Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: (p@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 18-Jan-2024 21:50:12 JST pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:

   • kaia
   • Ninji
   @thatguyoverthere @Ninji @kaia Well, the State of California appears to know things that the citizens do not. I swear, someone's nephew owned a sign-making company.
   
   (Not quite as bad as K-12. The two biggest markets for school textbooks are (in order) Texas and California, so all of the textbooks sold in the US are designed to offend neither of those two states.)
   • Embed this notice
     DJ Solomon (11112011@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 19-Jan-2024 00:07:12 JST DJ Solomon

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     @p @thatguyoverthere @Ninji @kaia like credits for diablo canyon nuclear?
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: (p@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 19-Jan-2024 00:09:03 JST pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • DJ Solomon
     • Ninji
     @11112011 @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere They're shutting those down, but I bet they have to put those signs all over the place.
   • Embed this notice
     ≠ Brett Stevens ≠ (amerika@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 19-Jan-2024 00:10:36 JST ≠ Brett Stevens ≠

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     @p @thatguyoverthere @Ninji @kaia
     
     End public schooling, problem solved!
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: (p@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 19-Jan-2024 00:11:26 JST pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     • ≠ Brett Stevens ≠
     @amerika @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere
     
     > End public schooling, problem solved!
     
     I'm on board. The UN UDHR says that you have a right to compulsory education, though, so it would be a violation of human rights to not force the children into some kind of school system.
   • Embed this notice
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: (p@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 19-Jan-2024 00:14:04 JST pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • DJ Solomon
     • Ninji
     @11112011 @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere
     
     > funded by the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law
     
     :trumpgendou:
     
     We should just let everyone build nuclear plants. We granted Disney a license but they didn't make it yet.
     gandhi_bezos.png
   • Embed this notice
     DJ Solomon (11112011@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 19-Jan-2024 00:14:05 JST DJ Solomon

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     @p @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere
     Screenshot 2024-01-18 at 15-10-26 PiQ (@PiQSuite).png
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     ≠ Brett Stevens ≠ (amerika@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 19-Jan-2024 00:14:28 JST ≠ Brett Stevens ≠

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     @p @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere
     
     Natural rights > human/civil rights.
     
     There's no way getting around that one, I'm afraid.
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: (p@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 19-Jan-2024 00:38:40 JST pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     • ≠ Brett Stevens ≠
     @amerika @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere
     
     > Natural rights > human/civil rights.
     
     I'm not aware of a difference between natural rights and human rights; I believe those are shorthands for the same concept, the "Natural Rights of Man". Civil rights are necessarily a step removed, since they relate to rights of the citizens with respect to their government.
     
     (The UN is free to declare whatever they want about those things, and I think we should treat it with exactly as much weight as we treat any of their declarations: zero credibility from a philosophical standpoint, as with any attempt by a committee to decide rights. From a purely practical standpoint, nothing they declare matters unless the US declares an intention to enforce it.)
   • Embed this notice
     ≠ Brett Stevens ≠ (amerika@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 19-Jan-2024 01:17:23 JST ≠ Brett Stevens ≠

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     @p @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere
     
     Let me summarize:
     
     * Natural rights = gov't prevented from doign things
     * Civil rights = gov't given mandate to enforce equality
     
     ...night and day, bro. Night and day.
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: (p@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 19-Jan-2024 01:41:29 JST pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     • ≠ Brett Stevens ≠
     @amerika @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere
     
     > * Natural rights = gov't prevented from doign things
     > * Civil rights = gov't given mandate to enforce equality
     
     A "right" is that which is due to you, and we classify them by means of the authority under which they are granted.
     
     I'd put "natural rights" as those things which a stranger may not prevent you from doing, and "civil rights" as the things that are due to you by statute, the things that define your relationship to the government. Contractual rights are granted by a contract.
     
     So, natural rights of man, you speak your mind, listen to others speak theirs, acquire knowledge, eat what food you can acquire, reproduce, defend your family and domicile, etc. Civil rights include voting, the right to a fair trial, etc., and are mostly concerned with mitigating that we live in a society. The enforced equality stuff, civil rights are the only one of the two that could plausibly apply: your civil rights are defined by the law. You have no natural right to compel someone to bake you a cake that they do not want to bake, but the civil right can be granted. Likewise, you do not have the natural right to be judged (or even noticed) by a jury of your peers, but you do have the civil right, and this was a necessary consequence of the government's statutory right to arrest and try people.
     
