Iowa FTW

[RageBeoulve]

Not got time to read this properly or reply as Im going out again in a minute.  but re free healthcare, yes, we have already discussed this. what's the point in making that "point" again?

we essentially agree on what it is, except I would still say it is "free" healthcare. you wouldnt call it free because it's funded by taxes.

 

Which means we're still paying for it. Even people that don't want healthcare still have to pay for it.

[odeon]

Seriously, you don't understand. Either universal/natural laws exist or they do not exist.

Since you don't understand that binary logics just exist above quantum level

If you that they don't exist you must (to be intellectually honest anyway) also admit that you don't have any rights.

In the quoted Spooner texts he also perfectly explains this and also tells you that legislation is there to take your rights away from you, so that the oppressors can have their ways with you.

In the light of the faked "war against terror", the NSA shit etc etc etc it's incredible that you don't understand that the state doesn't protect against wrongs but creates and upholds them to keep the powerful psychopaths powerful.

I think you know this very well but can't stand the thought of it.

[odeon]

Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.

Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.

Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.

You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.

Exactly. People don't seem to understand that their beliefs have absolutely no effect on the physical world. Reality is reality. Our governments no longer serve us, so we are in danger. End of story.

I wish you'd understand this.

I wish that everyone would understand it. Although the likeliness for that it would happen at all isn't great you are helpless against an armed burglar without a gun. And if you happen to have a gun and defend yourself successfully with it, the court might send you to prison for it, even if the gun is perfectly legal, because the cunts in court don't care about the fact that you were attacked to begin with.

That is a fact that you really can't argue against at all. You can't legally defend yourself with a gun in Sweden outside your own property, and even in your own bedroom you can't be sure that you might defend yourself and not be punished for it, because your right to defend yourself ("right" according to the law that is) isn't guaranteed even in your own home. In some peculiar way the Swedish legislators think that a criminal's life should be as sacred as yours, even when he attacks you in your own bedroom in the middle of the night. And it is ridiculously hard to legally get a gun to start with, except a rifle.

Is this the way you think it should be?

You keep presenting your opinions and beliefs as if they were facts. This is going nowhere.

Except for the last sentence that is not an opinion but a fact. That is how the Swedish gun law and law about self-defence function in practice, which you are very well aware of. The Rödeby case was exceptional in the respect that a victim who defended himself and killed one aggressor and hurt another very seriously actually didn't go to jail. Usually he would have done that.

In Texas or Colorado he wouldn't even have been prosecuted. That is also a fact.

The last sentence in your post is "Is this the way you think it should be?"

Erm. A fact?

[odeon]

Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.

Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.

Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.

You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.

*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.

Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.

Yes, there are universal rights. Doesn't everyone have a right to not be enslaved? Doesn't everyone have a right to life? If not, who doesn't have these rights?

Do you believe that all people are created equal? If so, then why does this not lead to the premise that all people have certain rights by virtue of being people?

No, and no.

They probably should be, at least in the world we live in, but there are plenty of places where none of it is true, which means none of your "rights" is "universal".

You are confusing what you want with what actually is.

Note that I'm not arguing against the concept, just its current applicability. It also amuses me to think that someone would somehow put "carrying a firearm" next to "born equal". I know the former is thought to be a prerequisite for the other in the US, but that's not how the whole world sees it, thus immediately nullifying the "universal" part.

Here is the proof that you don't understand what we are talking about. Universal rights exist independent from what anyone thinks. They are an abstraction.

Then you can say: "I don't believe in an abstraction". But then I think you should be honest enough to also admit that you don't have any rights at all. What the UN or EU or Swedish parliament writes on a paper has nothing at all to do with your rights.

The origin of the idea of natural rights, ius naturale, was a Roman concept. The Romans thought that laws that both Romans and foreigners agreed on were "natural", though this was in a concrete way. When you talk about natural rights in a modern concept we mean that the natural rights actually exist as a kind of entity, like God or Providence or whatever. If you want rights but don't believe in natural rights as an entity, you must postulate them. Spooner actually never says that natural rights exist, but he reasons as if they did: "If justice be not a natural principle, it is no principle at all. If it be not a natural principle, there is no such thing as justice."

