Individual Rights vs. Collective Rights

POSTED BY: UnabashedVixen
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 7, 2009 21:05
VIEWED: 11645
PAGE 1 of 1

UNABASHEDVIXEN

Friday, October 2, 2009 8:26 PM

Hi all,

This is a topic that comes up (implicity if not explicitly) all over the boards, but I've found the couple of times I've tried to engage people on it, I've been ignored.

It's been my experience that, as a country, the US tends to favour individual rights over collective rights. Other countries (I would count Canada among them) tend toward the idea that the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the individual, when they come into conflict. My item of discussion is this: should there be limits on individual rights? What limits? Do you favour individual rights over collective rights, or the opposite?

My intention is to start a meaningful conversation, because I think that a lot of the disagreements on this board originate from this conflict, and I also think that some folks accept "individual rights rule" as a truism, which it is not.

For the record, I tend to favour collective rights over individual rights, when the two come conflict. And I'd be happy to explain why, but I'm hoping to start a dialogue.

*
People before profits

PIRATENEWS

Friday, October 2, 2009 8:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by UnabashedVixen:

It's been my experience that, as a country, the US tends to favour individual rights over collective rights. Other countries (I would count Canada among them) tend toward the idea that the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the individual, when they come into conflict.

On planet Earth, individual rights come from God, not from gubmit. God created Man, Man created gubmit to serve Man. Then homicidal criminal psychopaths called themselves King and made themselves ("gubmit") dictators over the sheeple, and massacred every person who claimed otherwise (or who failed to claim otherwise, since killing the innocent is even more useful to empowering a dictator). This fact of law is written in the US Declaration of Independence, which also had a lot of nasty things to say about the King Dictator of England and the British Empire.
www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=Declaration+of+Independence&bt
nG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10

As a member of the 53-nation British Commonwealth of the British Empire, Canada is literally owned by the German Nazi Queen of England, who trumps the Canadian Parliament, and in fact suspended the Canadian Parliament when it suited her (banker masters and the shadow govt).
www.google.com/search?gbv=2&hl=en&q=canadian%20parliament%20queen%20en
gland%20suspended&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw

Thus Canada puts the individual rights of the Queen of Canada/England (and her bankster/shadow masters) ahead of the collective rights of all Canadians.

For over 200 years, Canada has been a mortal enemy of USA, as a member of the armies of the evil British Empire, that twice burned Washington DC, and torched the White House, fomented the US Civil War, and conspired with FDR to lure USA into WW2, after England started WW2 by conspiring with Hitler by secret treaty (delivered by parachute via Rudolf Hess).

Queen Elizabeth of England/Canada is also worshipped in USA as the "Queen of Babylon" at Kosher Bohemian Grove homosexual nudist compound and presidential retreat for ritual child sacrifice and snuff kiddie porn. And she conspired with her Nazi husband and gay son to murder her ex-daughter-in-law. What a biatch!
www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=72rGSofIBZLR8Qady9Q0&sa=X&oi=spell&resn
um=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=bohemian+grove&spell=1

GINOBIFFARONI

Friday, October 2, 2009 9:21 PM

I think an individual has the right to do whatever they want, until the point where they begin to effect others.

The problem is as we have moved from living on farms, etc to living in citys, our ability to not effect others has become alot more limited

Now, we need common sense, which is sadly lacking

The babysitter thread for example

Who really cares if a lady watches a couple of extra kids in addition to her own in order to help her neighbors out...

the lady has the right to help out her neighbors - no negative

the kids have the right to safety, and support - no negative

the government ( unintentionally I understand ) put in a law which interfered with these rights - negative

I tend to go toward the greater good, in most cases

say you have someone steal a loaf of bread because their starving ( I don't have a problem with that )

say you have someone steal a loaf of bread because their starving, because they blew all their money on a crack addiction ( more of a problem )

I think I am rambling

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

ANTHONYT

Friday, October 2, 2009 10:30 PM

Hello,

I tend to favor individual rights, limiting them as they progressively infringe on the rights of other individuals.

I really don't spend a lot of time thinking about 'collective' rights, because the collection can always be boiled down to the individuals involved.

What do you think of as collective rights?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Friday, October 2, 2009 11:45 PM

Quote:

On planet Earth, individual rights come from God, not from gubmit.

Oh horseshit.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, October 3, 2009 12:49 AM

Bump. I need to think about this one. Interesting question. I gotta set some time aside for a decent response...

BYTEMITE

Saturday, October 3, 2009 12:52 AM

Just a cover, Kwicko.

But anyway. I believe a LOT in individual choice, because when you start writing rules to dictate individual choice... Well, my opinion is it doesn't work so good, that it's not ethical, and you have to start being concerned about corruption and abuse of power.

But I do also hold a lot of truth in the idea that once you begin to hurt others, that is an unacceptable infringement.

Of course, it's all case by case and context is important, such as with the issue of abortion.

If there is an infringement, I feel that those affected and the transgressor should work out the problem and find a solution.

But I also consider murder, rape, theft, and abuse to be entirely unacceptable in any society. These cases I believe to have rippling effects among a community, and for that reason I believe that a jury of peers should decide the consequences for someone who commits these crimes.

I note, however, that I don't support the death penalty: ultimately I think that's just a waste of potential contribution that a human could make to the community. It goes double in the case of murder, then you're losing TWO sources of potential contribution.

KWICKO

Saturday, October 3, 2009 1:17 AM

Quote:

Just a cover, Kwicko.

More like a copout on PN's part.

His stupid "god" is the biggest, most ridiculous conspiracy ever concocted and shilled to the people. PN claims that this idiot "god" person handed down "laws" - laws which this "god" feels no obligation at all to obey, since he's obviously the world's greatest mass murderer, and has even been accused of rape (hello - "immaculate conception" my ass!).

Sorry, but I ain't buyin' it.

BYTEMITE

Saturday, October 3, 2009 1:21 AM

EDIT: Actually, in the interest of protecting the cover, I think I'll take this to a private message, Kwicko.

There is nothing here. *hand waves*

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 3, 2009 1:47 AM

Hello,

I prefer jazz hands.

*jazz hands*

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Saturday, October 3, 2009 1:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I prefer jazz hands.

*jazz hands*

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Jazz hands are FABULOUS!

Byte: I'm not sure if you'll get to me through a PM or e-mail. Give the PM a shot. The e-mail's a dead drop.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, October 3, 2009 6:08 AM

I think the idea of 'individual rights' has gone too far - it's created a self obsessed society where people demand their own rights but increasingly run from personal responsibility - especially as rights has become about entitlement.

Yes we should be free to choose how we live our lives, but we need to acknowledge that choices will more often or not have an impact on others. And I guess that is where the clash between individual vs collective happens.

JKIDDO

Saturday, October 3, 2009 6:30 AM

I like George Carlin's view of "rights': There are none.

He wondered why our Bill of Rights had to be amended 17 more times. "would it be funny" he asked "if we find out after all these years that god is weak in math skills?"

PIRATENEWS

Saturday, October 3, 2009 6:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Just a cover, Kwicko.

More like a copout on PN's part.

His stupid "god" is the biggest, most ridiculous conspiracy ever concocted and shilled to the people. PN claims that this idiot "god" person handed down "laws" - laws which this "god" feels no obligation at all to obey, since he's obviously the world's greatest mass murderer, and has even been accused of rape (hello - "immaculate conception" my ass!).

Sorry, but I ain't buyin' it.

The Founding Fathers were mainly Deists, who believed basically that God created the universe, then went on holiday, permanently. So don't be a slackard, and get to work helping yourself and your family. They also called it Natural Law for the atheists.

Every creature is born with the right to kill any other creature that tries to kill it, including justifiable homicide of any human who tries to kill you. Atheists call this Natural Selection.

This was explained by parable in the Bible/Torah, where Moses murdered an Egyptian cop to defend an Israelite slave. Then Moses delivered the 10 Commandments, "Thou shalt not murder", but killing in self defense was ok in the 600+ ordinances. Cop-killer Moses became chief justice of the Israli Supreme Court.

There have been plenty of psychopathic serial killing atheists who claimed to be priests, popes, kings and dictators. Their job was to hijack all religions for mind control, armed robbery and sex slaves.

