th, 2023 at 8:42pm: Can someone list my inalienable rights (that I currently enjoy) that would be (or are) denied me by any past, future, or present Australian federal governments? I'm nor aware of any.  Life, thought, speech, property. Life ... universal health care ... let's hope the ALP manage to restore Medicare. Thought ... free eduaction for all. Dropped the ball on that one, didn't we. Speech ... well, with all you get away with on here, i've no idea why your complaining. You get to say what you want you blithering snowflake. You just don't like that people tell you that you're an arsehole for it. Or that you're comments are unpopular. You refuse to take either hint so we're all just waiting patiently for you to die. Property ... guaranteed housing for all? An end to homelessness? Sign me up! Strike me pink old boy. Aside from the whinging, i think you're a socialist! Totally unsurprisingly, Mrs Bbwian, you are hopelessly confused about natural and civil rights. But then you are both socialists so confusion and misunderstanding ARE your angle on everything. Carry on, scatter them knickers. Btw, I wasnt "winging", frightbat, I was responding to the Sage of Gippsland. Have you done all the sweeping, washing up, ironing already? Would you care to point out to me where i was wrong in your interpretation? Surely you didn't just mean all of those rights for "some", did you? Natural rights are based on our 'nature', being human. They are not dependent on social organisation. Civil rights are about rights in a particular society, 'city' (civitas - citizenship, civil society). They vary from society to society, age to age. They are negotiated, if you like, by each society and so they unfold and change.

What is this childish deflection?

You claimed "Life, thought, speech, property" were inalienable rights.

I told you what that would look like. All a bit socialist really.

When asked if you believed in those rights for all, you ran screaming.

Still, you impressed Larry. Well done.

Frank wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 4:36pm:

The idea of natural law is an ancient Greek one. The concept of natural rights comes from the New Testament ('thought and written in Greek)  - God created human beings equal. Medieval philosophers,  the Angelic Doctor in particular, articulated it. Enlightenment philosophers like Hobbes,  Locke, Rousseau refined. The concept is has animated the Right of Man by Thomas Paine, the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen de 1789 and the American declaration of independence and constitution as well the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, and philosophical and political discussions of all sorts. It has a history of 2500 years of discussion, refinement, argumentation, it has influenced every aspect of life, p ol optics, philosophy, art. It is not reducible to lazy slogans like 'job guarantee, evil freedom ideology, print mo's money for common prosperity'. https://youtu.be/p-LMh8GoBZE

You haven't really addressed the issue of what are "fundamental human rights"', you have only said they have existed, and been discussed for a long time.

I have drawn attention to a stumbling block at the start of the 18th century US Declaration of Rights: "(it is self-evident) we are all created equal" (in the sight of God); which has been correctly updated at the start of the 1946 UN Charter: "We are born equal (ie born of humans, not created by the Creator who was responsible for the original big bang, but did not create you or me. 

That change in meaning is important: it means fundamental rights exist because we - being born human -  are endowed with reason and conscience, and such consequential 'fundamental rights' (ie following on from reason and conscience)  exist for all. Hence the 1948 UN UNIVERSAL DHR.

As to the video re the "madness of total equality", I haven't watched it, because "common prosperity" does NOT propose economic equality, only the eradication of poverty. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 5:42pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 4:36pm: The idea of natural law is an ancient Greek one. The concept of natural rights comes from the New Testament ('thought and written in Greek)  - God created human beings equal. Medieval philosophers,  the Angelic Doctor in particular, articulated it. Enlightenment philosophers like Hobbes,  Locke, Rousseau refined. The concept is has animated the Right of Man by Thomas Paine, the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen de 1789 and the American declaration of independence and constitution as well the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, and philosophical and political discussions of all sorts. It has a history of 2500 years of discussion, refinement, argumentation, it has influenced every aspect of life, p ol optics, philosophy, art. It is not reducible to lazy slogans like 'job guarantee, evil freedom ideology, print mo's money for common prosperity'. https://youtu.be/p-LMh8GoBZE You haven't really addressed the issue of what are "fundamental human rights"', you have only said they have existed, and been discussed for a long time. I have drawn attention to a stumbling block at the start of the 18th century US Declaration of Rights: "(it is self-evident) we are all created equal" (in the sight of God); which has been correctly updated at the start of the 1946 UN Charter: "We are born equal (ie born of humans, not created by the Creator who was responsible for the original big bang, but did not create you or me.  That change in meaning is important: it means fundamental rights exist because we - being born human -  are endowed with reason and conscience, and such consequential 'fundamental rights' (ie following on from reason and conscience)  exist for all. Hence the 1948 UN UNIVERSAL DHR. As to the video re the "madness of total equality", I haven't watched it, because "common prosperity" does NOT propose economic equality, only the eradication of poverty.

We are not born equal in any religion but Christianity. It is a uniquely Christian idea inherited by Western secular society which would not have arrived at the idea without Christianity.

mothra wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 5:41pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 9:28am: mothra wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 8:40am: Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 8:31am: mothra wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 7:43am: Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 6:49am: AusGeoff wrote on Jan 8th, 2023 at 8:42pm: Can someone list my inalienable rights (that I currently enjoy) that would be (or are) denied me by any past, future, or present Australian federal governments? I'm nor aware of any.  Life, thought, speech, property. Life ... universal health care ... let's hope the ALP manage to restore Medicare. Thought ... free eduaction for all. Dropped the ball on that one, didn't we. Speech ... well, with all you get away with on here, i've no idea why your complaining. You get to say what you want you blithering snowflake. You just don't like that people tell you that you're an arsehole for it. Or that you're comments are unpopular. You refuse to take either hint so we're all just waiting patiently for you to die. Property ... guaranteed housing for all? An end to homelessness? Sign me up! Strike me pink old boy. Aside from the whinging, i think you're a socialist! Totally unsurprisingly, Mrs Bbwian, you are hopelessly confused about natural and civil rights. But then you are both socialists so confusion and misunderstanding ARE your angle on everything. Carry on, scatter them knickers. Btw, I wasnt "winging", frightbat, I was responding to the Sage of Gippsland. Have you done all the sweeping, washing up, ironing already? Would you care to point out to me where i was wrong in your interpretation? Surely you didn't just mean all of those rights for "some", did you? Natural rights are based on our 'nature', being human. They are not dependent on social organisation. Civil rights are about rights in a particular society, 'city' (civitas - citizenship, civil society). They vary from society to society, age to age. They are negotiated, if you like, by each society and so they unfold and change. What is this childish deflection? You claimed "Life, thought, speech, property" were inalienable rights. I told you what that would look like. All a bit socialist really. When asked if you believed in those rights for all, you ran screaming. Still, you impressed Larry. Well done.

You just extended natural rights by adding civil rights if your own society as if they were the same and held in every kind of society at all times.
I explained the difference, I can't make you understand it.

Try to extend the natural rights by adding Aboriginal or Red Indian civil rights you listed for Western societies - you will immediately see how parochial your 'thinking' is.

Frank wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 9:13pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 5:41pm: Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 9:28am: mothra wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 8:40am: Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 8:31am: mothra wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 7:43am: Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 6:49am: AusGeoff wrote on Jan 8th, 2023 at 8:42pm: Can someone list my inalienable rights (that I currently enjoy) that would be (or are) denied me by any past, future, or present Australian federal governments? I'm nor aware of any.  Life, thought, speech, property. Life ... universal health care ... let's hope the ALP manage to restore Medicare. Thought ... free eduaction for all. Dropped the ball on that one, didn't we. Speech ... well, with all you get away with on here, i've no idea why your complaining. You get to say what you want you blithering snowflake. You just don't like that people tell you that you're an arsehole for it. Or that you're comments are unpopular. You refuse to take either hint so we're all just waiting patiently for you to die. Property ... guaranteed housing for all? An end to homelessness? Sign me up! Strike me pink old boy. Aside from the whinging, i think you're a socialist! Totally unsurprisingly, Mrs Bbwian, you are hopelessly confused about natural and civil rights. But then you are both socialists so confusion and misunderstanding ARE your angle on everything. Carry on, scatter them knickers. Btw, I wasnt "winging", frightbat, I was responding to the Sage of Gippsland. Have you done all the sweeping, washing up, ironing already? Would you care to point out to me where i was wrong in your interpretation? Surely you didn't just mean all of those rights for "some", did you? Natural rights are based on our 'nature', being human. They are not dependent on social organisation. Civil rights are about rights in a particular society, 'city' (civitas - citizenship, civil society). They vary from society to society, age to age. They are negotiated, if you like, by each society and so they unfold and change. What is this childish deflection? You claimed "Life, thought, speech, property" were inalienable rights. I told you what that would look like. All a bit socialist really. When asked if you believed in those rights for all, you ran screaming. Still, you impressed Larry. Well done. You just extended natural rights by adding civil rights if your own society as if they were the same and held in every kind of society at all times. I explained the difference, I can't make you understand it. Try to extend the natural rights by adding Aboriginal or Red Indian civil rights you listed for Western societies - you will immediately see how parochial your 'thinking' is.

Are you regretting your statement, old boy? You do seem to be trying to bury it meaningless explanations.


You claimed that "Life, thought, speech, property" were inalienable rights, did you not?


What i want to know is if you think they are inalienable rights for absolutely everyone.

You don't seem to want to say.

Aborigines and Red Indians have the same civil rights as everyone - it's all in the way those rights are exercised by them and by others with whom they come in contact - for which there are remedies for any abuse.

A 'treaty' with the Aborigines, however, will confer different 'rights' and is thus not only illegal but also plainly divisive and will be the cause of endless strife.  The only treaty available has already been exercised - unconditional surrender.

Which civil rights do you feel are being denied to Aborigines here?  You can't compare them with Red Indians.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 10:05am:

The defeated Right is rampaging in Brazil, destroying government property. Are they worried the new Leftist  govt. will increase taxes, and govt. debt,  in order to reduce poverty and inequality in Brazil? Are they worried their perceived "rights" will be compromised by the Left?

Breaking: Adam Schiff and Pelosi call for an immediate criminal investigation into Trump over the events unfurling in Brazil.

mothra wrote on Jan 10^th, 2023 at 2:46am:

Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 9:13pm: mothra wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 5:41pm: Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 9:28am: mothra wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 8:40am: Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 8:31am: mothra wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 7:43am: Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 6:49am: AusGeoff wrote on Jan 8th, 2023 at 8:42pm: Can someone list my inalienable rights (that I currently enjoy) that would be (or are) denied me by any past, future, or present Australian federal governments? I'm nor aware of any.  Life, thought, speech, property. Life ... universal health care ... let's hope the ALP manage to restore Medicare. Thought ... free eduaction for all. Dropped the ball on that one, didn't we. Speech ... well, with all you get away with on here, i've no idea why your complaining. You get to say what you want you blithering snowflake. You just don't like that people tell you that you're an arsehole for it. Or that you're comments are unpopular. You refuse to take either hint so we're all just waiting patiently for you to die. Property ... guaranteed housing for all? An end to homelessness? Sign me up! Strike me pink old boy. Aside from the whinging, i think you're a socialist! Totally unsurprisingly, Mrs Bbwian, you are hopelessly confused about natural and civil rights. But then you are both socialists so confusion and misunderstanding ARE your angle on everything. Carry on, scatter them knickers. Btw, I wasnt "winging", frightbat, I was responding to the Sage of Gippsland. Have you done all the sweeping, washing up, ironing already? Would you care to point out to me where i was wrong in your interpretation? Surely you didn't just mean all of those rights for "some", did you? Natural rights are based on our 'nature', being human. They are not dependent on social organisation. Civil rights are about rights in a particular society, 'city' (civitas - citizenship, civil society). They vary from society to society, age to age. They are negotiated, if you like, by each society and so they unfold and change. What is this childish deflection? You claimed "Life, thought, speech, property" were inalienable rights. I told you what that would look like. All a bit socialist really. When asked if you believed in those rights for all, you ran screaming. Still, you impressed Larry. Well done. You just extended natural rights by adding civil rights if your own society as if they were the same and held in every kind of society at all times. I explained the difference, I can't make you understand it. Try to extend the natural rights by adding Aboriginal or Red Indian civil rights you listed for Western societies - you will immediately see how parochial your 'thinking' is. Are you regretting your statement, old boy? You do seem to be trying to bury it meaningless explanations. You claimed that "Life, thought, speech, property" were inalienable rights, did you not? What i want to know is if you think they are inalienable rights for absolutely everyone. You don't seem to want to say.

They are, frightbat. That's what natural rights mean - not contingent on social organisation (civitas, citizenship, civil rights).
Natural - in the nature of. Inalienable doesnt mean that it is not possible to violate them. It means they are not contingent. That is why there could be a UNIVERSAL declarations of human rights as far back as 1789. 
The distinction between natural and contingent is not hard, frightbat.

The representatives of the French People, formed into a National Assembly, considering ignorance, forgetfulness or contempt of the rights of man to be the only causes of public misfortunes and the corruption of Governments, have resolved to set forth, in a solemn Declaration, the natural, unalienable and sacred rights of man, to the end that this Declaration, constantly present to all members of the body politic, may remind them unceasingly of their rights and their duties; to the end that the acts of the legislative power and those of the executive power, since they may be continually compared with the aim of every political institution, may thereby be the more respected; to the end that the demands of the citizens, founded henceforth on simple and incontestable principles, may always be directed toward the maintenance of the Constitution and the happiness of all.

In consequence whereof, the National Assembly recognises and declares, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

Article first

Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be based only on considerations of the common good.

Article 2

The aim of every political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of Man. These rights are Liberty, Property, Safety and Resistance to Oppression.

Article 3

The principle of any Sovereignty lies primarily in the Nation. No corporate body, no individual may exercise any authority that does not expressly emanate from it.

Article 4

Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man has no bounds other than those that ensure to the other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights. These bounds may be determined only by Law.

Article 5

The Law has the right to forbid only those actions that are injurious to society. Nothing that is not forbidden by Law may be hindered, and no one may be compelled to do what the Law does not ordain.

Article 6

The Law is the expression of the general will. All citizens have the right to take part, personally or through their representatives, in its making. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in its eyes, shall be equally eligible to all high offices, public positions and employments, according to their ability, and without other distinction than that of their virtues and talents.

Article 7

No man may be accused, arrested or detained except in the cases determined by the Law, and following the procedure that it has prescribed. Those who solicit, expedite, carry out, or cause to be carried out arbitrary orders must be punished; but any citizen summoned or apprehended by virtue of the Law, must give instant obedience; resistance makes him guilty.

Article 8

The Law must prescribe only the punishments that are strictly and evidently necessary; and no one may be punished except by virtue of a Law drawn up and promulgated before the offense is committed, and legally applied.

Article 9

As every man is presumed innocent until he has been declared guilty, if it should be considered necessary to arrest him, any undue harshness that is not required to secure his person must be severely curbed by Law.

Article 10

No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order.

Article 11

The free communication of ideas and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man. Any citizen may therefore speak, write and publish freely, except what is tantamount to the abuse of this liberty in the cases determined by Law.

Article 12

To guarantee the Rights of Man and of the Citizen a public force is necessary; this force is therefore established for the benefit of all, and not for the particular use of those to whom it is entrusted.

Article 13

For the maintenance of the public force, and for administrative expenses, a general tax is indispensable; it must be equally distributed among all citizens, in proportion to their ability to pay.

Article 14

All citizens have the right to ascertain, by themselves, or through their representatives, the need for a public tax, to consent to it freely, to watch over its use, and to determine its proportion, basis, collection and duration.

Article 15

Society has the right to ask a public official for an accounting of his administration.

Article 16

Any society in which no provision is made for guaranteeing rights or for the separation of powers, has no Constitution.

Article 17

Since the right to Property is inviolable and sacred, no one may be deprived thereof, unless public necessity, legally ascertained, obviously requires it, and just and prior indemnity has been paid.

https://www.elysee.fr/en/french-presidency/the-declaration-of-the-rights-of-man-and-of-the-citizen

Frank wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 9:06pm:

We are not born equal in any religion but Christianity. It is a uniquely Christian idea inherited by Western secular society which would not have arrived at the idea without Christianity.

Is this correct? What would Confucius or the Buddha say, or Zoroaster?

And surely Christianity is imbued with "God created Adam", hence  (according the US declaration) "we are all created equal", which is incorrect - we are all born equal.

In any case, the important point re a formulation of natural/inherent/inalienable rights, is the fact we are all born human, "endowed with reason and conscience".

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 9:42am:

Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 9:28am: mothra wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 8:40am: Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 8:31am: mothra wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 7:43am: Frank wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 6:49am: AusGeoff wrote on Jan 8th, 2023 at 8:42pm: Can someone list my inalienable rights (that I currently enjoy) that would be (or are) denied me by any past, future, or present Australian federal governments? I'm nor aware of any.  Life, thought, speech, property. Life ... universal health care ... let's hope the ALP manage to restore Medicare. Thought ... free eduaction for all. Dropped the ball on that one, didn't we. Speech ... well, with all you get away with on here, i've no idea why your complaining. You get to say what you want you blithering snowflake. You just don't like that people tell you that you're an arsehole for it. Or that you're comments are unpopular. You refuse to take either hint so we're all just waiting patiently for you to die. Property ... guaranteed housing for all? An end to homelessness? Sign me up! Strike me pink old boy. Aside from the whinging, i think you're a socialist! Totally unsurprisingly, Mrs Bbwian, you are hopelessly confused about natural and civil rights. But then you are both socialists so confusion and misunderstanding ARE your angle on everything. Carry on, scatter them knickers. Btw, I wasnt "winging", frightbat, I was responding to the Sage of Gippsland. Have you done all the sweeping, washing up, ironing already? Would you care to point out to me where i was wrong in your interpretation? Surely you didn't just mean all of those rights for "some", did you? Natural rights are based on our 'nature', being human. They are not dependent on social organisation. Civil rights are about rights in a particular society, 'city' (civitas - citizenship, civil society). They vary from society to society, age to age. They are negotiated, if you like, by each society and so they unfold and change. 👆Frank teaching someone who alleges she/he/it has 3 University degrees (whilst living on the streets mind you) the basics of Yr 12 Legal Studies. 😂🤣😆

Did Methra attempt to mention FREE EDUCATION?

Oh the irony! And hypocrisy. And ignorance. Then again you wouldn't expect anything else.

Frank wrote on Jan 10^th, 2023 at 10:05am:

Article first Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be based only on considerations of the common good. Article 2 The aim of every political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of Man. These rights are Liberty, Property, Safety and Resistance to Oppression.

A fine Declaration of universal rights ("The Rights of Man"), issued by the French in 1789. Ironic and sad it was immediately followed by the 'reign of terror' in France.

But immediately there are contradictions in the first two articles.

The "natural and imprescriptible rights of Man" are listed as "Liberty, Property, Safety, and Resistance to Oppression", in Article 2.

How can men be "free and equal in rights" (Article 1) unless men have equal rights to property - an "imprescriptible" right (according to Article 2)?

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 9^th, 2023 at 3:47pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 3:09pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 1:33pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 9th, 2023 at 1:13pm: Laws can be changed, and do get changed. If a law is a "right", and it gets changed, then your so-called right gets changed with that changed law What we need is permanent rights, that can't be touched by anyone, not by politicians who think they know best, nor the the judiciary Justice must revolve around those permanent rights and not be extinguished during judicial procedures or any other time "permanent rights"...which are ?.... based on?... How about this as a starting point:  Article 1. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. (Humans) are endowed with reason and conscience...." You won't find much dignity in our public hospitals or agecare homes, patients get treated like objects ... so we need permanent rights enshrined to let staff and carers know they are treating other humans, and get punished if they consider other humans as sub-humans. Since the advent of multiculturalism, this is what happens, an Asian carer will hate a whitie patient, and so on Wrong analysis. Aged care facilities are under-staffed and the workers are underpaid, as revealed by the Royal Commision; cases of resident abuse by staff are rare. So ...regarding these "permanent rights", let's start with: "All human beings are born free and equal  - NOT "created" equal; humans are born of other humans, not created by the Creator who 'only' caused the 'big bang' (... no ... not that one, the other one....);  and they possess certain universal rights  as a result of being  endowed with reason and conscience".