Doesn't make it a universal truth.

This is going in circles and you aren't convincing anyone. Well, maybe Rage, but there's a circle jerk going on there that is a bit sad, tbh.

[TheoK]

Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.

Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.

Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.

You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.

Exactly. People don't seem to understand that their beliefs have absolutely no effect on the physical world. Reality is reality. Our governments no longer serve us, so we are in danger. End of story.

I wish you'd understand this.

I wish that everyone would understand it. Although the likeliness for that it would happen at all isn't great you are helpless against an armed burglar without a gun. And if you happen to have a gun and defend yourself successfully with it, the court might send you to prison for it, even if the gun is perfectly legal, because the cunts in court don't care about the fact that you were attacked to begin with.

That is a fact that you really can't argue against at all. You can't legally defend yourself with a gun in Sweden outside your own property, and even in your own bedroom you can't be sure that you might defend yourself and not be punished for it, because your right to defend yourself ("right" according to the law that is) isn't guaranteed even in your own home. In some peculiar way the Swedish legislators think that a criminal's life should be as sacred as yours, even when he attacks you in your own bedroom in the middle of the night. And it is ridiculously hard to legally get a gun to start with, except a rifle.

Is this the way you think it should be?

You keep presenting your opinions and beliefs as if they were facts. This is going nowhere.

Except for the last sentence that is not an opinion but a fact. That is how the Swedish gun law and law about self-defence function in practice, which you are very well aware of. The Rödeby case was exceptional in the respect that a victim who defended himself and killed one aggressor and hurt another very seriously actually didn't go to jail. Usually he would have done that.

In Texas or Colorado he wouldn't even have been prosecuted. That is also a fact.

The last sentence in your post is "Is this the way you think it should be?"

Erm. A fact?

The two last sentences, then, but you know that it is like this. It is almost impossible to legally protect yourself against criminals in Sweden. Why are you pretending that it isn't?

[odeon]

Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.

Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.

Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.

You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.

*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.

Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.

Yes, there are universal rights. Doesn't everyone have a right to not be enslaved? Doesn't everyone have a right to life? If not, who doesn't have these rights?

Do you believe that all people are created equal? If so, then why does this not lead to the premise that all people have certain rights by virtue of being people?

No, and no.

They probably should be, at least in the world we live in, but there are plenty of places where none of it is true, which means none of your "rights" is "universal".

You are confusing what you want with what actually is.

Note that I'm not arguing against the concept, just its current applicability. It also amuses me to think that someone would somehow put "carrying a firearm" next to "born equal". I know the former is thought to be a prerequisite for the other in the US, but that's not how the whole world sees it, thus immediately nullifying the "universal" part.

Here's how I see it. People have certain rights just by virtue of being born. This doesn't depend on legislation of the whims of the local government; these rights exist regardless of them. All people are created equal; therefore, all are born with certain rights. These include the right to life and the right to liberty.

If you don't believe this, consider the case where there exists some person who doesn't have these rights. Let's say that there's no legislation to enforce the right to life. Is it then acceptable for me to murder that person? Under your system, it must be. If rights extend from legislation, and there is no legislation to protect the right to life, then why not accept murder? I say that murder is wrong, regardless of who the victim is and what local legislation says about the subject.

As far as "universal" goes, this system also doesn't change depending on anyone's opinion. You have certain rights, even if you don't acknowledge them. Among these are the right to bear arms, to protect yourself and to provide for your family. Here's a question for you. Why is "rights" in quotes? Do you not acknowledge that everyone on the planet has a right to life? Do you think that some people somewhere deserve to be enslaved? If so, who are these people?

As to whether I'm confusing what I want with what is, I could ask you the same question in regards to my position. Your last paragraph seems to point out, in your mind, the bizarre nature of the right to bear arms. As far as rights go, the fact that all people are born equal is fundamental to the right to bear arms, not the other way around. I suspect that you already know this. You've chosen to set up a straw man to point out what you see as an absurdity, instead of presenting a rational argument. I don't support the Second Amendment because of tradition, or out of religious adherence to the Constitution. I support the Second Amendment because I have examined the issue and I have concluded that legalized gun ownership is essential for the preservation of liberty. If you choose to believe something different, fine. However, it's possible for a completely rational culture to choose gun ownership.