That dont change the fact everyone has a right to kill in self defense.

BTW, all atheists agree with the Bible that all matter exists forever, and that scientists have no idea what happened before the Big Bang. Only fools and jews think christianity is mutually exclusive with all science. Even Darwin was a christian.

The Commandments and ordinances were designed as "science" to help people survive disease and crime, and were essential for doing so before indoor plumbing, and are equally good advice today with bioweaponized diseases and softkill weapons unleashed.

If you think sodomy is good for your health and sanity then you are insane.

BYTEMITE

Saturday, October 3, 2009 7:38 AM

I stand corrected.

BTW, *raises hand* atheist.

But I'm gonna end up a statue of salt any time now, so not to worry.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, October 3, 2009 11:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I think the idea of 'individual rights' has gone too far - it's created a self obsessed society where people demand their own rights but increasingly run from personal responsibility - especially as rights has become about entitlement.

I tend to agree with the basic sentiment here, but I don't think it's about individual rights going too far, as much as it's about how the idea has been misconceived. People mistake the "rock and roll and blue jeans" mentality of the "me" generation as somehow epitomizing individual freedom - but that's pretty far off the mark.

I also suspect that your idea of how responsibility relates to freedom is subtly, yet substantially, different from mine. You seem to think of responsibility as an obligation to society. But as it relates to freedom, it's an obligation to yourself, to take care of yourself. You can't expect to be free to make your own decisions if you're not willing to live with the repercussions. Conversely, defining society as responsible for your misfortunes inevitably diminishes your freedom.

Quote:
Yes we should be free to choose how we live our lives, but we need to acknowledge that choices will more often or not have an impact on others.

This is fine as stated, but it becomes problematic when mixed with a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality. In other words, it's right to hold someone accountable when their actions harm others. But to dictate their actions pre-emptively because they might have an impact is to turn the notion of individual responsibility on it's head.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

KWICKO

Saturday, October 3, 2009 12:39 PM

Quote:

BTW, all atheists agree with the Bible that all matter exists forever, and that scientists have no idea what happened before the Big Bang.

I put the lie to that with my very existence. I'm an atheist, and I don't agree with that at all. It's an idiotic thing to say, even by your amazingly low standards.

Quote:

Only fools and jews think christianity is mutually exclusive with all science. Even Darwin was a christian.

So was Hitler. Does that make him right?

Quote:

If you think sodomy is good for your health and sanity then you are insane.

I have no idea what you're talking about on this one, unless you're trying to explain to us all how you got to be so batshit crazy. Stead diet of run, sodomy, and the lash, eh?

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 3, 2009 12:57 PM

"I think the idea of 'individual rights' has gone too far - it's created a self obsessed society where people demand their own rights but increasingly run from personal responsibility - especially as rights has become about entitlement."

Hello,

I think you will find that many people who believe strongly in individual rights are also some of the people who feel most strongly about personal responsibility.

The first rule about individual rights is that other individuals have rights too, and you ought not to step on them.

This creates a de-facto respect for 'collective rights' that is, in my opinion, more compassionate than the collective rights outlined by people who hold collective rights above individual rights.

An 'individual rights' person, for instance, would have a hard time justifying the execution of prisoners. This is an easier justification to make under a collective rights platform, as the collective right to enjoy a safe society exceeds the individual right to life.

At least, this is how I see it. I often feel that collective rights are somewhat tyrannical.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

AGENTROUKA

Saturday, October 3, 2009 2:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:

Every creature is born with the right to kill any other creature that tries to kill it, including justifiable homicide of any human who tries to kill you. Atheists call this Natural Selection.

Atheists, btw, are no more a homogenous group with fixed views about killing than religious people.

I also doubt that many would use the term Natural Selection in this context. It's more of a scientific term that most people would shy away from using in relation to ethics and society because it brings on associations of Hitleresque pseudo-Darwinian survival of the fittest ideologies.

Quote:

BTW, all atheists agree with the Bible that all matter exists forever, and that scientists have no idea what happened before the Big Bang.

Again with the lumping everyone together into one big, homogenous group! Where are you taking this from? I doubt that most atheists have even thought about this. Maybe you meant scientists both times? But even that might not be true, who knows.

Quote:
If you think sodomy is good for your health and sanity then you are insane.

Considering that people in happy, stable relationships are generally healthier and saner than the unhappily single (discounting the happily single), I would suspect that a couple who practice "sodomy" as a form of love-making actually do consider it good for their health and sanity. And that's gay, lesbian and hetero couples.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, October 3, 2009 2:21 PM

John,

Thanks for the healthy dose of huh?

I'm skeptical of statements like "... was a deist" because they're usually applied by others and posthumously. The FF were not of one mind.

Moses is a fictional character. Everything about him comes from somewhere else, including the ten commandments, which are found in the Egyptian book of the dead.

Darwin is a christian, but his assault on the old testament is pretty thorough and intentional. Not just evolution, but he thought the OT really had no understanding of the true nature of God.

Whether or not religious rules are come at through intelligent design as you say or evolution, that's debatable. I suspect they split:

eg. Tribe A comes up with a rule "pigs are unclean, so don't touch them" and has no other science for it, and Tribe B comes up with a rule "Mmmm Bacon... Pork!" and tribe b starts dying from trichinoses

People probably don't all die, but they leave and tribe a declares "sinners!" and people believe it, end of tribe a. Evolution.

So sure, religions could make rules that increase your total survival rate but impinge on freedom. Consider an ant hill as a masterpiece of evolution. Ants as a family of species have been around for what... 100 million some years, ant are ...oops I mean "and are"... intelligent civilized etc.

Still, there's also such a thing as an evolutionary wrong turn. Some species live forever, we don't. It appears that our aging mechanism is actually a bulwark against cancer, but being immune to cancer would have been a better one. Hmm. Maybe this why people like vampires so much.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 3, 2009 2:22 PM

Hello Agent,

Piratenews is suffering from B.S.C., so you may find diminishing returns in challenging or even acknowledging his arguments.

People are, of course, fond of pointing out that Piratenews is sometimes correct.

On a good week, Piratenews is correct approximately 8.33 percent of the time.

The same way a stopped watch can correctly determine the hour of the day.

Not a good enough T.T.B. (truth to bullshit) ratio for me to plan my life around.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

AGENTROUKA

Saturday, October 3, 2009 2:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Agent,

Piratenews is suffering from B.S.C., so you may find diminishing returns in challenging or even acknowledging his arguments.

People are, of course, fond of pointing out that Piratenews is sometimes correct.

On a good week, Piratenews is correct approximately 8.33 percent of the time.

The same way a stopped watch can correctly determine the hour of the day.

Not a good enough T.T.B. (truth to bullshit) ratio for me to plan my life around.

--Anthony

Hello Anthony,

I suspect you are very right (I do lurk in RWED a lot, and I know what PN posts) but sometimes I just can't help myself. Especially since his post did not, for once, contain off-putting links and images but a plain-spoken and unusually consize and on-topic (for him) text. It seemed more earnest and open to conversation than his usual fare and I thought I would give it an honest try myself. We'll see.

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, October 3, 2009 3:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Jazz hands are FABULOUS!

Riddle me this, Batman: if you are not, as you claim, Frem's sockpuppet, how is it you have access to one of the only clear photo of him?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

KWICKO

Saturday, October 3, 2009 3:57 PM

*HAVE I* claimed that I was not Frem's sockpuppet?

I'm not saying one way or the other, but have I ever claimed so?

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 3, 2009 4:02 PM

C'n I just jump in (late, as usual)?

Most of you are thinking way, waaaay too narrowly. You're so used the the Bill of Rights that you somehow think it is inviolable, natural, and even (ahem!) God-given.

Just because the Bill says so don't make it so!

If you look further afield, to other cultures and times, you'll see the concept of "rights" morphs over time, and outright disappears for long stretches. At one time- and still in some places- it was (is) not only a duty, it was (is) an honor to be sacrificed to the gods. In some places and though history, people have (had) the "right" to own slaves. At some times, men had the "right" to another's bride-bed.

Quote:
Every creature is born with the right to kill any other creature that tries to kill it

EVERY creature? A rabbit??? An earthworm?

