Quote:
Ken said:
False. We are all part of "nature." "State of" is redundant, at best. Governments are made up of people, so governments are part of nature.
|
Not true.
Pecking order is natural, the means collectives use to arrive at that pecking order is not. All beings that "socialize" or form "society" or "collectives" have a pecking order. Governments are constructs of society to "formalize" the method of arriving at that pecking order.
Everything in the natural world not made by man, is natural. Everything that is made of natural components, assembled and designed by man are man-made, or modified nature, "synthetic".
Quote:
Ken said:
And governments aren't?
|
Governments are force, at the behest of a collective. The larger the collective(assuming by larger we mean more population with potential to "donate, tax, extort, enslave" for the claimed "greater good" of the day), the larger the force, the larger the wars between collectives.
The secret to effective and efficient government are clear limitation to the protection of rights with force, as opposed to the usurpation of rights with force, domestically or internationally.
Seeing two people fight with fists, clubs, swords, guns is the small version of watching two nations fight in the names of their people using fists, clubs, swords or guns.
What is better, 2 men fighting, or ....
2 million men fighting in the name of their nations, under orders of 2 men using 2 mens competing ideologies as the basis for war?
The smaller government is, the less harmful it is to man in general.
The more independent people are, the smaller government need be.
Quote:
Ken said:
Social authority often takes the stand it has a right to take whatever from whomever. Humans need to organize so as to protect themselves and improve their lot. That's how government starts. But evenb without some authority an authority eventually develops. In reality, humans need to both organize to protect and improve, and defend themselves from the very organizing efforts that screw up. Our forefathers had a good sense of this when in the Constitution they included that all rights not mentioned belong to the people.
|
Well, they actually said to the States, or people respectively. Regardless, no state had the right to pass laws that violated the rights of individuals without due process by a jury of their peers, which held the right to nullify based on individual cases and circumstances.
I will say that I think if more people rejected the system as it is, by voting out BOTH major parties, we would see change. The problem is too many people being tricked into being dependent on government, not knowing that the privatized alternative would be cheaper in almost all cases, as well as better and more efficient.
Insurance didn't used to be expensive until the government started mandating it, much like police, fire and health care insurance now provided by the state or fed.
We are attempting to remove the reality of nature from our kids, in protection of their comfort, feelings and "other peoples" individually perceived moral judgements. We attempt to be there for every skinned knee, from birth to death, social programs to care for those who CAN care for themselves, but won't. We are attempting to legally remove the cost of nature, to life, which is impossible, impractical and will lead to our doom, by our own means or out of uprising from others who refuse to be witness to such or exploit it.
Feel-gooders, Moral extremists, special intrests and corporate lobbyists are removing the rights of the people, through unconstitutional laws, built on bad precedent.
Back on original topic.... natural rights.....
Natural Rights are a natural respect for "ability".
Its an "admission" of humanity, in a means to cooperation as opposed to force, based on "common threads", or "ties that bind".