Yes, I know that America isn't that completely rational culture.

Prove the "universal" bit to me.

You may think that it stands to reason that people are born equal, and it is a nice, idealistic concept, wonderfully, blissfully moral in its utter naivety.
̈́
Hell, you may even postulate such a thing, and it's a perfectly acceptable viewpoint when arguing philosophy, but it's a far stretch from an absolute, universally proven "right". It speaks to your sense of justice and fairness, but seriously, mate, since when was the universe fair and just, or even relevant to our little planet in the grand scheme of things?

It always amazes me to see how people may reject the notion of a supreme being while confidently quoting "universal" rights. The fact is that the universe is neither just nor fair. It's indifferent and an insignificant collection of microbes won't magically acquire special rights in it because there are no special rights to be had.

[odeon]

Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.

Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.

Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.

You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.

Exactly. People don't seem to understand that their beliefs have absolutely no effect on the physical world. Reality is reality. Our governments no longer serve us, so we are in danger. End of story.

I wish you'd understand this.

I wish that everyone would understand it. Although the likeliness for that it would happen at all isn't great you are helpless against an armed burglar without a gun. And if you happen to have a gun and defend yourself successfully with it, the court might send you to prison for it, even if the gun is perfectly legal, because the cunts in court don't care about the fact that you were attacked to begin with.

That is a fact that you really can't argue against at all. You can't legally defend yourself with a gun in Sweden outside your own property, and even in your own bedroom you can't be sure that you might defend yourself and not be punished for it, because your right to defend yourself ("right" according to the law that is) isn't guaranteed even in your own home. In some peculiar way the Swedish legislators think that a criminal's life should be as sacred as yours, even when he attacks you in your own bedroom in the middle of the night. And it is ridiculously hard to legally get a gun to start with, except a rifle.

Is this the way you think it should be?

You keep presenting your opinions and beliefs as if they were facts. This is going nowhere.

Except for the last sentence that is not an opinion but a fact. That is how the Swedish gun law and law about self-defence function in practice, which you are very well aware of. The Rödeby case was exceptional in the respect that a victim who defended himself and killed one aggressor and hurt another very seriously actually didn't go to jail. Usually he would have done that.

In Texas or Colorado he wouldn't even have been prosecuted. That is also a fact.

The last sentence in your post is "Is this the way you think it should be?"

Erm. A fact?

The two last sentences, then, but you know that it is like this. It is almost impossible to legally protect yourself against criminals in Sweden. Why are you pretending that it isn't?

I'm not. I'm disagreeing with you. Very different, but I don't think it's something you will grasp any time soon.

[TheoK]

Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.

Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.

Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.

You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.

*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.

Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.

Yes, there are universal rights. Doesn't everyone have a right to not be enslaved? Doesn't everyone have a right to life? If not, who doesn't have these rights?

Do you believe that all people are created equal? If so, then why does this not lead to the premise that all people have certain rights by virtue of being people?

No, and no.

They probably should be, at least in the world we live in, but there are plenty of places where none of it is true, which means none of your "rights" is "universal".

You are confusing what you want with what actually is.

Note that I'm not arguing against the concept, just its current applicability. It also amuses me to think that someone would somehow put "carrying a firearm" next to "born equal". I know the former is thought to be a prerequisite for the other in the US, but that's not how the whole world sees it, thus immediately nullifying the "universal" part.

Here is the proof that you don't understand what we are talking about. Universal rights exist independent from what anyone thinks. They are an abstraction.

Then you can say: "I don't believe in an abstraction". But then I think you should be honest enough to also admit that you don't have any rights at all. What the UN or EU or Swedish parliament writes on a paper has nothing at all to do with your rights.