I think some of you are confusing "rights" with "abilities". YES, many (but not all) of us have the ABILITY for self-defense. Many (but not all) of us have the ability for cold-blooded murder. That doesn't mean we have the "right" to either.

So, IMHO "Rights" are granted to you by the collective. They are an artificial construct, a set of ethics and laws defining your relationship to the collective and the protections which it chooses to afford. Period. This particular set of "rights" began with the French Enlightenment and is explained in detail by Jean Jacques Rousseau in The Social Contract. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau

At some point, if the burden of the collective becomes too great, reality takes over, and the collective falls. But this is not due to "rights".

UNABASHEDVIXEN

Saturday, October 3, 2009 4:17 PM

Quote:

As a member of the 53-nation British Commonwealth of the British Empire, Canada is literally owned by the German Nazi Queen of England, who trumps the Canadian Parliament, and in fact suspended the Canadian Parliament when it suited her (banker masters and the shadow govt).

PN, generally I just ignore your rantings because there's really no point in engaging someone who couldn't formulate an argument to save his life. Asserting something to be true doesn't actually make it so, and if you think you're going to school me about the Canadian Parliamentary system, you're going to need a lot more than a google search.

I was actually working at the Canadian House of Commons when the Prime Minister asked the Governor General to prorogue Parliament (that's the term, by the way. It's not a "suspension" of Parliament). We can have a discussion about the merits of the Governor General granting the PM's request for a prorogation (although, by common law she really had no choice) but it's not unprecendented. It's happened at least once in my recent memory (2000).

On to the point of the post:

The reason I asked the question is because it's something I struggle with. It's easy to say "I have the right to carry a gun" or "I have the right to say what I want" but in real life things are not always so cut and dry. A good example that I struggle with is the idea of hate speech. In theory, I think that words can't hurt people. Words aren't violence. But then I studied the Rwandan genocide. During the genocide, (and this is just one case) a radio station broadcasted the names, addresses, and license plate numbers of Tutsis (the primary target of the genocide) and encouraged the masses to find them and kill them. The criminal tribunal that prosecuted the three men responsible charged them with encitement to genocide, and they were found guilty. Even though there was no evidence these men were personally involved in any deaths, the fact that they facilitated murders with their words was considered just as bad.

So this is what I mean when I say I favour collective rights. Because rights will inevitably come into conflict. I realize that this is an extreme case, but it's why I support hate speech laws, even though they infringe on the fundamental right to free speech.

The reason I brought this topic up is because a lot of times people say "Well, it's my right" without putting their rights into the context of the greater society in which we all live.

*
People before profits

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 3, 2009 4:42 PM

Hello,

In the example of the radio station, I'm not sure it's a free speech issue. It more seems to be a conspiracy to commit murder. They made contact with people, asked them to commit murder, and provided intelligence to enable that murder. 'Individual Rights' people believe in the right to life. One does not need to reference free speech or even 'collective rights' in order to come to the conclusion that colluding in a murder is a crime.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 3, 2009 5:01 PM

Rights, right, rights.

Blah blah blah.

IMHO you may as well be talking about purple dragons, or angels dancing on the head of a pin. Just because you can form the words with your mouth doesn't make it a meaningful statement.

Rights are what we choose them to be. The British have more enumerated rights than we do (13), the Germans a LOT more (29), the Swedes fewer (9, I think). Why don't we have the right to food? To a productive job at reasonable pay? To clean water? To a direct vote? You keep talking about rights as if they were real. I assure you, they are not. They are protections afforded to you by the collective. Significantly, the rights that we have do not infringe on corporate "rights" one whit.

"By their deeds you shall know them."

If a particular "right" does not create the society you envision, that "right" should be amended. Treating rights as if they are "real" and inviolable is just... well, stupid.

Why don't we start out by thinking about the society that we want to create, and THEN devise a set of rights around that?

NIKI2

Saturday, October 3, 2009 5:02 PM

My credo's simple: "Harm none, do what ye will". Ergo:

Quote:
I think an individual has the right to do whatever they want, until the point where they begin to effect others.

and

Quote:
I tend to favor individual rights, limiting them as they progressively infringe on the rights of other individuals.

speak for me.

I gotta ask, too, tho'...why does anyone read or respond to PNs posts? I stopped reading them long, long ago since I pretty much know what they'll contain...the insane ramblings of someone who can't get past his warped anger to even write in terms that make sense. Me, I'm not going to waste the effort, but talk to people who make sense.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 3, 2009 5:23 PM

Hello Signy,

Usually the society we want to create directly involves the freedom we want to have to live our lives, and the safety and security we want to have to enjoy that freedom.

Hence, 'rights' are not always the end product of a society, but can as often be the foundation of a society.

And OF COURSE rights are artificial constructs that we create. If they were innate, we wouldn't need to discuss them.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

BYTEMITE

Saturday, October 3, 2009 5:24 PM

Sig, the only person I see who mentioned the US Bill of Rights is Jkiddo, who you said is you.

To have have a discussion about whether we should place more value in respecting the individual or the community, we have to have a name for the social contract, laws, commandments, or agreements that dictate HOW community or individual is respected. If you want a definition, then IMO "rights" are a list of things that our particular settlement says we can and can't do without repercussion.

Most of us are aware Americans stole the Bill of Rights from the Magna Carta... And that clearly certain "god-given" rights of Englishmen didn't exist prior to it. Secondly, most of us recognize it was forced on the King by a mutiny in the House of Lords... Meaning, of course, that the rights in question were originally really only intended for the male upper class elite.

Kind of similar to the American Bill of Rights, don't you know.

The question in the thread given was a general question about individual rights versus collective rights, which I can only assume in context are the rights of the collective to be protected from the individual.

I see the "rights" granted to a collective as enabling bullshit where corporations get treated like they have the same rights as individuals, protecting them from certain forms of legal action. Ha and double ha.

If there were no such thing as double standards, such as for race, and no such thing as conspiracy, we wouldn't need group rights. We would only need individual rights, and peers would judge a conflict or crime based on a case by case, transgressor to aggrieved, and not limited by pre-established legal precedence. In this way, compensation for mistakes or wrongdoing would be more even handed.

Also, replacement of the democratic or representative process by person to person negotiation of those who would be involved would eliminate the problems that the marginalized minority often experience (those double standards I mentioned).

Oppression exists regardless of the legal rights that a citizen, or groups of citizens, are granted or agree upon. A good civilization will establish rights and practices that minimize oppression and that respect human dignity and life. A dying civilization will do neither.

OUT2THEBLACK

Saturday, October 3, 2009 6:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Rights, right, rights.

Blah blah blah.

...IMHO you may as well be talking about purple dragons, or angels dancing on the head of a pin. Just because you can form the words with your mouth doesn't make it a meaningful statement.

Why don't we start out by thinking about the society that we want to create, and THEN devise a set of rights around that?

As always , your profound ignorance and hypocrisy is being exposed...Again . By yourself .

Your 'humble opinion' has been shown to be basically worthless , time and time again .

The society 'that we want to create' has already been created , as a landmark event in over 5,000 years of recorded history...

It's the high-water mark of human endeavor , and no amount of opinionating and fuster-clucking by you or your buds can improve upon it . If you don't like the 'society' that you live in , you can either work for returning to working 'the plan' , or you can move away to your collectivist dream-utopia , if you can find it...

Seems to me there was a discussion like this once , where you wanted to deny my Natural Rights , and you said that you were going to report me to 'the Authorities'...

So , are you just a closet-Authoritarian , or just another blind opiner seeking to mislead other blind folk ?

Have a go at beginning to educate yourself a little , instead of just weighing-in with another of your lightweight , counterfactual opinions...It would be less a waste of your time , and that of others :

'...Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.[1] The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (which is human-made) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.[2] In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), although most contemporary political and legal theorists separate the two.

...Natural law theories have exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[3] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

And , just a slight investigation gives the lie to your crediting the Frogs with coming up with these high-minded notions , because the history of Natural Law philosophy goes back a ways further than you indicate...

Meanwhile , the charter under which we live , the Constitution , has been subverted , and We The People are disempowered...