     So:
     
     > * Civil rights = gov't given mandate to enforce equality
     
     Any right would be civil if granted by the legitimate government, "legitimate" defined by the Spartan border¹, so it would include legislation like the Civil Rights Act, but I think your definition is too narrow. Any attempt by the government to enforce equality would necessarily be a civil right, but you have the right to freely travel between states, that's civil, and you have the right to drive in your car on federal roads and that is granted by statute as the holder of a valid license.
     
     This image has nothing to do with anything except that I like to post it.
     
     
     ¹ I don't know if anyone uses this phrase besides me but it's too useful to not use so I use it a lot. I'm certain I've used it when talking with @amerika before, but for the sake of anyone that happens upon this thread, there's an old story of an Athenian talking to a Spartan guard at the city gates, and the Athenian smugly asks the Spartan to tell him how far the borders of Sparta extend, intending to make a point about Sparta being small. The Spartan extends his spear and says "This far." So the "Spartan border" would be the limits of your governing body's ability and willingness to project force. Ultimately, this is what defines a border, succinctly, and any attempt to define a government's legitimacy beyond that is ignoring reality for the sake of an agenda.
     trade_offer--roads.jpg
   • Embed this notice
     ≠ Brett Stevens ≠ (amerika@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 19-Jan-2024 01:43:45 JST ≠ Brett Stevens ≠

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     @p @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere
     
     Also the dark side of things is that if the US signs a treaty, that treaty becomes US law.
     
     Is the UN philosophically correct? Dunno, but natural rights was the original intention of the Constitution, and that by law no longer exists.
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: (p@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 19-Jan-2024 01:50:27 JST pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     • ≠ Brett Stevens ≠
     @amerika @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere
     
     > Also the dark side of things is that if the US signs a treaty, that treaty becomes US law.
     
     "Dark" only in the sense that autocrats would prefer a simpler strategy and I think some American dignitaries go abroad and don't like having to say "Well, if we can get it approved by the voters or Congress or whoever". I think it's the government official's equivalent of "I'd love to go get a beer but I have to get my wife's permission, let me call her." Mugabe can decide for himself whether he'd like to get a beer with you.
     
     US treaties have to be ratified by Congress, and Congress is the legislative body with the authority to pass laws. This is reasonable.
     
     > Is the UN philosophically correct?
     
     No, not remotely. Autocratic plans from FDR, executed by the other True Believers in Social Order after his death, the same people that we have to thank for the CIA and all of the other extrajudicial end-runs and attempts to engineer society by imposing top-down structure in the US.
   • Embed this notice
     JohnGritt (johngritt@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 19-Jan-2024 08:29:10 JST JohnGritt

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     • ≠ Brett Stevens ≠
     @p @kaia @amerika @thatguyoverthere @Ninji Natural = birth; by birth.
     
     A natural right is what anyone is right to do by virtue of one's being. Thus, a natural right is an inherent and inalienable claim by anyone simply for being alive.
     
     Examples of natural rights include the right to life, liberty, property (ownership of chattel, works, repayment of credit), and freedom of expression (speaking, worship, building).
     
     Any natural right is essential for anyone to flourish.
     
     Natural Law = universal and unwritten principles inherent to sentient beings, accessible through reasoning, independent of man-made laws, i.e., artificial law.
     
     Reason ought to lead men who are strangers to each other to know how to live in harmony. Basic rules like "do no harm" and "keep promises" often fall under the banner of natural law.
     
     Natural law provides the foundation for recognizing specific rights individuals possess such as self-preservation.
     
     Civil rights are artificial and must have matching civil duties. Most often, civil rights of civil law merely are privileges that impose duties upon others to effect those.
     
     Thus civil right fall under positive rights jurisprudence, which exemplified by the phrase: I have a right to be advantaged. You have a duty to give me advantage.
     
     Contrast this with negative rights jurisprudence: I have a right to be left alone. You have a duty to leave alone me.
     
     As most fail to know these foundation concepts, they are like children throughout their lives not understanding the adult world of jurisprudence.
     
     Social democracy, our current system first imposed by 1913 and first in rudimentary stage, later developed under FDR, LBJ, Nixon and then the rest, is expression of Positive Rights jurisprudence.
     
     The Libertarian Republicanism of 1781 to 1912 is expression of Negative Rights jurisprudence.
     