The origin of the idea of natural rights, ius naturale, was a Roman concept. The Romans thought that laws that both Romans and foreigners agreed on were "natural", though this was in a concrete way. When you talk about natural rights in a modern concept we mean that the natural rights actually exist as a kind of entity, like God or Providence or whatever. If you want rights but don't believe in natural rights as an entity, you must postulate them. Spooner actually never says that natural rights exist, but he reasons as if they did: "If justice be not a natural principle, it is no principle at all. If it be not a natural principle, there is no such thing as justice."

Doesn't make it a universal truth.

This is going in circles and you aren't convincing anyone. Well, maybe Rage, but there's a circle jerk going on there that is a bit sad, tbh.

Yes, it is precisely what it does. Logically something must either exist or not exist. Either rights exist and are universal/natural or they don't. There is nothing in between. Legislation has nothing to do with the existence of rights or not.

You either don't understand this or refuse to accept it. Semicolon understands it. 

[odeon]

Oh and re this:

smell[/i] your contempt for us. Well fuck you too.

Either apologise or back up your shit.

[odeon]

Logically something must either exist or not exist. Either rights exist and are universal/natural or they don't.

Another logical fallacy.

[RageBeoulve]

Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.

Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.

Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.

You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.

*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.

Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.

Yes, there are universal rights. Doesn't everyone have a right to not be enslaved? Doesn't everyone have a right to life? If not, who doesn't have these rights?

Do you believe that all people are created equal? If so, then why does this not lead to the premise that all people have certain rights by virtue of being people?

No, and no.

They probably should be, at least in the world we live in, but there are plenty of places where none of it is true, which means none of your "rights" is "universal".

You are confusing what you want with what actually is.

Note that I'm not arguing against the concept, just its current applicability. It also amuses me to think that someone would somehow put "carrying a firearm" next to "born equal". I know the former is thought to be a prerequisite for the other in the US, but that's not how the whole world sees it, thus immediately nullifying the "universal" part.

Here's how I see it. People have certain rights just by virtue of being born. This doesn't depend on legislation of the whims of the local government; these rights exist regardless of them. All people are created equal; therefore, all are born with certain rights. These include the right to life and the right to liberty.

If you don't believe this, consider the case where there exists some person who doesn't have these rights. Let's say that there's no legislation to enforce the right to life. Is it then acceptable for me to murder that person? Under your system, it must be. If rights extend from legislation, and there is no legislation to protect the right to life, then why not accept murder? I say that murder is wrong, regardless of who the victim is and what local legislation says about the subject.

As far as "universal" goes, this system also doesn't change depending on anyone's opinion. You have certain rights, even if you don't acknowledge them. Among these are the right to bear arms, to protect yourself and to provide for your family. Here's a question for you. Why is "rights" in quotes? Do you not acknowledge that everyone on the planet has a right to life? Do you think that some people somewhere deserve to be enslaved? If so, who are these people?

As to whether I'm confusing what I want with what is, I could ask you the same question in regards to my position. Your last paragraph seems to point out, in your mind, the bizarre nature of the right to bear arms. As far as rights go, the fact that all people are born equal is fundamental to the right to bear arms, not the other way around. I suspect that you already know this. You've chosen to set up a straw man to point out what you see as an absurdity, instead of presenting a rational argument. I don't support the Second Amendment because of tradition, or out of religious adherence to the Constitution. I support the Second Amendment because I have examined the issue and I have concluded that legalized gun ownership is essential for the preservation of liberty. If you choose to believe something different, fine. However, it's possible for a completely rational culture to choose gun ownership.

Yes, I know that America isn't that completely rational culture.

Prove the "universal" bit to me.

You may think that it stands to reason that people are born equal, and it is a nice, idealistic concept, wonderfully, blissfully moral in its utter naivety.
̈́
Hell, you may even postulate such a thing, and it's a perfectly acceptable viewpoint when arguing philosophy, but it's a far stretch from an absolute, universally proven "right". It speaks to your sense of justice and fairness, but seriously, mate, since when was the universe fair and just, or even relevant to our little planet in the grand scheme of things?

It always amazes me to see how people may reject the notion of a supreme being while confidently quoting "universal" rights. The fact is that the universe is neither just nor fair. It's indifferent and an insignificant collection of microbes won't magically acquire special rights in it because there are no special rights to be had.