If you want to change your future , begin with knowing something more of your history . The Declaration is a good place to begin an investigation :

'...The sources and interpretation of the Declaration have been the subject of much scholarly inquiry. The Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing colonial grievances against King George III, and by asserting certain natural rights, including a right of revolution. Having served its original purpose in announcing independence, the text of the Declaration was initially ignored after the American Revolution. Its stature grew over the years, particularly the second sentence, a sweeping statement of human rights:

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator wi

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 3, 2009 6:38 PM

Quote:
Sig, the only person who mentioned the US Bill of Rights is Jkiddo, who you said is you.

Yep, me.

Quote:
To have have a discussion about whether we should place more value in respecting the individual or the community, we have to have a name for the social contract, laws, commandments, or agreements that dictate HOW community or individual is respected. If you want a definition, then IMO "rights" are a list of things that our particular settlement says we can and can't do without repercussion.

How about "protections"? Many peeps have a different view of "rights". Just read previous posts. Peeps have turned "rights" into a religion, a baseless assumption that a "thing" called rights even exists.

Quote:
Most of us are aware Americans stole the Bill of Rights from the Magna Carta... And that clearly certain "god-given" rights of Englishmen didn't exist prior to it. Secondly, most of us recognize it was forced on the King by a mutiny in the House of Lords.

The people who are in loudest defense of such rights are the most ignorant of where they came from.

Quote:
I see the "rights" granted to a collective as enabling bullshit where corporations get treated like they have the same rights as individuals, protecting them from certain forms of legal action

The term "rights" has NO MEANING outside of a collective. Let's say you have the right to own property, but the big behemoth next door keeps encroaching. How're you gonna enforce your "rights"? Your "rights" outside of a collective only extend to the amount of force you can bring to bear to defend them. The thing which DEFENDS your rights IS the collective: the general agreement that such things are not to be done.

Quote:
A good civilization will establish rights and practices that minimize oppression and that respect human dignity and life. A dying civilization will do neither.

The longest-lived civilizations... which have existed for at least a millenia MORE than the current experiment in "rights" (Egypt, China)... had very few "rights" for the average citizen, if any. There is nothing natural or inevitable about individual protections.

I happen to agree that individuals should have protections afforded to them, and I ALSO happen to agree that these protections should be universally granted, but I'm under no illusion that the 'verse agrees with my ethics.

Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

O2B, thank you for making my point with Byte. Just because a piece of paper says it is the word of the creator doesn't make it so.

So sayeth the the Creator.

OUT2THEBLACK

Saturday, October 3, 2009 6:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There is nothing natural or inevitable about individual protections.

I happen to agree that individuals should have protections afforded to them, and I ALSO happen to agree that these protections should be universally granted, but I'm under no illusion that the 'verse agrees with my ethics.

You're right the 'Verse doesn't agree with you...It agrees with me !

You jump off a tall building on earth , Natural Law says that you will suffer adverse effects...

'Should be' and 'IS' are like , two different things...

If you agree that certain Rights should be afforded to All , then you are making a statement of Natural Law...

I have a Right to my Life , and the defense of it...I also have the Right to be left alone , and to pursue the benefits of my Life , and to exercise the Liberty that I am afforded by these facts...

OUT2THEBLACK

Saturday, October 3, 2009 6:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
O2B, thank you for making my point with Byte. Just because a piece of paper says it is the word of the creator doesn't make it so.

So sayeth the the Creator.

Nope , the Creator didn't say it like that...But , he also hasn't appointed you to speak for him...

Don't start down that road...It will prove to be a powerful embarrassment for you , based on your past performances...

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 3, 2009 6:49 PM

arghh!

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 3, 2009 6:50 PM

Ahem. Okay, O2B, whatever.

In any case, I'm not going to refer to them as "rights", I'm going to refer to them as "protections", which makes clear that it is a deliberate social (collective) choice.

BYTEMITE

Saturday, October 3, 2009 6:54 PM

Civilizations die in many ways. I consider a civilization OF death to be dying as much as a civilization that is visibly and actively decaying.

Tyrannical monarchies of the past, built up on the hardship and suffering of the backs of peasants and slaves are civilizations of death. The only escape is the afterlife, which is why religion so strongly featured in these same civilizations. Those civilizations were stagnant, enduring, but dying.

I think protection is covered by my statement of "what you can do" "without repercussions." I wanted one word to be able to describe all of the related concepts, because you're correct, we need to each of us define our definition of "rights" to have a meaningful conversation.

Your argument about a collective, what I prefer to call a community, is correct in so far as you decided to be part of a community. Some people are isolationists.

In the case of your example, IF you are part of the community, what you say is true. You would hope your civilization respects the concept of individual property, though perhaps you and the community would be better served by not allowing such behemoths to form in the first place, or only by the agreement of everyone, as in a true cooperative style business. This approach tends to be more willing to negotiate with individuals impacted by their activity, as it is the individuals that give the cooperative the ability to exist in the first place.

Another option is individual "business" (for lack of a better word) combined with the concept of a strong sense of compassion and community. Everyone has a skill and trade, and ply it, and the community benefits from what they produce. Whether your model is to have people purchase the goods, or a distribution model based on meeting people's needs. A cooperative may work best for large complicated production processes, while other, simpler processes and needs could be met by individual contribution, either feeding and clothing yourself, or growing food while someone else wants to work on clothing.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, October 3, 2009 7:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There is nothing natural or inevitable about individual protections.

I happen to agree that individuals should have protections afforded to them, and I ALSO happen to agree that these protections should be universally granted, but I'm under no illusion that the 'verse agrees with my ethics.

You're right the 'Verse doesn't agree with you...It agrees with me !

You jump off a tall building on earth , Natural Law says that you will suffer adverse effects...

'Should be' and 'IS' are like , two different things...

If you agree that certain Rights should be afforded to All , then you are making a statement of Natural Law...

I have a Right to my Life , and the defense of it...I also have the Right to be left alone , and to pursue the benefits of my Life , and to exercise the Liberty that I am afforded by these facts...

Hello,

I think that the 'natural law' of gravity presents a much stiffer impediment to a cliff jumpers' well being than your 'natural law' of right to life presents an impediment to a murderers' well being.

History is replete with examples where the 'natural law' of right to life and self defense has been violated.

However, I have yet to see someone jump off a cliff and fall into space.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

WULFENSTAR

Saturday, October 3, 2009 8:33 PM

Again, we see how Americans are different from every other people on the planet.

(I mean that in a GOOD way, assclowns)

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, October 3, 2009 8:42 PM

Mike,

yes, you have claimed not to be Frem's sockpuppet.

Nikiwicca,

Nicca or wikki?

Byte,

The Bill of Rights was taken from the Bill of Rights, as handed to King James II upon his abdication. He signed it in order to escape a death sentence. The Bill was adopted shortly afterwards by the confederacy of New England, the Articles of Confederation in 1881, and the Constitution was created to remove the document from US law, an attempt which failed, despite the federalists best efforts. The federalists then added the supreme court to take the power from interpretting the rights away from the states, in the interests of ultimately dismantling the Bill. The appointment of Sam Alito was the first time the federalists got a Supreme Court Majority, and immediately started to work on dismantling the Bill.

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, October 3, 2009 9:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
*HAVE I* claimed that I was not Frem's sockpuppet?

I'm not saying one way or the other, but have I ever claimed so?

Oh, and just to be fair, after outing you/Frem, I've decided to post a similarly incriminating photo of myself:

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

UNABASHEDVIXEN

Saturday, October 3, 2009 9:50 PM

The thing is, while the genocide example is an extreme one, it was considered a landmark decision in international law (up there with Nuremburg). A more common example is that of hate speech. If someone runs around painting swastikas on Jewish businesses, apart from that being graffiti, is it a crime? Should it be a crime?

In humanitarian and constitutional law (not to mention politics), it's a constant debate. I wanted there to be a debate here, because I find often times people just assert their "rights" without qualification or even rational critical thought.

*
People before profits

KWICKO

Sunday, October 4, 2009 12:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Rights, right, rights.

Blah blah blah.

...IMHO you may as well be talking about purple dragons, or angels dancing on the head of a pin. Just because you can form the words with your mouth doesn't make it a meaningful statement.

Why don't we start out by thinking about the society that we want to create, and THEN devise a set of rights around that?

As always , your profound ignorance and hypocrisy is being exposed...Again . By yourself .

Your 'humble opinion' has been shown to be basically worthless , time and time again .

