ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

ican,

Do you mean to suggest that your anecdotal evidence is indeed proof of a global consensus on murder? What happens and what people think should happen are often two different things, just as you argued that the securing of the rights is not necessary for them to exist.

Furthermore you have not answered me. You have repeatedly asserted that I said (or implied) that collective morality is superior to individual morality.

I do not think that is the case at all. I do, however, think that while individual morality can be more 'moral' than the collective variety acting on it as if it were a universal right is wrong.

Individual morality leads to anarchy in unregulated application. It should be used to forward the collective morality.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

But do you think minority rule and elitism any better?

No! they are not better. But there is a better choice than those you've considered. I wrote a couple of posts back about precedents(actually I added that by way of an edit, while you were posting your response prior to the completion of my edit).

ican711nm wrote:

There's no escaping it: for consensus not to produce horrific government, honorable/moral/ethical criteria precedent to the formation of that consensus are required.

Who or what shall provide those criteria is still debatable, but they must be supplied prior to consensus to avoid the certain degradation of the community into a tyranny.

0 Replies

Quote:

Individual morality leads to anarchy in unregulated application. It should be used to forward the collective morality.

Let it never be so! Each individual should move at their on pace in their own distinct, self-determined direction. This natural, individual-oriented lifestyle will find us all sharing bits of the road together--but never marching lockstep.

0 Replies

ican,

How very sneaky. I'm glad to see you don't advocate elitism over consensus.

Sofia,

What I mean by individual morality being problematic are when individuals think it their 'right' to avenge death by killing others for example.

Osama thinks he's right. Furthermore he thinks he's right because of divine endowment. I'd rather he work with a consensus than take matters into his own hands.

0 Replies

ican,

I read back and if I am reading the edit you mention I agree with it.

0 Replies

Sofia; you're going to give us all diabetes!
____________________________________ Laughing

I have this problem;
All the nations of the world, according to my sources (admittedly western oriented) wish to be the strongest, richest, most influencial social group of all; to the glory of 'their' god (who is, of course, the only true and actual 'one') and to the defecit, if need be, of some, or all, of the other countries on this planet (this last part being couched in more acceptable 'diplobable').

All the people i know, seem fully aware of most of the constraints, challenges, and inequities present in world societies; are strongly in favour of solving/alleviating them; do not favour violent solutions, where other means are available; and are really seriously concerned about the future of this planet, and its inhabitants [all species, except black flies, (they are mostly Canadians)].

We all think that a world bill of rights would be a first good step, in the right direction, to at least display a willingness to engage in solving some of these problems.

Where lies the problem? "Nationalism"

Perhaps it is only in Canada, the new home of so many nation's people, that the 'phantom' of belonging to a nation, and not to this planet is such an obvious farce!

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

ican, Do you mean to suggest that your anecdotal evidence is indeed proof of a global consensus on murder?

No, I meant to suggest that the community whose consensus was nazis was rather large. It was not a global consensus, thankfully.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Furthermore you have not answered me. You have repeatedly asserted that I said (or implied) that collective morality is superior to individual morality.

I'm glad to be wrong about my inference from your statement. I'd rather that you be right. It does my heart good.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Individual morality leads to anarchy in unregulated application. It should be used to forward the collective morality.

Yes, YES, YYEEEESS! Please pardon the expression, BY GOD, I WISH I HAD WRITTEN THAT! Very Happy

Now, perhaps, we're ready to discuss ways to accomplish that.

0 Replies

How about recognizing that rights are granted by power and the first step should be to ensure that power is held by consensus (at least the power to determine the rights granted to a society)?

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

We all think that a world bill of rights would be a first good step, in the right direction, to at least display a willingness to engage in solving some of these problems.

OUTSTANDING! Let's begin to draft one now.

If I'm correct regarding The Declaration of Independence, John Adams wrote the first draft, Tom Jefferson a couple of subsequent versions, and the final one was written by several people arriving at consensus. Our Bill of Rights was written by many more thereby achieving its consensus. It worked because all participants agreed that the Declaration provided the basic precedent criteria.

Perhaps, the way to best begin The World Bill of Rights is for each of us individually to try our hand at a draft that we subsequently enlist each other to improve. At this stage, we must first design it to accomplish what we want according to our precedent criteria. Then we must seek a wider consensus.

0 Replies

We are reaching the technological point where the entire process could be run by 'modified' consensus.
By combining the verification systems available to credit cards, for example, combined with communication technology, which with very minor installations could be in the 'hands' of all, the entire population could vote on all issues.
Of course that would skew the vote toward 'popular' vs. 'sensible' solutions.
That is where the 'modified' consensus comes in.
Votes would be earned, not equal.
Everyone reaching the age of 'participation' would have one vote; but your voting 'stature' could be augmented by certain 'life' activities which would render one "more 'able' to contribute 'meaningfully' in choosing".
For example graduating from the normal school system would add a vote to one's 'stature'; a college degree would add one vote, and a Phd would add three votes. Charitable work would allow one to earn a vote; or membership in specified organizations; etc. etc.
Obviously the challenge would be to define the whole gambit of criteia by which voting would be 'weighted' in favour of those having a background making their choice more likely to be a good one!

Scarey, eh?

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

... Each individual should move at their on pace in their own distinct, self-determined direction. This natural, individual-oriented lifestyle will find us all sharing bits of the road together--but never marching lockstep.

I agree that there is safety in diversity, and consequently diversity must be secured. However, I do not agree that consensus will automatically compel belief. Don't forget that the folks who wrote the Bill of Rights enjoyed a consensus because they put in the 9th and 10th Amendments to prevent compelling belief in a single prescripted set of rights.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

How about recognizing that rights are granted by power and the first step should be to ensure that power is held by consensus (at least the power to determine the rights granted to a society)?