We are all born equal, man. We're not the same, but we have an equal amount of entitlement to live, to be free, and to make ourselves happy. This does not mean that it should be forced though, I admit that. If someone is stronger than someone else, or more skilled, then they will probably be more likely to get what they want.

Which is why its retarded to take guns away from law abiding citizens. The people who want to prey on them aren't going to obey that law. Government won't obey that law.

[RageBeoulve]

Oh and re this:

smell[/i] your contempt for us. Well fuck you too.

Either apologise or back up your shit.

I already backed it up. What more do you require?

[odeon]

We are all born equal, man.

Prove it.

[TheoK]

Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.

Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.

Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.

You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.

*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.

Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.

Yes, there are universal rights. Doesn't everyone have a right to not be enslaved? Doesn't everyone have a right to life? If not, who doesn't have these rights?

Do you believe that all people are created equal? If so, then why does this not lead to the premise that all people have certain rights by virtue of being people?

No, and no.

They probably should be, at least in the world we live in, but there are plenty of places where none of it is true, which means none of your "rights" is "universal".

You are confusing what you want with what actually is.

Note that I'm not arguing against the concept, just its current applicability. It also amuses me to think that someone would somehow put "carrying a firearm" next to "born equal". I know the former is thought to be a prerequisite for the other in the US, but that's not how the whole world sees it, thus immediately nullifying the "universal" part.

Here's how I see it. People have certain rights just by virtue of being born. This doesn't depend on legislation of the whims of the local government; these rights exist regardless of them. All people are created equal; therefore, all are born with certain rights. These include the right to life and the right to liberty.

If you don't believe this, consider the case where there exists some person who doesn't have these rights. Let's say that there's no legislation to enforce the right to life. Is it then acceptable for me to murder that person? Under your system, it must be. If rights extend from legislation, and there is no legislation to protect the right to life, then why not accept murder? I say that murder is wrong, regardless of who the victim is and what local legislation says about the subject.

As far as "universal" goes, this system also doesn't change depending on anyone's opinion. You have certain rights, even if you don't acknowledge them. Among these are the right to bear arms, to protect yourself and to provide for your family. Here's a question for you. Why is "rights" in quotes? Do you not acknowledge that everyone on the planet has a right to life? Do you think that some people somewhere deserve to be enslaved? If so, who are these people?

As to whether I'm confusing what I want with what is, I could ask you the same question in regards to my position. Your last paragraph seems to point out, in your mind, the bizarre nature of the right to bear arms. As far as rights go, the fact that all people are born equal is fundamental to the right to bear arms, not the other way around. I suspect that you already know this. You've chosen to set up a straw man to point out what you see as an absurdity, instead of presenting a rational argument. I don't support the Second Amendment because of tradition, or out of religious adherence to the Constitution. I support the Second Amendment because I have examined the issue and I have concluded that legalized gun ownership is essential for the preservation of liberty. If you choose to believe something different, fine. However, it's possible for a completely rational culture to choose gun ownership.

Yes, I know that America isn't that completely rational culture.

Prove the "universal" bit to me.

You may think that it stands to reason that people are born equal, and it is a nice, idealistic concept, wonderfully, blissfully moral in its utter naivety.
̈́
Hell, you may even postulate such a thing, and it's a perfectly acceptable viewpoint when arguing philosophy, but it's a far stretch from an absolute, universally proven "right". It speaks to your sense of justice and fairness, but seriously, mate, since when was the universe fair and just, or even relevant to our little planet in the grand scheme of things?

It always amazes me to see how people may reject the notion of a supreme being while confidently quoting "universal" rights. The fact is that the universe is neither just nor fair. It's indifferent and an insignificant collection of microbes won't magically acquire special rights in it because there are no special rights to be had.

OK, you don't believe in rights. Why are you demanding legislation about guns - and other things - then? Rights don't exist. Just accept that everything is as it is, then. But you don't.

[TheoK]

Logically something must either exist or not exist. Either rights exist and are universal/natural or they don't.

Another logical fallacy.

No. Rights can't both exist and not exist, just like there can and can't be a moon at the same time.