Understaffed and underpaid are irrelevant to dignity and rights

In actual fact, NSW Health supplied a document for all staff regarding dignity, respect and privacy

https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Performance/Pages/ct-8ways-booklet.aspx

Hardly any staff take notice of it. Public hospitals have very slack managers who afford themselves more rights than they do their patients. The Public health system is a law unto itself, so we need permanent rights to protect us when we become patients, and have a civil law automatically on our side without cost$ to the individual for the enforcement of those rights. In other words, we don't have to pay any legal expenses to get redress

But managers and their staff should be made to learn the above link off by heart, and be sacked if they don't comply with it

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2023 at 12:09pm:

Understaffed and underpaid are irrelevant to dignity and rights In actual fact, NSW Health supplied a document for all staff regarding dignity, respect and privacy https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Performance/Pages/ct-8ways-booklet.aspx Hardly any staff take notice of it. Public hospitals have very slack managers who afford themselves more rights than they do their patients. The Public health system is a law unto itself, so we need permanent rights to protect us when we become patients, and have a civil law automatically on our side without cost$ to the individual for the enforcement of those rights. In other words, we don't have to pay any legal expenses to get redress But managers and their staff should be made to learn the above link off by heart, and be sacked if they don't comply with it

So right.  The attitude to patients from some is frankly appalling, not least of all from some of the lowest of the low clerical staff who imagine they hold some high position of power.  Much too feminised a work environment and need some quotas to bring in more men prepared to actually work and achieve.  Too much soft soap for the staff and not enough for the patients who are often considered a burden on their time.

As for the retirement homes - just wow. I see dividie is still stuck on his ideas of 'wage gaps' and other Labor bullshit and still fails to see that there is a sector pay grade in play which has nothing to do with men, women, brindles or anything else working there.  Like childcare - they simply cannot expect to be paid the same as a highly qualified school teacher (you may argue about those elsewhere) or professors etc in colleges and unis.

Well, wow - so more women work there - also more women work in Woolies etc around here and the nice air-conditioned council jobs .... you know, where all the jobs are outside the cities .... Woolies etc .... but don't let that stand in the way of your mad rush to utter stupidity.  Some of these places DREAD having too many men of The Right Stuff working there because they ACHIEVE too much and the girls feel 'threatened' because they can't keep up stacking the high shelves etc.  (Jesus!).

No wonder this country's gone to the dogs.  women are currently paid per actual hour worked 7% more than men... simple reality... and more men are out of work or part time EVERYWHERE in the West,and yet are still required to support their families even when those families are taken away from them along with their earning capacity and even their higher education opportunities.

That's 'Equality 2.0' for you...

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2023 at 12:09pm:

Understaffed and underpaid are irrelevant to dignity and rights

A silly comment; understaffed means people are left laying in their own faeces, as noted by the Royal Commision.


Quote:

In actual fact, NSW Health supplied a document for all staff regarding dignity, respect and privacy https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Performance/Pages/ct-8ways-booklet.aspx

A  document doesn't replace the work that is required to be done.


Quote:

Hardly any staff take notice of it. Public hospitals have very slack managers who afford themselves more rights than they do their patients. The Public health system is a law unto itself, so we need permanent rights to protect us when we become patients, and have a civil law automatically on our side without cost$ to the individual for the enforcement of those rights. In other words, we don't have to pay any legal expenses to get redress

More silliness; private hospitals are well funded and well- staffed, paid for by their wealthy patrons. All hospital staff are overwhelming dedicated to their tasks.


Quote:

But managers and their staff should be made to learn the above link off by heart, and be sacked if they don't comply with it

They already know it.

So... we all have an "inalienable" right to dignity - except the public sector can't pay for it.

See the problem?   

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 10^th, 2023 at 12:45pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 10th, 2023 at 12:09pm: Understaffed and underpaid are irrelevant to dignity and rights In actual fact, NSW Health supplied a document for all staff regarding dignity, respect and privacy https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Performance/Pages/ct-8ways-booklet.aspx Hardly any staff take notice of it. Public hospitals have very slack managers who afford themselves more rights than they do their patients. The Public health system is a law unto itself, so we need permanent rights to protect us when we become patients, and have a civil law automatically on our side without cost$ to the individual for the enforcement of those rights. In other words, we don't have to pay any legal expenses to get redress But managers and their staff should be made to learn the above link off by heart, and be sacked if they don't comply with it So right.  The attitude to patients from some is frankly appalling, not least of all from some of the lowest of the low clerical staff who imagine they hold some high position of power.

First multiple mistakes in one paragraph (didn't take long, Graps...) the attitude of the vast majority of on-the-floor nursing staff toward patients is exemplary, driven by concern for the well-being of the patient.

Clerical staff are another matter, little to do with attitudes to patients because they don't deal with patients hands on.



Quote:

Much too feminised a work environment

Oh no....here comes your usual sexist rant; note: most nurses are still overwhelmingly female (c.90%)...


Quote:

and need some quotas to bring in more men prepared to actually work and achieve.

Hm... guotas for nurses but not Coalition politicians....


Quote:

Too much soft soap for the staff and not enough for the patients who are often considered a burden on their time.

.

Understaffing means they ARE a "burden on nurses' time".


Quote:

As for the retirement homes - just wow.

Indeed, age care is afflicted by both understaffing AND low pay.


Quote:

I see dividie is still stuck on his ideas of 'wage gaps' and other Labor bullshit and still fails to see that there is a sector pay grade in play which has nothing to do with men, women, brindles or anything else working there.  Like childcare - they simply cannot expect to be paid the same as a highly qualified school teacher (you may argue about those elsewhere) or professors etc in colleges and unis.

Age care workers - again, mostly women, ARE low paid cf shelf-stackers in Woolies, etc.


Quote:

Well, wow - so more women work there - also more women work in Woolies etc around here and the nice air-conditioned council jobs .... you know, where all the jobs are outside the cities .... Woolies etc .... but don't let that stand in the way of your mad rush to utter stupidity.

The age care workers should be paid MUCH more than the shelf-stackers.  


Quote:

Some of these places DREAD having too many men of The Right Stuff working there because they ACHIEVE too much and the girls feel 'threatened' because they can't keep up stacking the high shelves etc.  (Jesus!).

Interesting theory, most likely wrong. In my supermarket, about 50/50 gender split for stacking selves.


Quote:

No wonder this country's gone to the dogs.  women are currently paid per actual hour worked 7% more than men... simple reality... and more men are out of work or part time EVERYWHERE in the West, and yet are still required to support their families even when those families are taken away from them along with their earning capacity and even their higher education opportunities. That's 'Equality 2.0' for you...

No, that's the reality of the private sector free market which doesn't value public sector workers, and the changing nature of manufacturing which allows more female employment.....and more women choosing careers over  having kids. 

Back to our search for equal - ie, belonging to all - "inalienable" rights (as opposed to rights defined in law eg the "right" to carry a gun......):

So far we have identified:   

1. "born free" (ie "liberty"),

2.  we have included "dignity", but have discovered the public sector can't always pay for it....

3. Free thought

4. Free speech, but obviously needs reasonable constraint...

5. Safety and freedom from capricious (non-legal) enforcement/oppression. 

Property is a non-starter as an "inalienable" (non-legal) right because people don't have equal access to property.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 11^th, 2023 at 11:54am:

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 10th, 2023 at 12:09pm: Understaffed and underpaid are irrelevant to dignity and rights A silly comment; understaffed means people are left laying in their own faeces, as noted by the Royal Commision. Quote: In actual fact, NSW Health supplied a document for all staff regarding dignity, respect and privacy https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Performance/Pages/ct-8ways-booklet.aspx A  document doesn't replace the work that is required to be done. [quote]Hardly any staff take notice of it. Public hospitals have very slack managers who afford themselves more rights than they do their patients. The Public health system is a law unto itself, so we need permanent rights to protect us when we become patients, and have a civil law automatically on our side without cost$ to the individual for the enforcement of those rights. In other words, we don't have to pay any legal expenses to get redress

More silliness; private hospitals are well funded and well- staffed, paid for by their wealthy patrons. All hospital staff are overwhelming dedicated to their tasks.


Quote:

But managers and their staff should be made to learn the above link off by heart, and be sacked if they don't comply with it

They already know it.

So... we all have an "inalienable" right to dignity - except the public sector can't pay for it.

See the problem?   
[/quote]

If you believe that - you've obviously not been a patient in one.

They are like the public ones - they are understaffed ..... only it's deliberate, a way of cutting costs to increase the bottom line.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 11^th, 2023 at 12:55pm:

Back to our search for equal - ie, belonging to all - "inalienable" rights (as opposed to rights defined in law eg the "right" to carry a gun......): So far we have identified:    1. "born free" (ie "liberty"), 2.  we have included "dignity", but have discovered the public sector can't always pay for it.... 3. Free thought 4. Free speech, but obviously needs reasonable constraint... 5. Safety and freedom from capricious (non-legal) enforcement/oppression.  Property is a non-starter as an "inalienable" (non-legal) right because people don't have equal access to property.

Right to your own property is not about equal access to property.  The idea of natural right to property was developed in the context of absolute monarchical power when the confiscation of property or confiscatory taxation were significant issues (see causes of the American and French  Revolution, th he revolutions of the 19th century,  taxation without representation, etc). All natural right theories were developed in the context of setting philosophical, moral limits to absolute and arbitrary monarchical/government powers.


(Marx was influenced by Locke's labour theory of property and developed his own labour theory of value on the basis of it. Locke saw labour as the basis of property acquisition, Marx as the basis of abolishing property rights. )

Gnads wrote on Jan 11^th, 2023 at 1:18pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 11th, 2023 at 11:54am: Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 10th, 2023 at 12:09pm: Understaffed and underpaid are irrelevant to dignity and rights A silly comment; understaffed means people are left laying in their own faeces, as noted by the Royal Commision. Quote: In actual fact, NSW Health supplied a document for all staff regarding dignity, respect and privacy https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Performance/Pages/ct-8ways-booklet.aspx A  document doesn't replace the work that is required to be done. [quote]Hardly any staff take notice of it. Public hospitals have very slack managers who afford themselves more rights than they do their patients. The Public health system is a law unto itself, so we need permanent rights to protect us when we become patients, and have a civil law automatically on our side without cost$ to the individual for the enforcement of those rights. In other words, we don't have to pay any legal expenses to get redress More silliness; private hospitals are well funded and well- staffed, paid for by their wealthy patrons. All hospital staff are overwhelming dedicated to their tasks. [quote]But managers and their staff should be made to learn the above link off by heart, and be sacked if they don't comply with it

They already know it.

So... we all have an "inalienable" right to dignity - except the public sector can't pay for it.

See the problem?   
[/quote]

If you believe that - you've obviously not been a patient in one.[/quote]

So the private hospitals are as understaffed as  the public hospitals. 

And?


Quote:

They are like the public ones - they are understaffed ..... only it's deliberate, a way of cutting costs to increase the bottom line.

And the solution is....?

Whereas we know public hospitals are constrained by the government budget.

Anyway you are proving the point: we apparently can't "afford" the 'inalienable right' to dignity....

Something wrong there (hint": it's to do with how money is created...in the public and private sectors)

Frank wrote on Jan 11^th, 2023 at 2:29pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 11th, 2023 at 12:55pm: Back to our search for equal - ie, belonging to all - "inalienable" rights (as opposed to rights defined in law eg the "right" to carry a gun......): So far we have identified:    1. "born free" (ie "liberty"), 2.  we have included "dignity", but have discovered the public sector can't always pay for it.... 3. Free thought 4. Free speech, but obviously needs reasonable constraint... 5. Safety and freedom from capricious (non-legal) enforcement/oppression.  Property is a non-starter as an "inalienable" (non-legal) right because people don't have equal access to property. Right to your own property is not about equal access to property.  The idea of natural right to property was developed in the context of absolute monarchical power when the confiscation of property or confiscatory taxation were significant issues (see causes of the American and French  Revolution, the revolutions of the 19th century,  taxation without representation, etc). All natural right theories were developed in the context of setting philosophical, moral limits to absolute and arbitrary monarchical/government powers.

Correct.

But we are searching for the "inalienable rights" which are consequent upon being "born free and equal in certain rights" (owing to our 'natural humanity')

So obviously the right to personal property can only be a legislated right, not a natural right, because we don't all have equal access to property like we all have equal access - and a right to liberty


Quote:

(Marx was influenced by Locke's labour theory of property and developed his own labour theory of value on the basis of it. Locke saw labour as the basis of property acquisition, Marx as the basis of abolishing property rights. )

For my part, I think the state should administer as much public housing as necessary to ensure everyone is safely housed - regardless of "rights". 

   

alienate (v.)
1510s, "transfer to the ownership of another;" 1540s, "make estranged" (in feelings or affections), from Latin alienatus, past participle of alienare "to make another's, part with; estrange, set at variance," from alienus "of or belonging to another person or place," from alius "another, other, different" (from PIE root *al- (1) "beyond"). Related: Alienated; alienating.


In Middle English the verb was simply alien, from Old French aliener and directly from Latin alienare. It is attested from mid-14c. in theology, "estrange" (from God, etc.; in past participle aliened); late 14c. as "break away (from), desert;" c. 1400 in law, "transfer or surrender one's title to property or rights."
https://www.etymonline.com/word/alienate#etymonline_v_8151

Frank wrote on Jan 11^th, 2023 at 4:18pm:

alienate (v.) 1510s, "transfer to the ownership of another;" 1540s, "make estranged" (in feelings or affections), from Latin alienatus, past participle of alienare "to make another's, part with; estrange, set at variance," from alienus "of or belonging to another person or place," from alius "another, other, different" (from PIE root *al- (1) "beyond"). Related: Alienated; alienating. In Middle English the verb was simply alien, from Old French aliener and directly from Latin alienare. It is attested from mid-14c. in theology, "estrange" (from God, etc.; in past participle aliened); late 14c. as "break away (from), desert;" c. 1400 in law, "transfer or surrender one's title to property or rights." https://www.etymonline.com/word/alienate#etymonline_v_8151

Unfortunately, soon after I replied to Franks' post re  the postulated "right" to private property (as per Locke, in opposition to arbitrary confiscation by the king), Oz pol seized up for a long time; now the pages in the thread have been reversed, and we now have the non sequitur  from Frank, above. 

Outside interference in a debate about rights , including "the right" to freedom of speech? Wouldn't be surprised, hypocrisy among "freedom" ideologies is egregious. 

To recap:

"all are created equal" ......no they aren't; what we CAN say is "all are born free",

"with certain inalienable rights".......the problem is 'inalienable rights' - ie, not subject to law - are difficult to identify beyond the right to liberty which belongs to all of us by reason of being born with our 'common'  humanity (Frank refers to 'natural humanity').

eg the right to (private) property depends on the individual being able to pay for the property.

and the "right to pursue happiness" is merely a motherhood statement which follows on the right to liberty - we all desire to pursue happiness.

And yet with all these postulated rights (add your own: 'free speech', 'thought' etc), people continue to be killed in wars, and still forced (or tolerated by the majority) to subsist in entrenched poverty.

The only way to eradicate war, genocide and poverty is to - eradicate war, genocide and poverty.

You will find the false concepts such as 'sovereign individuals', based on presumed 'natural individual "rights"' ....and the obsolete concept of "national sovereignty" as a basis for determining relations among the community of nations, are at the root of the problem.

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality and equality before the law. Liberals espouse various views depending on their understanding of these principles.

We have seen "rights of the individual" are difficult to define, other than in law.

Hence 'equality before the law' sets up a circularity; equality in rights which have to be defined in law.

eg there can be no equal right to private property unless  the law determines it.

Consent of the governed can be achieved by consensus meritocracy as well as by secret ballot in a democracy.

The former will of course need to produce the desired results to maintain legitimacy.

Collectivism stresses the importance of the community, while individualism is focused on the rights and concerns of each person.

Where unity and selflessness or altruism are valued traits in collectivist cultures, independence and personal identity are promoted in individualistic cultures.


A question of balance, for good governance....including the common welfare/common prosperity.

I
thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 13^th, 2023 at 11:12am:

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality and equality before the law. Liberals espouse various views depending on their understanding of these principles. We have seen "rights of the individual" are difficult to define, other than in law. Hence 'equality before the law' sets up a circularity; equality in rights which have to be defined in law. eg there can be no equal right to private property unless  the law determines it. Consent of the governed can be achieved by consensus meritocracy as well as by secret ballot in a democracy. The former will of course need to produce the desired results to maintain legitimacy. Collectivism stresses the importance of the community, while individualism is focused on the rights and concerns of each person. Where unity and selflessness or altruism are valued traits in collectivist cultures, independence and personal identity are promoted in individualistic cultures. A question of balance, for good governance....

Unity, selflessness, altruism - are these natural human traits or are they also definable only in law like freedom ( according to you)?
Where do th hey come from?

Frank wrote on Jan 13^th, 2023 at 11:55am:

I thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 13th, 2023 at 11:12am: Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality and equality before the law. Liberals espouse various views depending on their understanding of these principles. We have seen "rights of the individual" are difficult to define, other than in law. Hence 'equality before the law' sets up a circularity; equality in rights which have to be defined in law. eg there can be no equal right to private property unless  the law determines it. Consent of the governed can be achieved by consensus meritocracy as well as by secret ballot in a democracy. The former will of course need to produce the desired results to maintain legitimacy. Collectivism stresses the importance of the community, while individualism is focused on the rights and concerns of each person. Where unity and selflessness or altruism are valued traits in collectivist cultures, independence and personal identity are promoted in individualistic cultures. A question of balance, for good governance.... Unity, selflessness, altruism - are these natural human traits or are they also definable only in law like freedom ( according to you)? Where do th hey come from?

As already noted, freedom is the one "inalienable" right which might be said does not need to be defined in law, because we are all born free (outside of slavery).

Yet we have the French-proposed "liberty, equality, and fraternity".

Unity is obviously not an 'inalienable right' it is achieved by consensus; nor are selflessness and altruism, which reside in the 'conscience' possessed by humans endowed with the cortex brain, enabling awareness of the desires and motivations of self and others.

And triumphing over the ego and the id....(to use the Freudian concept, rather than the triune brain-physiology method)

Hence the term "sociopaths": those without a conscience.    

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mK46KprASM

.... and yet ..... and yet ....... Western classical liberalism has created all of the great things so enjoyed in the world today.... despite the meanderings of the social scientists running riot for forty odd years now, man can never be reduced to his component parts and then be rebuilt in the image of the new creator..... the new Modern Prometheus nowhere more clearly shown than in the insanities of trying to change one's sex .... and thus become nothing more than a lifeless extension of the new overlord(s).....

No thanks...

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 13^th, 2023 at 1:45pm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mK46KprASM .... and yet ..... and yet ....... Western classical liberalism has created all of the great things so enjoyed in the world today....

like entrenched poverty and endless wars, which existed long before the communist experiments of the 20th century. ....and still exist after effective international law was foiled by demands that national sovereignty be upheld.



Quote:

despite the meanderings of the social scientists running riot for forty odd years now, man can never be reduced to his component parts and then be rebuilt in the image of the new creator..... the new Modern Prometheus nowhere more clearly shown than in the insanities of trying to change one's sex .... and thus become nothing more than a lifeless extension of the new overlord(s)..... No thanks...

Enjoy the Ukraine war (and all the rest)...despite the meanderings of social scientists; sex or no sex, doesn't matter.....

... and long before any other form of highly organised economic activity... you can't just restrict that comment to communism with its clear failures and megadeaths.....

... told you ... that bloke lolly-gagging in the warm sun catching fish and using his provided gear and land cruiser and getting his regular dole or pension is one hell of a lot richer than any poor white boy struggling to pay rent in a city... you just refuse to see it and instead prefer to focus on the places where they have ruined the white man's way of doing things by not maintaining or even continuing services etc, but letting it all fall into rubbish heaps while they gallivant and fight and carry on.

The White Man's Way didn't and doesn't force them to live in garbage heaps - it offered and offers them the opportunity to get out of those and they - quite literally - poo on it.  All they have to do is grab the ball and run with it.

Your universal job or income guarantee will do not one thing - you know why?  Because the markets will simply swallow up every extra cent doing the rounds for no real long term or even short term benefit, same as they do for every rise in wages or social security payments or whatever.  Told yez decades ago about the MADIF creating a sudden escalation in house prices ... the moment the dual income family became more common, the price of a house doubled, then tripled, then went up and up like a rocket... and the result is there now for all to see - IF they choose to.