Simultaneously, we must acknowledge the precedent criterion that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Thus the acknowledgement of rights is a proper precedent to securing those rights with the power of the state.

0 Replies

Except that 'power' does NOT per se 'corrupt' and absolute power does NOT 'necessarily'corrupt absolutely!

It is odd that if one puts together a few words that have a nice 'ring' to them, people who grasp for such phrases will run with it, untill it seems axiomatic.

Lack of power in a society rubbed into your face day after day is more likely to corrupt, and absolute power brings with it a potent sense of resposibility; while i would not deny for a moment that there are cases of abuse throughout history.

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

Obviously the challenge would be to define the whole gambit of criteia by which voting would be 'weighted' in favour of those having a background making their choice more likely to be a good one!

Scarey, eh?

Yes, it's scarey. I propose we limit voting to those who pay taxes.

If you don't like that one, how about limiting voting to those who can read, write and compute AND pay taxes?

Neither Bill Gates or Michael Dell earned a college degree, but they sure contributed a lot more to society than I have with my two masters degrees plus a flight instructor's certificates and ratings. Accomplishments are far more important than any certificates certifying what has been learned.

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

Except that 'power' does NOT per se 'corrupt' and absolute power does NOT 'necessarily'corrupt absolutely!

History is repleat with a preponderance of anecdotal evidence that power PROBABLY corrupts and absolute power PROBABLY corrupts absolutely. True we have not yet witnessed the application by one or more humans of absolute power, but the human race has witnessed the pernicious consequences of too many cases of very high concentrations of power. Even the "old farts" who wrote the USA Constitution adopted in 1789 understood that securing a division of power was essential. They screwed up, however. No provision like say recall, was made to limit the Supreme Court's usurpation of power to amend the Constitution.

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

Votes would be earned, not equal.
Everyone reaching the age of 'participation' would have one vote; but your voting 'stature' could be augmented by certain 'life' activities which would render one "more 'able' to contribute 'meaningfully' in choosing".
For example graduating from the normal school system would add a vote to one's 'stature'; a college degree would add one vote, and a Phd would add three votes. Charitable work would allow one to earn a vote; or membership in specified organizations; etc. etc.

Obviously the challenge would be to define the whole gambit of criteia by which voting would be 'weighted' in favour of those having a background making their choice more likely to be a good one!

Scarey, eh?

This system is the one we are using already, but with different criteria than yours. For example, corporate citizens outvote human ones by purchasing the necessary votes. Hey, they're immortal, amoral, and not controlled by emotional advertising. They are legal entities given human rights, but cannot be imprisoned and they grow lawyers the way people grow antibodies! They can do anything (that produces a profit) especially influence the government.

The way I see it, like most "entitlements" people are given just a basic minimum: one vote per person. That's just enough to get by. If you want something special then you have to pay extra. Anything is available for a price. Votes cost a certain amount, so if you want to have 1000 votes you simply donate money to whatever cause you support.

It's much better than simple ballot voting because there are hundreds of causes to choose from, every social issue you can think of! You can allocate your dollars in any combination, to any degree. You are a free person ... and free is pretty cheap to buy.

Most human citizens haven't realized this yet, continue to patriotically cast their one and only vote, scared along by emotional advertising, and proudly go home. Meanwhile, they're being trampled by special interest groups and political action committees! Individuals are at a major disadvantage because they are not so informed, connected, financed, and especially: organized!

What are you doing?!? Personally, I don't bother voting in an election booth because it's ineffective. In the same amount of time, I can create 50 votes just by working a couple extra hours at work. I cast about 2000 votes with my checkbook and leave it at that.

That's the way America works. If we don't learn to recognize and beat corporate interests at their own game, then pretty soon *people* will be the least powerful members of our society.

You can bear the wool, or you can harvest it. Not both.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Yes, it's scarey. I propose we limit voting to those who pay taxes.

If you don't like that one, how about limiting voting to those who can read, write and compute AND pay taxes?

Neither Bill Gates or Michael Dell earned a college degree, but they sure contributed a lot more to society than I have with my two masters degrees plus a flight instructor's certificates and ratings. Accomplishments are far more important than any certificates certifying what has been learned.

I am not suggesting that we "LIMIT" voting at all; non taxpayers voting wisely could end up becoming 'taxpayers' in a new regime; i merely wish to extend the chances of 'wisdom' showing up in the election process.
And, speaking of 'wisdom', that (though, i agree, it does not come from diplomas on the wall) is even more important than 'accomplishments' in promoting good government.

0 Replies

Code;

while you are right, of course, 'monetary' voting is severely restricted by the state of one's 'heels'.
And unfortunately, the majority of those who can afford to support a cause, noticeably, choose one, or more, of the 'vested interest' variety, which may not serve the total society at all.
I was attempting to augment the numbers in the direction of sanity, without having to find a 'billion magic shoemakers'!

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

I say it is not poetic license--but fact. Man is more than an orderly lump of flesh and goo. You don't have to buy religion or God to believe that man comes into this world with more than biology can explain.

There's a difference between something biology has not yet explained and something that biology cannot explain. To date, we've found nothing that science simply cannot answer, but many things for which we don't have enough evidence to make a full explanation.

You claim that man is more than an orderly lump of flesh and goo, please demonstrate that this is so. There is nothing that I have observed which would make that a valid claim.

0 Replies

Woke up this morning, Ceph, to a religious rant on San Antonio Sunday morning radio. All about these idiotic evolutionists who claim (among other foolishness) that we evolved from African and Asians. That the "female race" evolved in Africa and the "male race" evolved in Asia. See? Evolutionists don't even understand one of god's basic miracles: mommy and daddy have to get together! Silly scientists!

Honest. In south Texas they're getting a great story about evolutionists.

0 Replies

ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know