Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:45 pm A man belongs to himself.

His life, liberty, and property are his.

His life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

There, a charter for a civilized nation.

Why does 'your', so called, "civilized nation" only pertain to men, and not to women, nor to children?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:45 pm Print up post cards, distribute to everyone, let folks be as they organize themselves accordingly.

'your', so called, "civilized nation" also precludes those who have already had things stolen from them, or already have things deprived from them.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:01 am I can't concur that mere existence has value.

I didn't say diddly about mere existence.

I'm talkin' about personhood.


People's desired ends typically require some kind of integration, so one's own-ness is normally a balance of socially desirable and necessary compromises.

No. Ownness: being one's own, as a fact, all the time, alone or in a crowd, walkin' down the sidewalk or locked in a cage.

How can one 'be one's own' when they are being locked in a cage, and therefore essentially 'being owned and controlled' by "another"?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:01 am Compromises aren't part of the mix.

Cooperation & competition are surely involved in a man meetin' his needs, satisfyin' his wants, but that has nuthin' to with a man belonging to himself, his personhood.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:49 pm

gaffo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 6:12 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 12:51 am I wasn't expecting an actual response with actual points in it..

thanks for nuthin', guy


The inherently moral worth and dignity of all persons cannot be a universal default.

mebbe not, but even the lowest scumbag belongs to himself, is a person: there's your universal default (ownness)

'course, that loops back to my post above which didn't cut the mustard...

and thats why i oppose the Death Penalty, it gives The State the power to remove life (an inalienable right (only "God" - the life giving, has the right to remove that same life).

agreed

seems to me: joe murders, the family & friends of Joe's victim want justice, then the victim's family & friends ought to be willin' to enact it

And then, the family and friends of "joe" want justice, then "joe's" family and friends ought to be willing to enact it, right?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:49 pm the state's monopoly blunts justice & empowers cowards

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:15 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:01 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:53 pm All individuals are entitled to justice. Very few individuals are entitled to be arbiters of justice.

If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? F. Bastiat

Who gets to decide? is Always a relevant problem with every ideology, and it's what's being addressed with the idea of merit. The fact remains that some people Are of a finer clay and that's a distinction that makes a very real practical difference.

But who gets to decide, who are, supposedly, "of a finer clay"?

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:15 pm We ignore it at our peril. Being anti-meritocracy is akin to being anti-intellectual; they're solutions, not problems, however much tweaking they'll need.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:51 pm Who gets to decide?

if this...

A man belongs to himself.

His life, liberty, and property are his.

His life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

...is the foundation, then the answer is: everyone

And who gets to decide who's property is whose?

Who gets to decide how to portion out the property equitably?

Obviously the way 'you', human beings, are, in the days of when this is being written, then everyone is NOT the answer.

Everyone is surely the answer in an already Truly fair, peaceful, and equitable, 'world', but that 'world' has yet to come-to-be.

I can't engage with you

your endless dissection of everything never allows any conversation or debate to move forward

there ain't no profit to be had, by me, standin' in one place spinnin' & spinnin', or endlessly chasin' my tail like a demented dog

chalk it up to my lack of patience

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=471010 time=1600003950 user_id=472]
I can't engage with you

your endless dissection of [i]everything[/i] never allows any conversation or debate to move forward

there ain't no profit to be had, by me, standin' in one place spinnin' & spinnin', or endlessly chasin' my tail like a demented dog

chalk it up to my lack of patience
[/quote]

I've made that point a number of times but apparently not yet in a way that's salient to them. Age wants way more supporting documentation than is meaningfully necessary or useful.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 2:38 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 2:32 pm I can't engage with you

your endless dissection of everything never allows any conversation or debate to move forward

there ain't no profit to be had, by me, standin' in one place spinnin' & spinnin', or endlessly chasin' my tail like a demented dog

chalk it up to my lack of patience

I've made that point a number of times but apparently not yet in a way that's salient to them. Age wants way more supporting documentation than is meaningfully necessary or useful.

yep