Been telling yez for years now that the only viable solution is to first get a firm hold on costs of living and then work out the optimum way of ensuring everyone has enough.

You just don't know how to listen, especially the ideology bound Labor types these days in their silliness and preference for blindness to reality.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 13^th, 2023 at 12:16pm:

As already noted, freedom is the one "inalienable" right which might be said does not need to be defined in law, because we are all born free (outside of slavery). Yet we have the French-proposed "liberty, equality, and fraternity".

Yes, freedom does need to be defined in law and made permanent, because one persons freedom is another persons slavery

Conscription for example, is freedom for those who don't mind being conscripted, but it is slavery for others who see it as slavery .. and it is slavery

Here's a slave for you, there is no such thing as freedom in Australia, only if the Establishment said you can have some freedom ... for a little while. Then when they say you can't have freedom, you loose it

https://burgewords.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/untitled111.jpg?

The same happened to Jews in Germany in the 30s and 40s, dragged off to camps ... our politicians never learned from that, and yet they condemned the German Nazis ... pot calling the kettle black

We need permanent rights and freedom that the Establishment and politicians can't touch. The United Nations Human Rights is not binding on us, they can be ignored by our dictatorial politicians

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2023 at 2:48pm:

We need permanent rights and freedom that the Establishment and politicians can't touch. The United Nations Human Rights is not binding on us, they can be ignored by our dictatorial politicians

The rights set out in the UN Universal DHR can't  be enacted because the obsolete concept of national sovereignty  prevents the UN from enacting those rights under the aegis of international law.

That's because international law has no rights without international approval.... meaning each individual nation must make the sovereign decision to accept it.

So your argument founders again.  Theory is all well and good... but in the end it comes back again and again to national and then personal sovereignty.... with the only alternative being one massive worldwide despotism imposed by force ......

You'll get there.... keep going..

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 13^th, 2023 at 12:16pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 13th, 2023 at 11:55am: I thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 13th, 2023 at 11:12am: Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality and equality before the law. Liberals espouse various views depending on their understanding of these principles. We have seen "rights of the individual" are difficult to define, other than in law. Hence 'equality before the law' sets up a circularity; equality in rights which have to be defined in law. eg there can be no equal right to private property unless  the law determines it. Consent of the governed can be achieved by consensus meritocracy as well as by secret ballot in a democracy. The former will of course need to produce the desired results to maintain legitimacy. Collectivism stresses the importance of the community, while individualism is focused on the rights and concerns of each person. Where unity and selflessness or altruism are valued traits in collectivist cultures, independence and personal identity are promoted in individualistic cultures. A question of balance, for good governance.... Unity, selflessness, altruism - are these natural human traits or are they also definable only in law like freedom ( according to you)? Where do they come from? As already noted, freedom is the one "inalienable" right which might be said does not need to be defined in law, because we are all born free (outside of slavery). Yet we have the French-proposed "liberty, equality, and fraternity". Unity is obviously not an 'inalienable right' it is achieved by consensus; nor are selflessness and altruism, which reside in the 'conscience' possessed by humans endowed with the cortex brain, enabling awareness of the desires and motivations of self and others. And triumphing over the ego and the id....(to use the Freudian concept, rather than the triune brain-physiology method) Hence the term "sociopaths": those without a conscience.

I didn't ask if they were inalienable rights, tapdancing parrot.

I asked about human nature.


And what happened to evil freedom you have been parrotting incessantly until 2 minutes ago? Pauline turn? Memory loss?

Frank wrote on Jan 13^th, 2023 at 5:00pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 13th, 2023 at 12:16pm: Frank wrote on Jan 13th, 2023 at 11:55am: I thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 13th, 2023 at 11:12am: Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality and equality before the law. Liberals espouse various views depending on their understanding of these principles. We have seen "rights of the individual" are difficult to define, other than in law. Hence 'equality before the law' sets up a circularity; equality in rights which have to be defined in law. eg there can be no equal right to private property unless  the law determines it. Consent of the governed can be achieved by consensus meritocracy as well as by secret ballot in a democracy. The former will of course need to produce the desired results to maintain legitimacy. Collectivism stresses the importance of the community, while individualism is focused on the rights and concerns of each person. Where unity and selflessness or altruism are valued traits in collectivist cultures, independence and personal identity are promoted in individualistic cultures. A question of balance, for good governance.... Unity, selflessness, altruism - are these natural human traits or are they also definable only in law like freedom ( according to you)? Where do they come from? As already noted, freedom is the one "inalienable" right which might be said does not need to be defined in law, because we are all born free (outside of slavery). Yet we have the French-proposed "liberty, equality, and fraternity". Unity is obviously not an 'inalienable right' it is achieved by consensus; nor are selflessness and altruism, which reside in the 'conscience' possessed by humans endowed with the cortex brain, enabling awareness of the desires and motivations of self and others. And triumphing over the ego and the id....(to use the Freudian concept, rather than the triune brain-physiology method) Hence the term "sociopaths": those without a conscience.     I didn't ask if they were inalienable rights, tapdancing parrot. I asked about human nature.

I thought we had that sorted: human nature is manifested by a complex interaction of id, ego, reason and conscience. 


Quote:

And what happened to evil freedom you have been parrotting incessantly until 2 minutes ago? Pauline turn? Memory loss?

"evil freedom": ie BLIND, SELF-INTERESTED (egoistic) FREEDOM.....it's still very much alive and kicking....

Question?

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 13^th, 2023 at 5:16pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 13th, 2023 at 5:00pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 13th, 2023 at 12:16pm: Frank wrote on Jan 13th, 2023 at 11:55am: I thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 13th, 2023 at 11:12am: Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality and equality before the law. Liberals espouse various views depending on their understanding of these principles. We have seen "rights of the individual" are difficult to define, other than in law. Hence 'equality before the law' sets up a circularity; equality in rights which have to be defined in law. eg there can be no equal right to private property unless  the law determines it. Consent of the governed can be achieved by consensus meritocracy as well as by secret ballot in a democracy. The former will of course need to produce the desired results to maintain legitimacy. Collectivism stresses the importance of the community, while individualism is focused on the rights and concerns of each person. Where unity and selflessness or altruism are valued traits in collectivist cultures, independence and personal identity are promoted in individualistic cultures. A question of balance, for good governance.... Unity, selflessness, altruism - are these natural human traits or are they also definable only in law like freedom ( according to you)? Where do they come from? As already noted, freedom is the one "inalienable" right which might be said does not need to be defined in law, because we are all born free (outside of slavery). Yet we have the French-proposed "liberty, equality, and fraternity". Unity is obviously not an 'inalienable right' it is achieved by consensus; nor are selflessness and altruism, which reside in the 'conscience' possessed by humans endowed with the cortex brain, enabling awareness of the desires and motivations of self and others. And triumphing over the ego and the id....(to use the Freudian concept, rather than the triune brain-physiology method) Hence the term "sociopaths": those without a conscience.     I didn't ask if they were inalienable rights, tapdancing parrot. I asked about human nature. I thought we had that sorted: human nature is manifested by a complex interaction of id, ego, reason and conscience.  Quote: And what happened to evil freedom you have been parrotting incessantly until 2 minutes ago? Pauline turn? Memory loss? "evil freedom": ie BLIND, SELF-INTERESTED (egoistic) FREEDOM.....it's still very much alive and kicking.... Question?

SOOOOOO.....  Unity, selflessness, altruism - are these natural human traits?

Frank wrote on Jan 13^th, 2023 at 5:45pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 13th, 2023 at 5:16pm: Frank wrote on Jan 13th, 2023 at 5:00pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 13th, 2023 at 12:16pm: Frank wrote on Jan 13th, 2023 at 11:55am: I thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 13th, 2023 at 11:12am: Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality and equality before the law. Liberals espouse various views depending on their understanding of these principles. We have seen "rights of the individual" are difficult to define, other than in law. Hence 'equality before the law' sets up a circularity; equality in rights which have to be defined in law. eg there can be no equal right to private property unless  the law determines it. Consent of the governed can be achieved by consensus meritocracy as well as by secret ballot in a democracy. The former will of course need to produce the desired results to maintain legitimacy. Collectivism stresses the importance of the community, while individualism is focused on the rights and concerns of each person. Where unity and selflessness or altruism are valued traits in collectivist cultures, independence and personal identity are promoted in individualistic cultures. A question of balance, for good governance.... Unity, selflessness, altruism - are these natural human traits or are they also definable only in law like freedom ( according to you)? Where do they come from? As already noted, freedom is the one "inalienable" right which might be said does not need to be defined in law, because we are all born free (outside of slavery). Yet we have the French-proposed "liberty, equality, and fraternity". Unity is obviously not an 'inalienable right' it is achieved by consensus; nor are selflessness and altruism, which reside in the 'conscience' possessed by humans endowed with the cortex brain, enabling awareness of the desires and motivations of self and others. And triumphing over the ego and the id....(to use the Freudian concept, rather than the triune brain-physiology method) Hence the term "sociopaths": those without a conscience.     I didn't ask if they were inalienable rights, tapdancing parrot. I asked about human nature. I thought we had that sorted: human nature is manifested by a complex interaction of id, ego, reason and conscience.  Quote: And what happened to evil freedom you have been parrotting incessantly until 2 minutes ago? Pauline turn? Memory loss? "evil freedom": ie BLIND, SELF-INTERESTED (egoistic) FREEDOM.....it's still very much alive and kicking.... Question? SOOOOOO.....  Unity, selflessness, altruism - are these natural human traits?

Of course, specifically, those 'on the side of the angels', ie, emanating from the cortex-based
conscience.....cf with those traits 'on the other side' emanating from the id/ego combo.......

Frank wrote on Jan 13^th, 2023 at 5:45pm:

SOOOOOO.....  Unity, selflessness, altruism - are these natural human traits?

Claims are often made that is so but reality tells many of those pretending to support such are monstrous hypocrites whose motives are no more than tribal if not viciously selfish. On the other hand Ayn Rand claims selfishness as a virtue. Underneath of such claims of allegiance to some kind of moral system lies the reality of human nature itself, a topic few (Apart from Arthur Koestler and some others)  are brave enough to discuss. Or to put is as simply as I can, we are what we are.