The society 'that we want to create' has already been created , as a landmark event in over 5,000 years of recorded history...

It's the high-water mark of human endeavor , and no amount of opinionating and fuster-clucking by you or your buds can improve upon it . If you don't like the 'society' that you live in , you can either work for returning to working 'the plan' , or you can move away to your collectivist dream-utopia , if you can find it...

Seems to me there was a discussion like this once , where you wanted to deny my Natural Rights , and you said that you were going to report me to 'the Authorities'...

So , are you just a closet-Authoritarian , or just another blind opiner seeking to mislead other blind folk ?

Have a go at beginning to educate yourself a little , instead of just weighing-in with another of your lightweight , counterfactual opinions...It would be less a waste of your time , and that of others :

'...Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.[1] The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (which is human-made) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.[2] In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), although most contemporary political and legal theorists separate the two.

...Natural law theories have exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[3] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

And , just a slight investigation gives the lie to your crediting the Frogs with coming up with these high-minded notions , because the history of Natural Law philosophy goes back a ways further than you indicate...

Meanwhile , the charter under which we live , the Constitution , has been subverted , and We The People are disempowered...

If you want to change your future , begin with knowing something more of your history . The Declaration is a good place to begin an investigation :

'...The sources and interpretation of the Declaration have been the subject of much scholarly inquiry. The Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing colonial grievances against King George III, and by asserting certain natural rights, including a right of revolution. Having served its original purpose in announcing independence, the text of the Declaration was initially ignored after the American Revolution. Its stature grew over the years, particularly the second sentence, a sweeping statement of human rights:

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created eq

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

KWICKO

Sunday, October 4, 2009 1:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
O2B, thank you for making my point with Byte. Just because a piece of paper says it is the word of the creator doesn't make it so.

So sayeth the the Creator.

Nope , the Creator didn't say it like that...But , he also hasn't appointed you to speak for him...

And you imagine you DO know what some nebulous, non-existent "creator" DID say? What, are we supposed to believe that YOU were appointed to speak for it?

Quote:
Don't start down that road...It will prove to be a powerful embarrassment for you , based on your past performances...

Okay, NOW you're getting into an area you might have some experience with. How's that "proof" coming? You know, the "proof" that I tried to have you banned? You never had a shred of evidence because there was none (because no such thing ever happened), yet still you're too much a coward to admit that you were lying. Now run away and go back to hiding under your rock. :)

KWICKO

Sunday, October 4, 2009 1:09 AM

Quote:

Mike,

yes, you have claimed not to be Frem's sockpuppet.

Curses!

Ummm... I mean, errrrmmm...

"Cites, please."

Relax. I'm just screwing around.

I'm not Frem, nor he me. I'll go on record with that. Under oath, if you like.

The pic was just something that came up in a Google image search for "jazz hands". I don't think it's Frem.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, October 4, 2009 1:14 AM

Hello Unabashed Vixen,

I'm generally not in favor of inventing new laws to describe crimes that are already described by old laws.

I am also against laws that regulate hate, or any law that attempts thought control.

Spray-painting swastikas on buildings is defacement of property and is already a crime. It is not, to me, a new crime or a more heinous crime because the people who did it were thinking hateful, racist thoughts or trying to communicate a racist message.

There are places where denying the holocaust is a crime, and I consider such legislation a travesty. It is the thin edge of the wedge, as far as I am concerned, where the wisdom of the state is enforced upon the minds and mouths of the people. As much as I despise the incoherent, asinine ramblings of Piratenews, I would not want him jailed or prosecuted for the crime of being ridiculous or hateful.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

BYTEMITE

Sunday, October 4, 2009 1:17 AM

Well, the swastika is a good luck symbol that the Nazis stole from India.

If you're running around with Nazi swastikas, it's at least insensitive, if not repulsive. I think most of us can agree on that. It makes people upset and causes psychological distress to some members of the population.

Being that there's many, many things that could cause psychological distress to many, many vastly different people, and that book burnings are an example of this, I don't think we can rule upsetting people to be an infringement upon their rights. So I don't think we can rule just running around with swastikas a crime.

I think for something to constitute a crime, there must be physical injury, injury to property or livelyhood, threats, psychological abuse/torture, or conspiracy to commit the other crimes.

So if some neonazis were running around using swastikas to organize so they could kill some black or jewish people, you could possibly consider their use of the swastika as part of their conspiracy charges. Or if they were using the swastika to threaten or scare that same population, the threat part of it would be the crime. Although writing laws for threats is tricky business, because there's lots of threats, some that aren't even worth charging. I suppose that's again why I advocate a case-by-case system.

EDIT: Or, the example that you and Anthony were saying, vandalism if it's vandalism.

DMAANLILEILTT

Sunday, October 4, 2009 1:24 AM

i find what piratenews said to be really far from the truth. the commonwealth of nations is a group that aims to promote democracy, human rights, individual liberty and not the sort of things you would associate with nazism or any types of fascism

BYTEMITE

Sunday, October 4, 2009 1:25 AM

EDIT: Fixed.

DMAANLILEILTT

Sunday, October 4, 2009 1:29 AM

no, its that my damn computer keeps posting something that i originally posted months ago and i cant make it stop

PIRATENEWS

Sunday, October 4, 2009 1:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:
i find what piratenews said to be really far from the truth. the commonwealth of nations is a group that aims to promote democracy, human rights, individual liberty and not the sort of things you would associate with nazism or any types of fascism

Yeah, that 19-year Iraq War thing is going so well.

Afghan War too, with heroin production up 10,000%.

Unprovoked British RAF raid on Libya in 1986 cost US taxpayers $300-million in warcrime reparations to Libya in 2008.

South Africa went well, with slavery, er, apartheid by Cecil Rhoads Diamond Scholar.

Rhodesia too (aka Zimbabwe's 10-quadrillion % inflation in 2009).

India had slavery and genocide by the British Empire before, during and after Ghandi. Another big opium producer for the British Opium Wars on China.

Pakistan is doing so well these days, with Brit SAS and US robots massacreing civilians daily.

Brit queen termination of Canadian Parliament is good for democracy. Show them uppity slaves who's BO$$ Hog.

How many of his wives' heads did British King Henry the 8th chop off?

Never mind that pesky Constitutionally guaranteed right to travel, without which we all DIE, that existed worldwide for 1,000s of years (billions of years), until the British Communist Manifesto was adopted by USA in the 1930s.
http://piratenews-tv.blogspot.com/2009/03/constitutional-right-to-trav
el-without.html

"Government control of communications and transportation."
-Communist Manifesto, 6th Plank, written by Masonic jew Karl Marx in London England

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, October 4, 2009 2:34 AM

The swastika is a holy symbol in several Indian religions, and has been worn by the people of India for 4500 years. It's a symbol of Aryan faith, Aryan is a Indian word as well, and an Indian culture. The Germans are not Aryans, and never were, and there are today, and have always been more bearers of the swastika in India than there every were Nazis. Or Germans for that matter.

The reason for the theft is obvious. The Nazis were arch-manipulators. The concept of National-Socialism was to displace the Nationalists who were splitting the left vote, as the Nationalists were protectionists, also opposed to open trade during a time when the German economy was being crushed. The other left opposition was the Communists, which is one reason the Nazis killed them. All of this did not help them win any elections.

The adoption of the word Aryan and the swastika, particularly the Tamil swastika, was a deliberate attempt to stir up trouble in India and foment a revolution against the British, which it did, but too late for the Nazis to take any advantage of it. Curiously, despite the adoption of a skewed swastika, the Tamil are not Aryans, they're Dravidians, but the identity in the rest of India, esp. Rajasthan and Kashmir, as well as Pakistan, was definitely felt.

The desire of the Nazis was to add 500 million to their ranks. The effect was curious and unpredictable, they left behind an Aryan nationalism which created modern day India.

The best laid schemes of mice and men go way out of control.

Anyone who cares to, gnaw on this for a while:

ANTHONYT

Sunday, October 4, 2009 4:39 AM

Hello,

I think some of your conclusions about why the Nazis adopted the swastika is based more on personal opinion and pet theories. The symbol was adopted before the Germans were really concerned about manipulating India. They did adopt it from India, but I think not for the reasons you suppose.