     No American for the last 112 years has ever lived under Negative Rights jurisprudence, though the violent criminal code, still reflects such a jurisprudence.
     
     Negative rights jurisprudence flows from the North Sea Germanic mind, mainly Anglo-Saxon and Frisian. Positive Rights jurisprudence flows the Roman-Jewish mind.
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     JohnGritt (johngritt@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 19-Jan-2024 08:35:24 JST JohnGritt

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     • ≠ Brett Stevens ≠
     @p @kaia @amerika @thatguyoverthere @Ninji Originally in the USA, over time, states lawgivers imposed upon themselves a duty to fund and thus provide public education. No one was obligated by law to attend, i.e., it was not compulsory.
     
     Now it is in all 50 states. The heavy hand of social democracy tyranny reveals itself everywhere.
   • Embed this notice
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: (p@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 19-Jan-2024 08:35:24 JST pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     • ≠ Brett Stevens ≠
     • JohnGritt
     @JohnGritt @kaia @amerika @thatguyoverthere @Ninji Apparently no one appreciated the irony that the UN has declared that you have a right to be compelled.
   • Embed this notice
     ≠ Brett Stevens ≠ (amerika@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 00:24:36 JST ≠ Brett Stevens ≠

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     @p @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere
     
     This is a useful resource:
     
     Civil liberties are freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution (primarily from the First Amendment). They are natural rights which are inherent to each person. While they are commonly referred to as "rights," civil liberties actually operate as restraints on how the government can treat its citizens. As such, the First Amendment's language ("congress shall make no law") explicitly prohibits the government from infringing on liberties, such as the freedom of speech.
     
     While certain rights can be considered both a civil right and a civil liberty, the distinction between the two lies within the source and target of the authority.
     
     Civil liberties are constitutionally protected freedoms.
     Civil rights are claims built upon legislation.
     
     A violation of civil rights affords the injured party a right to legal action against the violator.
     
     https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_liberties
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: (p@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 00:25:40 JST pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     • ≠ Brett Stevens ≠
     @amerika @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere Accurate.
   • Embed this notice
     ≠ Brett Stevens ≠ (amerika@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 00:27:34 JST ≠ Brett Stevens ≠

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     @p @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere
     
     Natural rights is the Lockeian concept: rights you have in nature, related to natural law or the divine.
     
     Civil rights are a human construct enforced by government on all citizens.
     
     Natural rights brings us free speech; civil rights brings us hate speech laws.
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: (p@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 00:28:01 JST pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     • ≠ Brett Stevens ≠
     @amerika @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere I think we are in agreement, yes.
   • Embed this notice
     ≠ Brett Stevens ≠ (amerika@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 00:28:12 JST ≠ Brett Stevens ≠

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     @p @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere
     
     'I'd put "natural rights" as those things which a stranger may not prevent you from doing, and "civil rights" as the things that are due to you by statute, the things that define your relationship to the government.'
     
     We are saying roughly the same thing, except that the stranger in the natural rights example is government.
     
     Stuff that stops murder, etc. is common law.
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: (p@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 00:30:22 JST pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     • ≠ Brett Stevens ≠
     @amerika @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere Yes; the government doesn't know any of us.
     parasite.jpg
     kaia likes this.
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: (p@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 00:40:39 JST pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     • ≠ Brett Stevens ≠
     @amerika @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere
     
     > One small quibble: if Congress wants to impose a law, it should pass that law, even if only to replicate the treaty as is understood by the US.
     
     That is how it works; treaties usually use language to this effect. There's no real legal weight until that happens. For example, we are signatories to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (thanks, JFK), and Article 36 criminalizes possession, but until Nixon finished the work, it didn't have teeth: you can be charged under federal laws regulating possession but there is no authority to charge you under Article 36 of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This is also why we've got the legal status we have for marijuana, right, the federal government can't roll back its prohibition without violating the treaty, but it doesn't appear to be the case that they even care beyond DEA budget concerns: here's a business that holds land for use as a massive pot farm and the IRS issues them an EIN like any other business.
   • Embed this notice
     ≠ Brett Stevens ≠ (amerika@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 00:40:40 JST ≠ Brett Stevens ≠

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     @p @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere
     
     One small quibble: if Congress wants to impose a law, it should pass that law, even if only to replicate the treaty as is understood by the US.
     