Let's get back to that lamb, lamb-chop..... we are the lamb we eat!!

Had a roast leg tonight - in Nu Zulland it's a Lig Of Lemb... Maori like it nearly as much as they like rice fed Japanese/Chinese tourists on the table... the idea of opening a resort for Japanese up north near Whangarei (pronounced Fhangarei) was greeted with pleasure - if the economy wint downhull, they'd have something to eat...

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 13^th, 2023 at 10:32pm:

Let's get back to that lamb, lamb-chop..... we are the lamb we eat!! Had a roast leg tonight - in Nu Zulland it's a Lig Of Lemb... Maori like it nearly as much as they like rice fed Japanese/Chinese tourists on the table... the idea of opening a resort for Japanese up north near Whangarei (pronounced Fhangarei) was greeted with pleasure - if the economy wint downhull, they'd have something to eat...

Obfuscation, the best we can expect from you I suppose. 

As Ayn Marx noted:
" ... the reality of human nature itself, a topic few (Apart from Arthur Koestler and some others)  are brave enough to discuss".

You of course are a classic, hiding behind meaningless "freedom values", which - like "rights" - have to be defined.

We are told the US and Japan share the same "democratic values" in opposition to the "authoritarian values" of China.

So what, does that difference in "values" need to be settled by war, given that the Chinese people themselves are satisfied with their "authoritarian" government (while it continues lift their living standards)?

Frank has yet to acknowledge the "angelic traits"  of human nature emanating from the cortex-based "conscience", in contrast to the "satanist traits" of human nature emanating from the id/ego. 

The fact that we are all capable of displaying both sets of traits at different times, is well acknowledged by social scientists.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 13^th, 2023 at 6:18pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 13th, 2023 at 5:45pm: SOOOOOO.....  Unity, selflessness, altruism - are these natural human traits? Of course, specifically, those 'on the side of the angels', ie, emanating from the cortex-based conscience.....cf with those traits 'on the other side' emanating from the id/ego combo.......

:D :D :D :D

Gibberish.

Frank wrote on Jan 14^th, 2023 at 10:18am:

Gibberish.

 

I was wondering how the debate would end.....

So you think "democratic values" will save the world..

...and you deny you are capable of evil.

The demand for national sovereignty is merely another example of the aggregation of the natural egoistic preference for individual rights above unity of the collective. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 14^th, 2023 at 10:12am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 13th, 2023 at 10:32pm: Let's get back to that lamb, lamb-chop..... we are the lamb we eat!! Had a roast leg tonight - in Nu Zulland it's a Lig Of Lemb... Maori like it nearly as much as they like rice fed Japanese/Chinese tourists on the table... the idea of opening a resort for Japanese up north near Whangarei (pronounced Fhangarei) was greeted with pleasure - if the economy wint downhull, they'd have something to eat... Obfuscation, the best we can expect from you I suppose.  As Ayn Marx noted: " ... the reality of human nature itself, a topic few (Apart from Arthur Koestler and some others)  are brave enough to discuss". You of course are a classic, hiding behind meaningless "freedom values", which - like "rights" - have to be defined. We are told the US and Japan share the same "democratic values" in opposition to the "authoritarian values" of China. So what, does that difference in "values" need to be settled by war, given that the Chinese people themselves are satisfied with their "authoritarian" government (while it continues lift their living standards)? Frank has yet to acknowledge the "angelic traits"  of human nature emanating from the cortex-based "conscience", in contrast to the "satanist traits" of human nature emanating from the id/ego.  The fact that we are all capable of displaying both sets of traits at different times, is well acknowledged by social scientists.

Who really cares?  Nobody agrees with your ideology and economic theories... and you've been told why time and time again... but you simply will not listen to anyone or anything else but your own delusions.

You need to learn how to do these things before embarking on argument with your superiors... I'm simply weary of your endless circular arguments .... round and round like a top ... and always back to the same delusional position regardless.

No - the voice will not get up because you whine and cry about disadvantage and handing out free money for no effort.

Clear case in point - and I'm not going to spend all day arguing with you over it:-

"You of course are a classic, hiding behind meaningless "freedom values", which - like "rights" - have to be defined.

We are told the US and Japan share the same "democratic values" in opposition to the "authoritarian values" of China.

So what, does that difference in "values" need to be settled by war, given that the Chinese people themselves are satisfied with their "authoritarian" government (while it continues lift their living standards)? "

Never used the term 'freedom values' - and I've explained to you time and time and time again that anything you demand will need the considered acceptance of countries and people - all personal and national sovereignty issues.

What makes you imagine that discussion of different national values means war?  Clearly you miss the actual events going on around you... the expansionism, usurpation of territory, the moves to establish strategic toeholds and break down international friendships and alliances, crushing down on those in the population who disagree, the sabre-rattling and strutting...... your twisted philosophical meanderings will not alter those one iota.... it is not the differences in 'values' that will cause war - it is the vile intrusions of one side, clear to anyone with eyes.

One side only is doing those things.... not the other.

Who cares what you think the Chinese people are satisfied with?  How could you possibly know that - and if it is so, why are there demonstrations etc?  Why do so many Chinese want to leave?  Why do so many settle here?  Because it's all sweetness and light back 'home'?

Stop propagandising - it's not working.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 14^th, 2023 at 10:35am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 14th, 2023 at 10:12am: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 13th, 2023 at 10:32pm: Let's get back to that lamb, lamb-chop..... we are the lamb we eat!! Had a roast leg tonight - in Nu Zulland it's a Lig Of Lemb... Maori like it nearly as much as they like rice fed Japanese/Chinese tourists on the table... the idea of opening a resort for Japanese up north near Whangarei (pronounced Fhangarei) was greeted with pleasure - if the economy wint downhull, they'd have something to eat... Obfuscation, the best we can expect from you I suppose.  As Ayn Marx noted: " ... the reality of human nature itself, a topic few (Apart from Arthur Koestler and some others)  are brave enough to discuss". You of course are a classic, hiding behind meaningless "freedom values", which - like "rights" - have to be defined. We are told the US and Japan share the same "democratic values" in opposition to the "authoritarian values" of China. So what, does that difference in "values" need to be settled by war, given that the Chinese people themselves are satisfied with their "authoritarian" government (while it continues lift their living standards)? Frank has yet to acknowledge the "angelic traits"  of human nature emanating from the cortex-based "conscience", in contrast to the "satanist traits" of human nature emanating from the id/ego.  The fact that we are all capable of displaying both sets of traits at different times, is well acknowledged by social scientists. Who really cares?  Nobody agrees with your ideology and economic theories...

Er.. the UN with its sustainable development and poverty eradication goals, and the growing number of heterodox econmists determined to achieve it. 

https://www.globalgoals.org/podcast/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAn4SeBhCwARIsANeF9DK-qzwXUeQUK-3jAbwL-PmMhUXdMun9P650txkHXzMo3I875Cw8Or8aAlUmEALw_wcB

AN IDIOT’S GUIDE TO SAVING THE WORLD



Quote:

and you've been told why time and time again... but you simply will not listen to anyone or anything else but your own delusions.

Don't look at the mirror, it will break into a million pieces....

Sensible resource allocation can 'save the world'.


Quote:

You need to learn how to do these things before embarking on argument with your superiors... I'm simply weary of your endless circular arguments .... round and round like a top ... and always back to the same delusional position regardless.

refuted above. Economic heterodoxy is advancing
apace.


Quote:

No - the voice will not get up because you whine and cry about disadvantage and handing out free money for no effort.

? you talking to me? I don't care about the outcome  of the referendum voice.

Well - they all have their theories - none of which has worked yet... and every 'empire' in history has never lasted ... so your New World Order of a totally subjugated mass of people (the Hunger Games masses) and a ruling elite (Capital City) will not last anyway, but will collapse once more into the same basic structure as we have now - personal and national and tribal sovereignty and so forth.

Your dream is just that - a dream - it will never bear fruit, and will instead of becoming a great liberating force for mankind, will collapse it into a new Dark Age of despotism and terror and endless division; at the very least driving it back into a feudal style society with well-heeled Overlords and masses of right-less peasants to do their bidding while struggling to survive.

You will NEVER convince some groups to give up their personal fiefdoms.  Can you really see the ayatollahs (and the lowatollahs) kindly giving up their religious based supremacy so as to create heaven on earth for all equally?  Are you kidding me?  Can you really see your rabid communists giving up their priviliged position in their society and genuinely sharing it with the masses and with the rest of the world?  Can you really see your Top Capitalists doing the same?

The best you should be looking for is trade advantages for your own first... that's the way a true world economy keeps going around... and drop all the namby-pamby stuff of liberating the world that doesn't know how to be liberated and making them all equal to the majority, but not to the ruling elite in any country, who will perforce remain above all that and will dwell in luxury untold.

Sorry, son - all you are advocating is - like feminism - not changing the underlying structures with all their faults - but simply changing who gets to run the show.... and who will continue to benefit while the rest take it on the chin more and more.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 14^th, 2023 at 10:31am:

Frank wrote on Jan 14th, 2023 at 10:18am: Gibberish.   I was wondering how the debate would end..... So you think "democratic values" will save the world.. ...and you deny you are capable of evil. The demand for national sovereignty is merely another example of the aggregation of the natural egoistic preference for individual rights above unity of the collective.

SOOOOOO.....  Unity, selflessness, altruism - are these natural human traits? Not a hard question.

You introduced these qualities as being superior to 'evil freedom' propagated by evil neocons'.

Frank wrote on Jan 14^th, 2023 at 3:51pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 14th, 2023 at 10:31am: Frank wrote on Jan 14th, 2023 at 10:18am: Gibberish.   I was wondering how the debate would end..... So you think "democratic values" will save the world.. ...and you deny you are capable of evil. The demand for national sovereignty is merely another example of the aggregation of the natural egoistic preference for individual rights above unity of the collective.  SOOOOOO.....  Unity, selflessness, altruism - are these natural human traits? Not a hard question.

Ah...I'll give you the benefit of a doubt...

"natural human traits' are not the same as 'natural human rights'; as we have seen, the latter are difficult to define, and the former range from evil to good. 


Quote:

You introduced these qualities as being superior to 'evil freedom' propagated by evil neocons'.

You were the first to introduce 'traits', which was an obfuscation re the concept of "rights". 

Indeed, the traits of "Unity, selflessness, altruism", those traits on the 'good' spectrum' of human traits, are superior toWestern "freedom values" lauding the freedom of the individual, despite possessing evil and good traits (eg greed/competition versus generosity/co-operation).   

>

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 15^th, 2023 at 10:35am:

Frank wrote on Jan 14th, 2023 at 3:51pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 14th, 2023 at 10:31am: Frank wrote on Jan 14th, 2023 at 10:18am: Gibberish.   I was wondering how the debate would end..... So you think "democratic values" will save the world.. ...and you deny you are capable of evil. The demand for national sovereignty is merely another example of the aggregation of the natural egoistic preference for individual rights above unity of the collective.  SOOOOOO.....  Unity, selflessness, altruism - are these natural human traits? Not a hard question. Ah...I'll give you the benefit of a doubt... "natural human traits' are not the same as 'natural human rights'; as we have seen, the latter are difficult to define, and the former range from evil to good.  Quote: You introduced these qualities as being superior to 'evil freedom' propagated by evil neocons'. You were the first to introduce 'traits', which was an obfuscation re the concept of "rights".  Indeed, the traits of "Unity, selflessness, altruism", those traits on the 'good' spectrum' of human traits, are superior toWestern "freedom values" lauding the freedom of the individual, despite possessing evil and good traits (eg greed/competition versus generosity/co-operation).

SOOOOOO.....  Unity, selflessness, altruism - are these natural/intrinsic/inherent human traits/right/values or are they, like your idea of freedom, only legally created and defined?
Not a hard question

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 14^th, 2023 at 11:39am:

so your New World Order .....will collapse once more into the same basic structure as we have now - personal and national and tribal sovereignty and so forth.

The conservative mindset.

Just because the Pax Romana collapsed under the weight of barbarian intrusion, doesn't mean a new civilization will be forever subject to the same catastrophe, because the barbarians are slowly being educated. 

Indeed, "Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe". HG Wells. 


Quote:

Your dream is just that - a dream - it will never bear fruit, and will instead of becoming a great liberating force for mankind, will collapse it into a new Dark Age of despotism and terror and endless division; at the very least driving it back into a feudal style society with well-heeled Overlords and masses of right-less peasants to do their bidding while struggling to survive.

On the contrary, the underpinnings of a new world order are already in place, eg, the UN UDHR.   And the growing field of heterodox economics which will eradicate poverty, ushering in a new era of sustainable prosperity for all.

meaning 'elites' ...henceforth only in true capabilities, not in control of the world's resources.


Quote:

You will NEVER convince some groups to give up their personal fiefdoms.  Can you really see the ayatollahs (and the lowatollahs) kindly giving up their religious based supremacy so as to create heaven on earth for all equally?  Are you kidding me?  Can you really see your rabid communists giving up their priviliged position in their society and genuinely sharing it with the masses and with the rest of the world?  Can you really see your Top Capitalists doing the same?

Poor conservative soul. Of course humans can create a new civilization: it's what they want; and the survival of life on the planet depends on it. 


Quote:

The best you should be looking for is trade advantages for your own first...

That's what the US is doing, in a last-gasp doomed attempt to maintain global hegemony. A multi polar world is emerging, to finally submit to rule enabling implementation of UN UDHR.


Quote:

that's the way a true world economy keeps going around... and drop all the namby-pamby stuff of liberating the world that doesn't know how to be liberated and making them all equal to the majority, but not to the ruling elite in any country, who will perforce remain above all that and will dwell in luxury untold.

Like I said - "elites" will be reduced to showing their superior capabilities, not their control of the world's resources.


Quote:

Sorry, son - all you are advocating is - like feminism - not changing the underlying structures with all their faults - but simply changing who gets to run the show.... and who will continue to benefit while the rest take it on the chin more and more.

Wrong of course.

All are - or rather, must be subservient to the law.

Therefore, changing the underlying structure means changing the law  so that LAW runs the show, not self-interested 'elites'. 

The mobilization of resources for the sustainable prosperity of all - under law - means a systemic change which takes power out of the hands of self-interested individuals and ensures power resides in the law.

>

Frank wrote on Jan 15^th, 2023 at 11:16am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 15th, 2023 at 10:35am: Frank wrote on Jan 14th, 2023 at 3:51pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 14th, 2023 at 10:31am: Frank wrote on Jan 14th, 2023 at 10:18am: Gibberish.   I was wondering how the debate would end..... So you think "democratic values" will save the world.. ...and you deny you are capable of evil. The demand for national sovereignty is merely another example of the aggregation of the natural egoistic preference for individual rights above unity of the collective.  SOOOOOO.....  Unity, selflessness, altruism - are these natural human traits? Not a hard question. Ah...I'll give you the benefit of a doubt... "natural human traits' are not the same as 'natural human rights'; as we have seen, the latter are difficult to define, and the former range from evil to good.  Quote: You introduced these qualities as being superior to 'evil freedom' propagated by evil neocons'. You were the first to introduce 'traits', which was an obfuscation re the concept of "rights".  Indeed, the traits of "Unity, selflessness, altruism", those traits on the 'good' spectrum' of human traits, are superior toWestern "freedom values" lauding the freedom of the individual, despite possessing evil and good traits (eg greed/competition versus generosity/co-operation).    SOOOOOO.....  Unity, selflessness, altruism - are these natural/intrinsic/inherent human traits/right/values or are they, like your idea of freedom, only legally created and defined? Not a hard question

Are you dense? I've already explained it:

1. traits are not rights.

2. Human traits are not created, they are inherent in human nature and they reveal a spectrum ranging from good to evil; whereas human "rights" are created and need to be defined beyond the obvious "right" to liberty which is based on the fact all are born free. 

>

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 15^th, 2023 at 2:49pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 15th, 2023 at 11:16am: thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 15th, 2023 at 10:35am: Frank wrote on Jan 14th, 2023 at 3:51pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 14th, 2023 at 10:31am: Frank wrote on Jan 14th, 2023 at 10:18am: Gibberish.   I was wondering how the debate would end..... So you think "democratic values" will save the world.. ...and you deny you are capable of evil. The demand for national sovereignty is merely another example of the aggregation of the natural egoistic preference for individual rights above unity of the collective.  SOOOOOO.....  Unity, selflessness, altruism - are these natural human traits? Not a hard question. Ah...I'll give you the benefit of a doubt... "natural human traits' are not the same as 'natural human rights'; as we have seen, the latter are difficult to define, and the former range from evil to good.  Quote: You introduced these qualities as being superior to 'evil freedom' propagated by evil neocons'. You were the first to introduce 'traits', which was an obfuscation re the concept of "rights".  Indeed, the traits of "Unity, selflessness, altruism", those traits on the 'good' spectrum' of human traits, are superior toWestern "freedom values" lauding the freedom of the individual, despite possessing evil and good traits (eg greed/competition versus generosity/co-operation).    SOOOOOO.....  Unity, selflessness, altruism - are these natural/intrinsic/inherent human traits/right/values or are they, like your idea of freedom, only legally created and defined? Not a hard question Are you dense? I've already explained it: 1. traits are not rights. 2. Human traits are not created, they are inherent in human nature and they reveal a spectrum ranging from good to evil; whereas human "rights" are created and need to be defined beyond the obvious "right" to liberty which is based on the fact all are born free.

Who says you are born free? Are you born selfless, altruistic? Are you born with any human, natural rights?  Are you born with an inherent ability to tell right from wrong?

If not, how was it all made up? When? By whom?
You question natural human rights - on what basis do you question them? Where does your right to question them comes from? Did you invent them or do you share it with other humans?

To recap: the idea of sovereignty evolved over time from its grounding in religion ("Christ the king"), to monarchs ("Divine Right of kings"), and then to the individual with "inherent/natural rights", postulated by the enlightenment 18th century theorists.   

But individuals don't agree on what these rights are, so the problem of finding a theoretical/philosophical basis for practical governance remains; governance (and sovereignty) by definition applies to all.

So the only sensible grounding for sovereignty is law itself, as Cicero recognized:

"all must submit to law, if all are to be free". 

So the quality of the law is paramount: what does the law wish to achieve?

Maximum individual freedom, or maximum general welfare?

Turns out the former is taking us down the road to economic, ecological catastrophe and possible nuclear annihilation.

Frank wrote on Jan 15^th, 2023 at 7:36pm:

Who says you are born free?

All (not just some) are born free in nature, so the idea of "inherent/natural" rights must proceed from that basic truth. 


Quote:

Are you born selfless, altruistic? Are you born with any human, natural rights?  Are you born with an inherent ability to tell right from wrong?

No.


Quote:

If not, how was it all made up? When? By whom?

Just answered in my previous postm #108.


Quote:

You question natural human rights - on what basis do you question them?

On the basis that these supposed 'natural'  rights differ among the individuals who attempt to  define them.


Quote:

Where does your right to question them comes from?

from my conscience and capacity for reason


Quote:

Did you invent them or do you share it with other humans?

Well natural rights don't exist, even if people attempt to invent them;  so the only thing we all "share" is the sovereignty of the law....law which has to be created by men.

>

So much pseudo philosophic gibberish in this tread one doesn't know where to start.
Maybe start asking ourselves about the kind of thoughts and actions that lead to the preservation of life and which don't ?

>
     

Ayn Marx wrote on Jan 21^st, 2023 at 9:38am:

So much pseudo philosophic gibberish in this tread one doesn't know where to start. Maybe start asking ourselves about the kind of thoughts and actions that lead to the preservation of life and which don't ?

Exactly.

And how those thoughts and actions can be codified in law.

>

Much will be said about "democracy" this weekend, but little about the cost-of living crisis, or access to  housing and jobs for all......

.

Quote:

But the classical liberal formulation "all are created equal before the law" defines the law in terms of itself, namely, "all are created equal" - which is obvious nonsense; some are literally imbeciles, some are geniuses - implying remarkably different outcomes 'before the law'.