I found this on wikipedia
_________________________________

When Hitler created a flag for the Nazi Party, he sought to incorporate both the swastika and "those revered colors expressive of our homage to the glorious past and which once brought so much honor to the German nation." (Red, white, and black were the colors of the flag of the old German Empire.) He also stated: "As National Socialists, we see our program in our flag. In red, we see the social idea of the movement; in white, the nationalistic idea; in the swastika, the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man, and, by the same token, the victory of the idea of creative work."[47]

The swastika was also understood as "the symbol of the creating, acting life" (das Symbol des schaffenden, wirkenden Lebens) and as "race emblem of Germanism" (Rasseabzeichen des Germanentums) [48].

The use of the swastika was associated by Nazi theorists with their conjecture of Aryan cultural descent of the German people. Following the Nordicist version of the Aryan invasion theory, the Nazis claimed that the early Aryans of India, from whose Vedic tradition the swastika sprang, were the prototypical white invaders. It was also widely believed that the Indian caste system had originated as a means to avoid racial mixing.[citation needed] The concept of racial purity was an ideology central to Nazism, though it is now considered unscientific. For Rosenberg, the Aryans of India were both a model to be imitated and a warning of the dangers of the spiritual and racial "confusion" that, he believed, arose from the close proximity of races. Thus, they saw fit to co-opt the sign as a symbol of the Aryan master race. The use of the swastika as a symbol of the Aryan race dates back to writings of Emile Burnouf. Following many other writers, the German nationalist poet Guido von List believed it to be a uniquely Aryan symbol. Before the Nazis, the swastika was already in use as a symbol of German völkisch nationalist movements (Völkische Bewegung). In Deutschland Erwache (ISBN 0-912138-69-6), Ulric of England (sic) says:

[…] what inspired Hitler to use the swastika as a symbol for the NSDAP was its use by the Thule Society (German: Thule-Gesellschaft) since there were many connections between them and the DAP … from 1919 until the summer of 1921 Hitler used the special Nationalsozialistische library of Dr. Friedrich Krohn, a very active member of the Thule-Gesellschaft … Dr. Krohn was also the dentist from Sternberg who was named by Hitler in Mein Kampf as the designer of a flag very similar to one that Hitler designed in 1920 … during the summer of 1920, the first party flag was shown at Lake Tegernsee … these home-made … early flags were not preserved, the Ortsgruppe München (Munich Local Group) flag was generally regarded as the first flag of the Party.

José Manuel Erbez says:

The first time the swastika was used with an "Aryan" meaning was on December 25, 1907, when the self-named Order of the New Templars, a secret society founded by [Adolf Joseph] Lanz von Liebenfels, hoisted at Werfenstein Castle (Austria) a yellow flag with a swastika and four fleurs-de-lys.[49]

__________________________________

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

DMAANLILEILTT

Sunday, October 4, 2009 6:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Quote:
Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:
i find what piratenews said to be really far from the truth. the commonwealth of nations is a group that aims to promote democracy, human rights, individual liberty and not the sort of things you would associate with nazism or any types of fascism

Yeah, that 19-year Iraq War thing is going so well.

Afghan War too, with heroin production up 10,000%.

Unprovoked British RAF raid on Libya in 1986 cost US taxpayers $300-million in warcrime reparations to Libya in 2008.

South Africa went well, with slavery, er, apartheid by Cecil Rhoads Diamond Scholar.

Rhodesia too (aka Zimbabwe's 10-quadrillion % inflation in 2009).

India had slavery and genocide by the British Empire before, during and after Ghandi. Another big opium producer for the British Opium Wars on China.

Pakistan is doing so well these days, with Brit SAS and US robots massacreing civilians daily.

Brit queen termination of Canadian Parliament is good for democracy. Show them uppity slaves who's BO$$ Hog.

How many of his wives' heads did British King Henry the 8th chop off?

Never mind that pesky Constitutionally guaranteed right to travel, without which we all DIE, that existed worldwide for 1,000s of years (billions of years), until the British Communist Manifesto was adopted by USA in the 1930s.
http://piratenews-tv.blogspot.com/2009/03/constitutional-right-to-trav
el-without.html

"Government control of communications and transportation."
-Communist Manifesto, 6th Plank, written by Masonic jew Karl Marx in London England

the afghan war and iraq wars were not started by the Commonwealth, but by a coalition of the willing.

the commonwealth didn't even exist before the Frist World War and slavery was abolished in the British Empire in 1833. also, South Africa was suspended by the Commonwealth because of aparthied.

Pakistan and Zimbabwe have both been suspended and Zimbabwe is no longer a memeber.

the US isnt a memeber of the Commonwealth.

that Canada is a member of the Commonwealth and has had its parliament suspended are unrelated. India, Samoa and Trinidad and Tobago are all memebers of the Commonwealth that are republics, so it is Canada's constitution that allows the queen to suspend parliament and not the Commonwealth.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, October 4, 2009 1:11 PM

Anthony,

Nah, it's actually tons of research. I worked for a guy who does this research for the EU.

The reason I posted the Theosophical society logo was an acknowledgement that there was Indian mysticism in Germany prior to the Nazis. But that didn't really have a lot to do with with the Nazis choice. The old iron cross would have struck a much stronger German nationalist chord than theosophy would have.

What It would be like a US president running on the platform of "Free Tibet." Sure, it would strike a chord with a very small number of Americans, but the only reason to do it would be to provoke war with China.

Connections between the Thule Society and Nazi Germany are tenuous at best, and this is an old conspiracy theory that really was made by people who hate Germans, rather than Nazis.

Theorizing about the origins of Nazi Germany is somewhat pointless, since the history of its creation is very well recorded. Nazi Germany was definitely built in a manipulative populist "whichever way the wind blows."

Speculations about cultural ties between Europe and India have been around for at least 150 years, and still go on, we still use terms like "Indo-european languages," but the consensus opinion, quite widely stated within Nazi Germany at the time was that there was really very little to support the notion, and that Germanic culture was largely Hellanic.

Sure. There are cultural and linguistic influences, because all of the above are descended from PIE, about 10,000 ya, but "Aryan" is a specific splinter of PIE around 4500-5000 ya. The world means "farmer" and comes from the PIE aryo, for area or acre. Celtic Culture is an Aryan culture. Germanic culture replaced Celtic culture in Germany much more recently.

This point being: This was all widely known in Germany at the time. Sure, there was a lunatic fringe, but people in the Nazi Hierarchy knew this was not the case, but thought the idea could be exploited to form an alliance with India.

Damn near worked, too. If anything, it helped keep enough ambiguity in the Indian position for the British to *not* be able to use India in WWII.

I'm far from alone in it, there's more evidence to suggest that Germany wanted to foment an Indian revolution against Britain than there is linking them to the Thule society.

Here's another thing, re:race. If the Nazis really thought that the Indians were of the same race as them, then why exterminate the Gypsies? People who did this sort of research in the 19th c. did a lot more thorough a job than the overwhelming majority of the more recent research I've read. I'm fairly certain that the Nazis knew these three things:

1. Gypsies were Aryans, descended from Indians.
2. Serbs were Germanic Teutons
3. Eastern European jews were the descendents of Khazar converts and people converted by those converts over the last 1000 years and had nothing to do with the international financial interests that had manipulated Germany in WWI.

I'm again, all the evidence leans to the conclusion that they knew these facts, and exterminated these populations *anyway*.

Just a guess here, perhaps this was about something else. I have a lot of theories on what, that make a lot more sense than this one. But I'm not really in any doubt on the "Aryan nation" thing. This is well travelled ground.

KWICKO

Sunday, October 4, 2009 1:47 PM

Just a thought, but maybe the extermination of the gypsies was a further overture to India? After all, the gypsies are a "lost tribe" of India, who were expelled and lost their homeland; perhaps the Nazi pogrom against them was to curry (bad pun) favor with India, showing that the Nazis were willing to "expel" them from humanity, as well.

Just an idle thought...

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Sunday, October 4, 2009 3:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by UnabashedVixen:
If someone runs around painting swastikas on Jewish businesses, apart from that being graffiti, is it a crime? Should it be a crime?