     You can see the practicality of this of course.
   • Embed this notice
     ≠ Brett Stevens ≠ (amerika@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 00:41:10 JST ≠ Brett Stevens ≠

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     • JohnGritt
     @JohnGritt @p @kaia @thatguyoverthere @Ninji
     
     Natural rights = Bill of Rights; civil rights = 14A + civil rights acts + international human rights treaties.
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     ≠ Brett Stevens ≠ (amerika@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 00:41:27 JST ≠ Brett Stevens ≠

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     • JohnGritt
     @p @JohnGritt @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere
     
     This is the nature of civil rights generally.
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     ≠ Brett Stevens ≠ (amerika@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 00:48:15 JST ≠ Brett Stevens ≠

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Cuddly Lovely Sassy Motherfucker
     • Ninji
     • JohnGritt
     @TheMadPirate @JohnGritt @Ninji @kaia @p @thatguyoverthere
     
     True, and civil rights often enable entitlements.
     
     https://www.amerika.org/tag/14a/
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Cuddly Lovely Sassy Motherfucker (themadpirate@detroitriotcity.com)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 00:48:16 JST Cuddly Lovely Sassy Motherfucker

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     • ≠ Brett Stevens ≠
     • JohnGritt
     @amerika @kaia @p @JohnGritt @thatguyoverthere @Ninji When someone on the right says the word "rights" they mean Natural Rights i.e. Negative Liberty. When someone on the left says the word "rights" they mean civil rights i.e. Positive Liberty.
   • Embed this notice
     Zambia (diurnalfreak666@clubcyberia.co)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 01:32:46 JST Zambia

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     • ≠ Brett Stevens ≠
     @p @kaia @amerika @thatguyoverthere @Ninji You might be right about that but I like to give an equal hearing to a diverse range of takes and opinioins and perspectives and I can't call your way of life definitively wrong
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: (p@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 01:33:55 JST pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     • ≠ Brett Stevens ≠
     • Zambia
     @diurnalfreak666 @Ninji @amerika @kaia @thatguyoverthere See, if the government took your approach, then I would have no problem with the government. :ancapchanlol:
   • Embed this notice
     ≠ Brett Stevens ≠ (amerika@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 01:39:54 JST ≠ Brett Stevens ≠

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     • Zambia
     @diurnalfreak666 @p @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere
     
     The tragic thing about life is that at some point, decisions must be made.
     
     At some point, the hawk decides which mouse is a meal.
     
     And then? Then it is done, cause-effect asserted, and universal balance restored.
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     ≠ Brett Stevens ≠ (amerika@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 01:40:17 JST ≠ Brett Stevens ≠

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     @p @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere
     neech.jpg
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     ≠ Brett Stevens ≠ (amerika@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 02:00:18 JST ≠ Brett Stevens ≠

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     @p @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere
     
     Not in the treaty, but in the Congress, a specific mirror law. This at least would have been the intent of the Founders/Framers.
     
     Their original idea was that no law was in force unless it was voted on by The People (spit), starting at the local level and chaining upward to their national representatives.
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: (p@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 02:01:01 JST pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     • ≠ Brett Stevens ≠
     @amerika @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere Well, I don't know where that came from; the Federalist Papers specifically cite that approach as chaotic and stupid and trending towards mob rule.
   • Embed this notice
     ≠ Brett Stevens ≠ (amerika@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 02:01:06 JST ≠ Brett Stevens ≠

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     @p @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere
     
     So now we have to look at how this breaks down in law:
     
     * Natural rights = limits on government power
     * Civil rights = increase in government power
     
     We have sorta crossed from philosophy to law here.
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: (p@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 02:01:39 JST pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     • ≠ Brett Stevens ≠
     @amerika @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere
     
     > * Natural rights = limits on government power
     
     Natural rights are an ethical thing; civil rights are intended to reflect them.
   • Embed this notice
     ≠ Brett Stevens ≠ (amerika@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 02:01:41 JST ≠ Brett Stevens ≠

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     @p @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere
     
     We should talk about how the Civil Rights Act of 1866 clashed so much with natural rights in the Constitution that the #14A had to be passed to get around that loophole, and how it was forced through by eliminating southern voters.
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     ≠ Brett Stevens ≠ (amerika@freespeechextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 20-Jan-2024 02:13:52 JST ≠ Brett Stevens ≠

     in reply to

     • kaia
     • Ninji
     • Zambia
     @p @diurnalfreak666 @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere
     
     Radical take: governments benefit from pluralism, but are sensitive to any critics of pluralism.
     pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist: likes this.