Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

ChrisGraley (29.89)

What gives you the freakin right ?!?

Recs

12

January 11, 2011 – Comments (19) | RELATED TICKERS: AM.DL2 , CRIS

This is the only post that I'm making in this thread. Just pick your political group and post your response if you want.

Group A) What gives you the right to dictate my morality?

Group B) What gives you the right to make me spend money on things that I don't support?

Group C) What gives you the right to think you can offer an alternative?

Like I said, this is my only post in this thread, but feel free to debate amongst yourselves.

19 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On January 11, 2011 at 10:42 AM, ChrisGraley (29.89) wrote:

I know I said I wouldn't post, but what gives him the right to spam?

Report this comment
#2) On January 11, 2011 at 11:01 AM, edwjm (99.87) wrote:

please identify the antecedent of "him" in comment number 1.

Report this comment
#3) On January 11, 2011 at 11:04 AM, ChrisGraley (29.89) wrote:

he was zapped by the TMF spam police already edwjm.

Report this comment
#4) On January 11, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Turfscape (41.49) wrote:

ChrisGraley wrote:
"What gives you the right..."

Probably the same thing that gives you the right to think you should be allowed to benefit from an organized society without accepting any responsibility for it.

Report this comment
#5) On January 11, 2011 at 3:07 PM, rfaramir (29.37) wrote:

A) I can only dictate your morality in so far as it was trying to transgress my liberty (or property or life). My liberty includes the right to defend myself. Liberty does not include the right to impinge on others' liberty. I cannot make you think or feel any particular morality, but your actions which result from your morality are fair game.

B) No one should have the right to make you spend money on anything, except in response to your violating some else's liberty (i.e., a penalty/settlement for aggression).

C) Two parts: a) "What gives you the right to think…" and 2) "to think you can offer an alternative".

C.1) Everyone has the right to think, as part of liberty, as corollary to the fact that no one has the right to make you refrain from thinking. That would be aggression on their part.

C.2) Liberty includes a limited right to free speech. Limited in the same way as (A) since some speech is action: threats, pledges or vows, commands; but none of those limit you offering in a non-threatening manner any alternative you care to name.

@Turfscape: There is no "it" to be responsible for. Each is responsible for his own actions. The emergent phenomenon of "organized society" is the result of voluntary cooperation amongst responsible free persons. Each 'pays' for the result through each free market transaction he voluntarily undertakes. To make a transaction and not pay for it is fraud which is aggression, which is not allowed.

By "not allowed" I mean a natural rule that exists among the free, mutually agreed upon and enforced. This does not imply a ruler. It's more like a pick-up game: the participants agree to the rules or they don't play. No one imposes this or other rules from "above" (there is no "above" either, except in slavery conditions).

Report this comment
#6) On January 11, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Turfscape (41.49) wrote:

rfaramir wrote:
"voluntary cooperation amongst responsible free persons"

Yep...responsible free persons cooperating. I agree.

Report this comment
#7) On January 11, 2011 at 8:18 PM, russiangambit (29.30) wrote:

B - it is always about power, he has power to subdue you unless you comply. 

Report this comment
#8) On January 11, 2011 at 9:13 PM, ChrisGraley (29.89) wrote:

Great comments so far, but I was hoping for more participation.

For not commenting, I seem to do a lot of commenting.

Report this comment
#9) On January 12, 2011 at 12:34 AM, roncool11 (< 20) wrote:

Im assuming this is a not so subtle attack on universal health care and that you are against it. It's John Locke's "social contract" that gives you the right. You give up some liberty because society would not function with complete liberty. My personal belief is fairness or an attempt to at least give everyone a chance to succeed. Does anyone truly believe that your accumulation of wealth is more based on things like "hardwork and dedication" then on where/when/who you were born to? Honestly all your hardwork and commitment would be worth nothing if you were born in Africa, or maybe an underprivileged single parent in Brooklyn. Hardwork is important but this naivety that you have money and someone else doesn't because you try harder or work longer is ridiculous.

Report this comment
#10) On January 12, 2011 at 8:15 AM, ChrisGraley (29.89) wrote:

Wow roncool! I'll have to reread my initial post. I seemed to have a hit a few soft spots with something that I was intending to be a very general post.

Can you explain to me what the not so subtle attacks on Group A and Group C were, or was I only attacking Group B?

Report this comment
#11) On January 12, 2011 at 8:32 PM, ChrisGraley (29.89) wrote:

I'm going to try this experiment again.

What I was hoping for was for everyone to justify their actions.