This is fundamental misunderstanding of what "before the law" means. It does not define of the law.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 13^th, 2024 at 12:11pm:

Much will be said about "democracy" this weekend, but little about the cost-of living crisis, or access to  housing and jobs for all......

Relate those to our form of governance .... take your time..... explain precisely how it works....

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 21^st, 2023 at 8:50am:

To recap: the idea of sovereignty evolved over time from its grounding in religion ("Christ the king"), to monarchs ("Divine Right of kings"), and then to the individual with "inherent/natural rights", postulated by the enlightenment 18th century theorists.    But individuals don't agree on what these rights are, so the problem of finding a theoretical/philosophical basis for practical governance remains; governance (and sovereignty) by definition applies to all. So the only sensible grounding for sovereignty is law itself, as Cicero recognized: "all must submit to law, if all are to be free".  So the quality of the law is paramount: what does the law wish to achieve? Maximum individual freedom, or maximum general welfare? Turns out the former is taking us down the road to economic, ecological catastrophe and possible nuclear annihilation.

this is, of course, the exact arguement of the WEF

that shareholder capitalism is at its end and a new broom of regulatory elites need to take over the reins.

but who supervises clauss shwabb, mark zuckerburg, justin trudeau, angela merkel,  bill gates, geotge clooney and greta thunburg?

are they not just authoritarians dressed up as the latest iteration to "take care of us"

thats the selling point and many people (especially of the left) view all politicians and authority figures through the frame of

"who can look after me best"

the covid lockdowns showed us that maybe 90 % of people think that way.

"frightened children who just want to be led"

stakeholder capitalism as clauss called it 40 yrs ago.

who decides which stakeholders get what ?

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 21^st, 2023 at 9:06am:

Frank wrote on Jan 15th, 2023 at 7:36pm: Who says you are born free? All (not just some) are born free in nature, so the idea of "inherent/natural" rights must proceed from that basic truth.  Quote: Are you born selfless, altruistic? Are you born with any human, natural rights?  Are you born with an inherent ability to tell right from wrong? No. [QUOTE]If not, how was it all made up? When? By whom?

Just answered in my previous postm #108.


Quote:

You question natural human rights - on what basis do you question them?

On the basis that these supposed 'natural'  rights differ among the individuals who attempt to  define them.


Quote:

Where does your right to question them comes from?

from my conscience and capacity for reason


Quote:

Did you invent them or do you share it with other humans?

Well natural rights don't exist, even if people attempt to invent them;  so the only thing we all "share" is the sovereignty of the law....law which has to be created by men.

[/quote]

Is your conscience and capacity for reason inherent in you, as a human being?

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2024 at 2:58pm:

Quote: But the classical liberal formulation "all are created equal before the law" defines the law in terms of itself, namely, "all are created equal" - which is obvious nonsense; some are literally imbeciles, some are geniuses - implying remarkably different outcomes 'before the law'. This is fundamental misunderstanding of what "before the law" means. It does not define of the law.

My point is the statement "all men are created equal" is sheer, obvious nonsense (eg genius c.f. imbecile), unless "created equal" is defined; hence my suggestion "before the law" which was my attempt to render meaning to "created equal".

And of course if you believe in the 'natural individual rights' delusion, the basis of your Law is already an illusion. 

Perhaps you can tell us what "created equal" means, if not created equal in Law (or "before" the Law).   

Frank wrote on Jan 14^th, 2024 at 7:57am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 21st, 2023 at 9:06am: Frank wrote on Jan 15th, 2023 at 7:36pm: Who says you are born free? All (not just some) are born free in nature, so the idea of "inherent/natural" rights must proceed from that basic truth.  Quote: Are you born selfless, altruistic? Are you born with any human, natural rights?  Are you born with an inherent ability to tell right from wrong? No. [QUOTE]If not, how was it all made up? When? By whom? Just answered in my previous postm #108. [QUOTE]You question natural human rights - on what basis do you question them?

On the basis that these supposed 'natural'  rights differ among the individuals who attempt to  define them.


Quote:

Where does your right to question them comes from?

from my conscience and capacity for reason


Quote:

Did you invent them or do you share it with other humans?

Well natural rights don't exist, even if people attempt to invent them;  so the only thing we all "share" is the sovereignty of the law....law which has to be created by men.

[/quote]

Is your conscience and capacity for reason inherent in you, as a human being?
[/quote]

Yes.

And?

aquascoot wrote on Jan 14^th, 2024 at 7:00am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 21st, 2023 at 8:50am: To recap: the idea of sovereignty evolved over time from its grounding in religion ("Christ the king"), to monarchs ("Divine Right of kings"), and then to the individual with "inherent/natural rights", postulated by the enlightenment 18th century theorists.    But individuals don't agree on what these rights are, so the problem of finding a theoretical/philosophical basis for practical governance remains; governance (and sovereignty) by definition applies to all. So the only sensible grounding for sovereignty is law itself, as Cicero recognized: "all must submit to law, if all are to be free".  So the quality of the law is paramount: what does the law wish to achieve? Maximum individual freedom, or maximum general welfare? Turns out the former is taking us down the road to economic, ecological catastrophe and possible nuclear annihilation. this is, of course, the exact arguement of the WEF that shareholder capitalism is at its end and a new broom of regulatory elites need to take over the reins.

WHY are they arguing that?

Perhaps because we ARE heading "down the road to economic, ecological catastrophe and possible nuclear annihilation".

But ofcourse the WEF, infested by deluded mainstream economic orthodoxy, have the wrong solutions to the problem.


Quote:

but who supervises clauss shwabb, mark zuckerburg, justin trudeau, angela merkel,  bill gates, geotge clooney and greta thunburg?

The correct answer is the system of governance which engenders collective prosperity, security and sustainability.


Quote:

are they not just authoritarians dressed up as the latest iteration to "take care of us"

No, they are individuals with their own ideas on how to save the planet from ecological and economic catastrophe, with the worth of these individuals' ideas varyingly widely, depending on the extent of self-interest as the basis for the formulation of their ideas.   


Quote:

thats the selling point and many people (especially of the left) view all politicians and authority figures through the frame of"who can look after me best"

True, when the question ought to be:  who (or rather  than which politicians,  what economic system) can deliver sustainable prosperity for all? 


Quote:

the covid lockdowns showed us that maybe 90 % of people think that way.

In many ways it's a pity covid wasn't a severe black-death type of illness, allowing you to survive covid unscatheed, and allowing you to persist with your "freedom" from state rule' / "sovereign citizen"  nonsense.


Quote:

"frightened children who just want to be led"

I rest my case: covid let YOU survive, but killed millions; the lockdowns were necessary before vaccines were available. Guess how doctors kept Trump alive when he caught it?   


Quote:

stakeholder capitalism as clauss called it 40 yrs ago. who decides which stakeholders get what ?

Under the present deluded "natural individual rights" system, company share ownership eg Musk's ownership of Tesla shares make him richer than half the world's  nations. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 14^th, 2024 at 10:14am:

Frank wrote on Jan 14th, 2024 at 7:57am: thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 21st, 2023 at 9:06am: Frank wrote on Jan 15th, 2023 at 7:36pm: Who says you are born free? All (not just some) are born free in nature, so the idea of "inherent/natural" rights must proceed from that basic truth.  Quote: Are you born selfless, altruistic? Are you born with any human, natural rights?  Are you born with an inherent ability to tell right from wrong? No. [QUOTE]If not, how was it all made up? When? By whom? Just answered in my previous postm #108. [QUOTE]You question natural human rights - on what basis do you question them? On the basis that these supposed 'natural'  rights differ among the individuals who attempt to  define them. [QUOTE]  Where does your right to question them comes from?

from my conscience and capacity for reason


Quote:

Did you invent them or do you share it with other humans?

Well natural rights don't exist, even if people attempt to invent them;  so the only thing we all "share" is the sovereignty of the law....law which has to be created by men.

[/quote]

Is your conscience and capacity for reason inherent in you, as a human being?
[/quote]

Yes.

And?
[/quote]
Human nature, eh?

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 14^th, 2024 at 1:38am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 13th, 2024 at 12:11pm: Much will be said about "democracy" this weekend, but little about the cost-of living crisis, or access to  housing and jobs for all...... Relate those to our form of governance .... take your time..... explain precisely how it works....

Our form of governance is based on the delusion of "natural/inherent individual rights", so access to housing and jobs for all is not considered to be a requirement for good governance. 

As for the current cost of living crises, it's an insanity, a systemic failure: how can there be a cost of living crisis in Oz when those with jobs have  been working hard for decades; now suddenly a significant proportion of the population can't afford to live...economic madness staring us in the face. 

Interestingly, cost of living/housing/jobs did resonate in the Taiwan election: the pro-independence DPP lost its majority.

Frank wrote on Jan 14^th, 2024 at 11:04am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 14th, 2024 at 10:14am: Frank wrote on Jan 14th, 2024 at 7:57am: thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 21st, 2023 at 9:06am: Frank wrote on Jan 15th, 2023 at 7:36pm: Who says you are born free? All (not just some) are born free in nature, so the idea of "inherent/natural" rights must proceed from that basic truth.  Quote: Are you born selfless, altruistic? Are you born with any human, natural rights?  Are you born with an inherent ability to tell right from wrong? No. [QUOTE]If not, how was it all made up? When? By whom? Just answered in my previous postm #108. [QUOTE]You question natural human rights - on what basis do you question them? On the basis that these supposed 'natural'  rights differ among the individuals who attempt to  define them. [QUOTE]  Where does your right to question them comes from? from my conscience and capacity for reason [QUOTE]Did you invent them or do you share it with other humans?

Well natural rights don't exist, even if people attempt to invent them;  so the only thing we all "share" is the sovereignty of the law....law which has to be created by men.

[/quote]

Is your conscience and capacity for reason inherent in you, as a human being?
[/quote]

Yes.

And?
[/quote]
Human nature, eh?

[/quote]

Confusion on your part: "human  nature" is defined/manifested by instinct as well as the capacity to reason ie the individual human conscience,  and capacity to reason beyond the confines of instinct.

.

Quote:

Confusion on your part: "human  nature" is defined by instinct as well as the capacity to reason ie the individual human conscience,  and capacity to reason beyond the confines of instinct

So your conscience and capacity for reason is part of your human nature.