Dunno about this whole rights topic, but that one is easy. "This business belongs to me, not to you. I choose not to have swastikas painted on it-- why is nobody else's concern-- if I wanted them, I coulda done them myself. Since I didn't want them , you have damaged my property, and that's a crime, at least a civil crime. You owe me repair and restitution. If your motive was intimidation, or to mark me for reprisal by others, those are additional crimes, which may need to be punished collectively. "
You understand, of course, that I use "you" in a general, hypothetical sense, and make no suggestion that UnabashedVixen would engage in such behaviour.

RUE

Monday, October 5, 2009 12:48 AM

The first thing you need to do to mark a person or a people for extermination is to brand them as the 'other'.

Way back when in another thread (which I will not go digging for) was a mutli-viewpoint study of what happened in Rwanda - from 'how does this kind of thing happen' to 'how did YOU, Mr Anon, come to hack your neighbors whom you knew all your life, to death' ?

There is a process of identification, separation, and dehumanization at the start of genocide. I would argue that 'hate crimes' are part of the process.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, October 5, 2009 1:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Rights, right, rights.

Blah blah blah.

IMHO you may as well be talking about purple dragons, or angels dancing on the head of a pin. Just because you can form the words with your mouth doesn't make it a meaningful statement.

Rights are what we choose them to be. The British have more enumerated rights than we do (13), the Germans a LOT more (29), the Swedes fewer (9, I think). Why don't we have the right to food? To a productive job at reasonable pay? To clean water? To a direct vote? You keep talking about rights as if they were real. I assure you, they are not. They are protections afforded to you by the collective. Significantly, the rights that we have do not infringe on corporate "rights" one whit.

"By their deeds you shall know them."

If a particular "right" does not create the society you envision, that "right" should be amended. Treating rights as if they are "real" and inviolable is just... well, stupid.

Why don't we start out by thinking about the society that we want to create, and THEN devise a set of rights around that?

^ totally agree. perhaps I am YOUR sockpuppet

DREAMTROVE

Monday, October 5, 2009 4:28 AM

Quote:

The first thing you need to do to mark a person or a people for extermination is to brand them as the 'other'.

Way back when in another thread (which I will not go digging for) was a mutli-viewpoint study of what happened in Rwanda - from 'how does this kind of thing happen' to 'how did YOU, Mr Anon, come to hack your neighbors whom you knew all your life, to death' ?

There is a process of identification, separation, and dehumanization at the start of genocide. I would argue that 'hate crimes' are part of the process.

Kathy,

The only flaw in this argument is that it attacks itself and then commits suicide.

Rwanda was a disaster of integration. There was no separation, and the people were not one people who suddenly identified as other, they were two people. Rwanda was a Tutsi kingdom, from the Watusi of Upper Egypt, who came up the Nile River a few thousand years ago. They had a civilization and a set of values. Over time, Hutu populations migrated in. Then never thought that they were Tutsi, or even related. The Tutsi were okay with this as long as the Hutu played by their rules.

After the Hutu outnumbered the Tutsi, a political upheaval was fomented again and again based on the idea of Tutsis being an oppressive overlord, a struggle for power went on for some time, and A Hutu govt. with Hutu militias were formed, and armed, principally by the French. An event was staged, probably by the US, as it was a US rocket that was used, IIRC, and the militias then carried out their orders. They quickly pressured many local Hutu into genocide, Hutu dissenters were killed as if they were Tutsi, and the 1/2 century of discontent that had been played up and played upon was rapidly converted into genocidal hatred.

Hate crimes are probably just a dumb definition. They attach an agenda to crimes which is unlikely to exist, but whether or not it does, you're lending credence to the theory that it does by the classification, thus creating the problem. Any longstanding discontent can be pushed rapidly into fever pitch when one group has all the guns (2a crowd, am I right here: It was illegal for Tutsi to own guns in a Hutu Rwanda? IIRC)

This is hardly an analogous situation. Hutu and Tutsi were not separate, they lived door to door, more so than blacks and whites in america. There was a longstanding discontentment among Hutus, but not a trickle of "hate crimes," but a top down order run by specially assembled militias to erase one of the oldest ethnic groups on Earth from the surface of the planet. This plan wasn't organized by fringe groups of ne'erdowells with anarchist subcultures, it was organized by the govt. It was a govt. plan to remove the minority population, the one that was here first.

Want something closer? Try the US settlers and the indians. Though settlers and indians didn't live door to door, and resentment wasn't built up overnight... I'm sure there's a better parallel to this situation. The French Revolution. That was more the mentality, it was just a difference of scale: This was a class-race warfare. The race targeted was the upper class, and the class barrier was associated with the motivation and the call to arms. The extermination of the Tutsi was akin to the slaughter of the aristocracy, it was just easier to spot a Tutsi. If you didn't partake, you were a traitor.

Political madness, not creeping racism. These two races were never close allies. Not to support a Wulf position, but if there is a lesson here, it's that it exposes the dangers of integration, not separation.

Actually. Thanks for the post: It's making me rethink this one state solution for Palestine. If it did occur, Israel/Palestine would be the region's biggest employer, muslims would flood in, through immigration, they would be treated as second class citizens by the jews, who would have more money, and be the upper class. This would breed 1/2 a century of contention, and then, some Muslim ruler of Palestine would set up militias to kill the jews, outlaw gun ownership among jews, and then set the tri

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, October 5, 2009 5:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Again, we see how Americans are different from every other people on the planet.

(I mean that in a GOOD way, assclowns)

Is there some genetic difference?

DREAMTROVE

Monday, October 5, 2009 6:13 AM

MD

Yes, we have the moron gene ;)
I believe your country has the criminal gene ;)

It's sad but true, America was stuck by the DMB04 virus which permanently genetically altered americans, lowering the average IQ to 58, and causing us to re-elect George W. Bush.

I believe the winning campaign slogan was "Bush. Because Kerry looks Lurch."

Americans have been trying to deal with the problem ever since then. We gathered together in frozen squares of cordoned off areas where no cameras were allowed, and protested to each other. Then, we lead candlelight vigils in solitude, to make sure that no one knew how much we thought we cared, and we felt good. We kicked back, had a brewsky, and watch some boob tube.

Then, we were struck but the FAT450 virus. This disabled our feeble attempts to hope to change things, as we were unable to move.

Yes, america is truly the greatest nation on earth, if by great, you mean fat.

How IQ scores and SAT(college entrance) scores can change year to year baffles me, since both are relativistic measurements.

But we are different in many other ways.

We use z's all over the place, (where more timid nations might use s's,) and we call them "zee" instead of "zed."

We also have lots of bombs.

We don't have our own currency, we have to borrow it from a private corporation. This set the world record for the dumbest economic system ever devised, leading some americans to think that Woodrow Wilson was perhaps patient zero for the DMB04 moron virus.

America is big, too. We have lots of land. We got it by killing people, but they seem to still be here, and want their land back. We will probably give it to them, not because we're generous, but just because we're really f^&king dumb. But it's a good thing. Indians charge much lower taxes. They also don't fight wars. Not anymore.

We have a pretty country too. It's really nice. You should check it out. Most Americans don't, they're stuck inside massive concrete structures we call 'toxicity zones' which you can usually smell at a distance of 60 miles. (I'm not making this up. You can actually smell an american city at 60 miles. Fortunately, the country is really big, like australia, but I think we win on airable land.)

The only place that really kicks our ass is Brazil.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, October 5, 2009 6:46 AM

You make me laugh.

We have airable land too, makes it easier to breathe that way - just not as much arable

other than that, I think we've been struck by some pretty similar viruses - must be all the air travel, but we've had our own versions of DMB04 = which is known here as FBon virus (follow blindly on) and we definitely have caught the FAT450, and I blame the opening of Krispy Kreme here for that one.

I have briefly checked it out - but I am planning my big road trip with the family which I hope will be just as funny as the Vacation movie without all the dead bodies and dogs - you see, I really can't think of the USA without thinking of a movie.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, October 5, 2009 7:15 AM

Oops

You breathe your land?

Quote:
I think we've been struck by some pretty similar viruses - must be all the air travel, but we've had our own versions of DMB04 = which is known here as FBon virus (follow blindly on) and we definitely have caught the FAT450, and I blame the opening of Krispy Kreme here for that one.

Lol. Saturated hydrogenated oils. They work as a preservative because microbes can't digest them. Neither can you.

you have the cool gene

Quote:
I have briefly checked it out - but I am planning my big road trip with the family which I hope will be just as funny as the Vacation movie without all the dead bodies and dogs - you see, I really can't think of the USA without thinking of a movie.

as long as it has christie brinkley nekkid. The mistake everyone makes on the American road trip is size. Most countries, even large ones, are really concentrated. Americans are all over the place. The thing that gets people is when you drive 500 miles and haven't left the state, and then realize there are 50 of them. And, of course, Alaska, where they say "If Alaska were split in half, Texas would be the third largest state."

From Australia it won't be nearly the shock that it is for Europeans though. I live in a moderate sized state, and I had a friend visiting from enland, and we drove all over a fairly small part of the state, and he wanted to see where we'd been, and was like "Is that all?" And I said "yes, welcome to upstate new york, it's larger than england, and it's virtually all forest. We has a state park that's larger than all of Wales. But when I talk to people from TX CA or AK I'm humbled.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, October 5, 2009 7:33 AM

Breathe it all in - it's pretty dusty in parts.

Yeah, I think the distances I have no problems getting my head around, it's just that where we have lots of big empty - you have big filled (and still plenty of empty to enjoy as well, no doubt)

If we did it, we do it with our long service leave and take some time. There are a lot of places I wouldn't bother with, including most of the cities except for a select few. I haven't planned it out yet, entirely. We might have to fly a bit of it and drive a bit to see what we want to see.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, October 5, 2009 7:34 AM

oh, and alot time. It's good to get your shots too. You don't want to catch any new viruses. Hopetitus is rampant.

PIRATENEWS

Monday, October 5, 2009 8:19 PM

Random breathalyzer tests for Canada
www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/05/random-breathalyzer-drunk-driving-t
est-law.html

Quote:
"Strictly speaking, a driver can register a BAC of 0.00% and still be convicted of a DUI. The level of BAC does not clear a driver when it is below the 'presumed level of intoxication.'"
—Tennessee Driver Handbook and Driver License Study Guide
http://www.state.tn.us/safety/dlmain.htm

"One of the major defects in many methods of blood-alcohol analysis is the failure to identify ethanol to the exclusion of all other chemical compounds. Thus a client with other compounds in his blood or breath may have a high 'blood-alcohol' reading with little or no ethanol in his body. If you look at the warranties - it is sort of interesting - none of the breath machine manufacturers warrant these things to actually test blood alcohol."
—Lawrence Taylor, attorney at law, DUICENTER.COM, Drunk Driving Defense, 5th Edition (2000)

"Nancy Benoit also had a blood alcohol reading of .184, although Sperry said the blood alcohol and drug levels could be affected by the decomposition of her body. 'These (blood alcohol) results are not reliable for interpretation because the amount of alcohol in her system could have all come from the decomposition.'"
—Cindy Morley, Fayette Daily News, GBI: Chris Benoit's son was full of Xanax, July 18, 2007

"The only reliable test for blood alcohol from a corpse is by drawing the blood directly from the interior chambers of the heart. Otherwise the blood can be contaminated with stomach and intestinal contents from ingested alcohol. This is especially true for crash victims."
—Dr Randall Pedigo MD, Knox County coroner, KPD firearms instructor and expert medical witness, shot 6 times by TBI during raid on his home searching for firearm used by towtrucking carthieves to kill a cop in Knoxville (actual shooter was "suicided" by police state death squad via "lead poisoning" and hanging), convicted of homosexual rape by injection of "vitamin" sedatives, conversation with Pirate News and The Prohibition Times

"Let me start with law enforcement contacts with respect to traffic stops, for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The Fifth amendment of the Bill of Rights states that we are not to be forced to incrimnate ourselves. The actual wording is, you cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself. If you are stopped for suspicion of DUI, these are your rights regardless of the laws of your state. First of all, you are to deny having consumed any alcoholic beverages whatsoever. You are never to admit to having one or two drinks. If you admit to consuming even one drop of alcohol, you open the door to 'probable cause', allowing the police officer to search your car for open containers. Next, you are never to submit to a Field Sobriety Test. You are to refuse to do so. They cannot make you walk the line, they cannot make you balance or anything else. Now when you are arrested, you are to refuse to allow a blood-alcohol test, regardless of what state law 'requires', such as revocation of driving priveleges for a period of time. That's an attempt to compel you to be a witness against yourself. Supreme Court decisions in this area are very specific with regards to your rights as folows: Lefkowitz vs Turley, and the Fifth Amendment, provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, and permits him to refuse to any any other qustions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings."
—George Gordon Law Hour, GeorgeGordon.com, "The Policeman is not your friend - He is your adversary," October 30, 2007

"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

KWICKO

Monday, October 5, 2009 10:32 PM

Quote:

I believe the winning campaign slogan was "Bush. Because Kerry looks Lurch."

Personally, I always thought Kerry looked like Andrew Jackson...

Maybe I'm the only one that sees it.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, October 6, 2009 1:12 AM

Ack! That's definitely a downgrade. Kerry looks more undead than Jackson. Oh no! John Kerry is the undead vampire of Andrew Jackson! He's sparkling twilight talent: His word can simply suck your will to live.

Or at least to stay conscious

KWICKO

Tuesday, October 6, 2009 1:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Ack!

He's sparkling twilight talent: His word can simply suck your will to live.

Or at least to stay conscious

Too true, too true.

That man, when speaking, is the oratory equivalent of watching paint dry - if paint drying could POSSIBLY be any more boring, that is.

Holy christ - there's a new Olympic sport: Watching paint dry while listening to John Kerry explain the war!

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 3:20 AM

Well, IIRC, his ancestry roots proved him not only part jewish, and not Irish (Kerry was Ellis Island for Koen or some variation?) but also that he was french, and apparently fluent in the language (mon dieu). Anyway, this explains how he lost the election: Bush, cheated, probably in FL and many other places, but most notably in Ohio. Libertarian candidate Mike Badnarik challenged the result, and Kerry showed up to do the French thing: From the jaws of victory, (zut alors) Surrender.

PIRATENEWS

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 4:23 AM

Bend over for your butt bomb inspection:
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=40286

Howdya like them takin liberties with your civil liberties?

GINOBIFFARONI

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 6:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Bend over for your butt bomb inspection:
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=40286

Howdya like them takin liberties with your civil liberties?

I decided not to travel in the US a while back, just think how many will join me if this takes place.

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 8:29 PM

Yep, and many US citizens decided not to fly commercial also because of the bullshit shakedown - which amounts, mind you, to little more than security theatre, which I find offensive in more ways than I can name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater

And when the airline companies started feeling the squeeze, instead of modifying their behavior and putting pressure on DHS/TSA and their abusive thieving goons, they go running to big daddy government and whine for a handout.

Reducing the all but in name boycott to worthless, since the taxpayers wind up forced to pay for a service they did not use BECAUSE they wanted them to change their behavior.

As one can imagine I am damned irate about it.

So more power to you, the Gov here can't squeeze YOU for your refusal, and I would suggest you not only continue that refusal, but send a stiff letter to the appropriate folks over here telling them why - and CC it to various american activist fronts to make SURE notice gets taken.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

GINOBIFFARONI

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 9:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Yep, and many US citizens decided not to fly commercial also because of the bullshit shakedown - which amounts, mind you, to little more than security theatre, which I find offensive in more ways than I can name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater

And when the airline companies started feeling the squeeze, instead of modifying their behavior and putting pressure on DHS/TSA and their abusive thieving goons, they go running to big daddy government and whine for a handout.

Reducing the all but in name boycott to worthless, since the taxpayers wind up forced to pay for a service they did not use BECAUSE they wanted them to change their behavior.

As one can imagine I am damned irate about it.

So more power to you, the Gov here can't squeeze YOU for your refusal, and I would suggest you not only continue that refusal, but send a stiff letter to the appropriate folks over here telling them why - and CC it to various american activist fronts to make SURE notice gets taken.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

Way I see it, US foreign policy created the situation which made the draconian security requirements necessary...

and instead of fixing that foreign policy, they accelerated it, making the need for tighter and tighter security requirements...

Now as you say, the involved industrys cannot afford the market conditions generated by the increased security

I think this is called an economic death spiral isn't it ??

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939