And then everyone consider why others may justify their actions.

The Liberal responses were priceless, but I don't have enough of a sample size to make anything out of this.

Maybe I should say in the next post that my sole purpose is to tell everyone else why their wrong. that might give me the feedback that I'm looking for.

Anyone still reading this post have any suggestions?

 

Report this comment
#12) On January 12, 2011 at 9:39 PM, rfaramir (29.37) wrote:

It was unclear from the start from what point of view to take the statements. Were they from you towards three different groups? Were they from three different groups toward you or toward others?

Not knowing which it was, I just used them as a sounding board to say what I do know. It was still fun!

It sounds like you meant the statements to be from you. Next time, maybe, show the statement you're reacting against, then your reaction. Then we'll jump in one side or the other. You don't have to be perfect, but it helps to be clear, or else others won't know what they're getting into.

Report this comment
#13) On January 12, 2011 at 10:21 PM, ChrisGraley (29.89) wrote:

rfaramir  

I was purposely trying to make everything vague to just try to get the sounding board that you keyed into.

I meant to start a spark with my statements and see what fires broke out.

I have biased beliefs and I didn't want to taint the whole attacking on all sides thing by picking sides.

I was hoping for people defending their positions on just those 3 topics.

Kind of what happened between you and turfscape on a much bigger scale.

I wasn't expecting roncool's attack about me being against forced up your ass healthcare. I am against it, but I didn't think this post was protesting it. Maybe he feels guilt. I was kinda expecting Turfscape's response. If I'm an idiot for not being thankful for benefiting from all the great organized ideas of the people that could care less about selling our kids into slavery, I should just get the hell out. Only the same people try to make sure that I don't get the hell out. "You can't leave you coward!" Somebody has to pay for all of this stupid stuff and it's not going to be the people coming up with the ideas. Some pigs are better than other pigs and pigs are always better than horses or mules.

It doesn't matter who's in charge of the farm.

Report this comment
#14) On January 13, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Turfscape (41.49) wrote:

Chris,

"I was kinda expecting Turfscape's response."

 In my response, I was singling out you...but rather "you". I was pointing out a fourth group and making the point that there is no justification for anyone thinking they have a certain right beyond the ability to form an opinion. That is, ultimately, the sole justification for holding any form of political belief.

Others will disagree, but ultimately people believe the right to intrude on others comes from the sincere notion that it will benefit the greater populace more than NOT intruding on others. That belief may be rooted in reality, or it may be completely and utterly delusional...but that belief, in and of itself, is the justification. There is no ultimate "right" or "wrong" in this world...no rule book...that is wholly objective. There are religious dictates. There are laws. But all of those are formed from the beliefs of man in the same flawed way.

As C.S. Lewis once stated: Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

(It should also be noted that I think the Narnia books are primarily derivative crap...just my opinion)

Report this comment
#15) On January 13, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Jbay76 (< 20) wrote:

The right of anyone to do anything ends when it adversely impacts the right of another to do something UNLESS a previous agreement had been met allowing the act.  IMHO anyways

Report this comment
#16) On January 13, 2011 at 1:55 PM, russiangambit (29.30) wrote:

> justification. There is no ultimate "right" or "wrong" in this world...no rule book...that is wholly objective. There are religious dictates. There are laws

#14 - I think most humans except for mentally ill have an inner sense of  what is fair. Usually, what is fair is right but it doesn't always jive with current laws or religious laws.

 

Report this comment
#17) On January 13, 2011 at 3:42 PM, ChrisGraley (29.89) wrote:

Nothing against your post Turfscape,

I was just expecting the "Because we know what's best for you! If you don't like it, get out!" answer.

Which isn't exactly what you said.

I will try this one at a later time after more thought.

Report this comment
#18) On January 13, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Turfscape (41.49) wrote:

russiangambit wrote:
"I think most humans except for mentally ill have an inner sense of  what is fair."

I don't disagree, but there is nothing that actually validates that sense of fairness or gives it any authority besides opinion.

And that general sense of what is fair is also why the differences between things like socialism and capitalism, or republicans and democrats, are really very, very minute. Yet, humans also have an inner sense of self-importance and aggression that takes those minute diffferences and blows them up into the grandest of arguments.

 

Report this comment
#19) On January 13, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Turfscape (41.49) wrote:

ChrisGraley wrote:
"I was just expecting the "Because we know what's best for you! If you don't like it, get out!" answer.

Which isn't exactly what you said."

Nor is it what I believe, of course. For me, it's just a lot of fun to have the discussion at a philosophical level.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement