Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Blunt Amendment DefeatedFollow

#152 Mar 07 2012 at 10:44 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Russia not only wins "largest by land size", it's not even a close contest. Per lolwiki:

Russia land area: 6,323,482 sq miles
Canada land area: 3,511,023 sq miles

Russia is also larger than Antarctica (5,400,000 sq miles)

Edit: China's land mass is slightly larger than Canada but Canada is larger if you count entire territory (inc water). Still a far cry from Russia though.

Edited, Mar 7th 2012 8:16am by Jophiel

Ah that's the badger. Sank yuu.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#153 Mar 07 2012 at 10:50 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
Sweetums wrote:
What else would I use on old people going 40 mph?
Why do you hate old people?!
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#154 Mar 07 2012 at 10:52 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
Elinda wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
What else would I use on old people going 40 mph?
Why do you hate old people?!

Because they're slow and in the way?
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#155 Mar 07 2012 at 10:53 AM Rating: Good
******
43,937 posts
cidbahamut wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
What else would I use on old people going 40 mph?
Why do you hate old people?!
Because they're slow and in the way?
Also believe they'd be a good source of fuel once they're placed in the ground for a few decades.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#156 Mar 07 2012 at 10:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,872 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
cidbahamut wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
What else would I use on old people going 40 mph?
Why do you hate old people?!
Because they're slow and in the way?
Also believe they'd be a good source of fuel once they're placed in the ground for a few decades.


Why wait, cremation in the local incinerator should work just fine.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#157 Mar 07 2012 at 10:59 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
can fit all 3 of those countries you referenced into Canada Texas =D


FTFY
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#158 Mar 07 2012 at 11:00 AM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
At 2000 you will need to stop for the night to sleep. I did that trip 48 hours straight with a friend and it was pretty frightening.

I'm not talking about ******* to nowhere: I'm talking between major metro areas. You can go several hundred miles between cities and not pass through civilization the entire time.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#159 Mar 07 2012 at 11:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
It's pretty much impossible to take a 200 mile trip in the Netherlands

Little country is little.
#160 Mar 07 2012 at 1:29 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,980 posts
****, you can take 200 mile trips within New York...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#161 Mar 07 2012 at 2:35 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Just search for the Netherlands in google maps. You'll see how tiny it is.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#162 Mar 07 2012 at 2:58 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,937 posts
Debalic wrote:
****, you can take 200 mile trips within New York...
I know I have, on more than one drunken Saturday night.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#163 Mar 07 2012 at 3:17 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
For Gbaji the man with the most liberty is one who lives in a cave and never sees anyone else.


That's not just my definition, it's the definition used when this country was founded. Everything we do is a balance between infringement of liberty and the necessities of society. It's all about what we define as necessary though. But if you can't even see that all government action infringes liberty, then you can't possibly make an informed choice about that balance.


And I have stated repeatedly that taxes to pay for a military are *also* an infringement of liberty. Just because some people are under the false assumption that liberty in a social system is an all-or-nothing proposition, doesn't mean that they must assume that I do. We agree to pay taxes for a military because absent one, a greater portion of our liberty can be taken away by the first despot with an army to come along. It's the same reason why we have police forces as well. And while we can certainly disagree with how those things are used (or even abused), there's a **** of a lot more justification for them than there is for socialized medicine.


There is no protection of liberty by having the government pay for your health care. Zip. Zero. Nada.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#164 Mar 07 2012 at 3:36 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,866 posts
Our country was founded primarily on the principles of John Locke, and then moved into Descartes' territory after about 10 years after that.

Liberty is not the state of nature. L2Enlightenment.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#165 Mar 07 2012 at 4:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Our country was founded primarily on the principles of John Locke, and then moved into Descartes' territory after about 10 years after that.


Wrong kind of liberty. Descartes? Really? You honestly believe that anything the social left is doing today has anything at all to do with Descartes?

Quote:
Liberty is not the state of nature. L2Enlightenment.


In the context of society and government, it is. Descartes was talking about determinalism, free will, predestination, God, etc. Locke was talking about social structures. I'm just kinda shaking my head in wonder at the strangeness of your response. There's probably 4 or 5 other philosophers that you could have listed which might possibly maybe be relevant. Descartes? Wow!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#166 Mar 07 2012 at 4:09 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,866 posts
No, it isn't. The state of nature is, by definition, the state humanity in the complete absence of social organization. If you have any government, at all, you are necessarily outside of the state of nature. You aren't just outside it, you can't even see it.

And, idiot, you argued about the definition of liberty that the country was founded on. Then tried to counter arguing that Descartes wasn't important to modernity. First of all, that's not what we were discussing. Second of all, Descartes remains one of the most important political thinkers for US law.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#167 Mar 07 2012 at 4:19 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
No, it isn't. The state of nature is, by definition, the state humanity in the complete absence of social organization. If you have any government, at all, you are necessarily outside of the state of nature. You aren't just outside it, you can't even see it.


Yes. Congratulations. Welcome to what I posted like 8 posts ago or something.


The point is to examine what that state would be like and then formulate a set of social rules so as to retain as close to that state as possible while also having a government and working society.

This is the foundation of the concept of "small government". How did you miss that?

Quote:
And, idiot, you argued about the definition of liberty that the country was founded on. Then tried to counter arguing that Descartes wasn't important to modernity.


Bit of a bait and switch there, don't you think? I did not argue that at all. I said that Descartes has nothing at all to do with the concept of Liberty which Locke wrote about and which was the basis for the founding principles of the US.

If you want to argue about other contributions Descartes may have had, that's a wholly different thing.

Quote:
First of all, that's not what we were discussing.


You're right. So why the **** did you bring it up? I thought I mentioned my wonderment at how you thought Descartes had anything to do with the subject at hand in my last post?


Quote:
Second of all, Descartes remains one of the most important political thinkers for US law.


Um... That's nice? Any other random things you feel like sharing?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#168 Mar 07 2012 at 4:40 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,866 posts
Quote:
That's not just my definition, it's the definition used when this country was founded. Everything we do is a balance between infringement of liberty and the necessities of society.


You brought it up, dumbass.

We use John Locke's definition of liberty. Which is NOT the state of nature.

Locke, in his second treatise, wrote:
The liberty of man in society is to be under no other legislative power but that established by consent in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will or restraint of any law, but what that legislative power shall enact according to the trust put in it.


Any law passed by a representative legislative body is not a violation of liberty under Locke's definition of the term. But feel free to try again.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#169 Mar 07 2012 at 5:05 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,980 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Debalic wrote:
****, you can take 200 mile trips within New York...
I know I have, on more than one drunken Saturday night.

Cruisin' up and down the Taconic?That's what I did when I was nineteen and drunk!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#170 Mar 07 2012 at 6:46 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
That's not just my definition, it's the definition used when this country was founded. Everything we do is a balance between infringement of liberty and the necessities of society.


You brought it up, dumbass.


Brought what up? Are you saying that my use of liberty in this thread is not consistent with that which the US was founded on (John Locke's definition)? I suspect you are confused somewhere.

Quote:
We use John Locke's definition of liberty. Which is NOT the state of nature.


Er? As we used the phrase it *is*. WTF? You said:

idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
The state of nature is, by definition, the state humanity in the complete absence of social organization.


John Locke, in his second treatise on government, in chapter 2 (which happens to be titled "Of the State of Nature", in the very first freaking paragraph, said:

John Locke wrote:
Sec. 4. TO understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.



Now, lest you lost track, I also said just a bit ago:

gbaji wrote:
The point is to examine what that state would be like and then formulate a set of social rules so as to retain as close to that state as possible while also having a government and working society.


Which is precisely what this work by Locke attempts to do. A work which some other folks took to heart and decided to try to make work in the real world. The result was the US.

Quote:
Locke, in his second treatise, wrote:
The liberty of man in society is to be under no other legislative power but that established by consent in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will or restraint of any law, but what that legislative power shall enact according to the trust put in it.


Any law passed by a representative legislative body is not a violation of liberty under Locke's definition of the term. But feel free to try again.



You honestly interpret that sentence that way? I guess that explains a lot!

I'll give you a hint: He's not saying that being under legislative power doesn't infringe liberty. He's saying that liberty should never be infringed except by a legislative power given consent to so govern. He's saying that man gives up his liberty to be governed, but should only do so sparingly and when he's put his trust in said government not to abuse the power that has been given. If you read further, he also explains why man might choose to do this.

He absolutely was not saying that as long as he's part of a commonwealth that the laws thus enacted magically cease to be infringements of his liberty. Quite the opposite in fact:

John Locke wrote:
Sec. 123. IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and controul of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.

Sec. 124. The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property. To which in the state of nature there are many things wanting.



Clearly, he viewed placing oneself under the rules of a government (even one trusted with that power) as an infringement of liberty. He argues that it is a necessary sacrifice though. Because absent doing this, our liberty is easily taken away. So we agree to lose some liberty to a government of our choice, with the understanding that it will act to protect the remainder of our liberty. For failing to do that, we'll likely end out subject to a government that will not limit its infringement at all.


The larger (and more relevant) point being that we should always keep this in mind and act to limit our own government's actions towards us. Certainly, the idea that there's no loss of liberty as long as it's our government passing the laws is absurd.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#171 Mar 07 2012 at 6:54 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Oh. And while I'm on the subject of quoting Locke:

Quote:
Sec. 15. To those that say, there were never any men in the state of nature, I will not only oppose the authority of the judicious Hooker, Eccl. Pol. lib. i. sect. 10, where he says, The laws which have been hitherto mentioned, i.e. the laws of nature, do bind men absolutely, even as they are men, although they have never any settled fellowship, never any solemn agreement amongst themselves what to do, or not to do: but forasmuch as we are not by ourselves sufficient to furnish ourselves with competent store of things, needful for such a life as our nature doth desire, a life fit for the dignity of man; therefore to supply those defects and imperfections which are in us, as living single and solely by ourselves, we are naturally induced to seek communion and fellowship with others: this was the cause of men's uniting themselves at first in politic societies. But I moreover affirm, that all men are naturally in that state, and remain so, till by their own consents they make themselves members of some politic society; and I doubt not in the sequel of this discourse, to make it very clear.



Bolded bit is especially relevant for those who claim that liberty is not lost based on whether one chooses a given government, or is represented by it, or any other silly notion. The fact that one is under another authority is where the liberty is lost. The only questions are "How much is lost" and "what is gained". If you have to argue for some government action by insisting that there's no cost to liberty, you are attempting to deny that cost, not justify it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#172 Mar 07 2012 at 7:15 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,866 posts
You don't even understand the meaning of that statement, do you? It's sad, actually.

Have you ever voted? Yes? Then you aren't in the state of nature. Do you have family or friends? Then you aren't in the state of nature.

[EDIT]

Let me be more clear. The section you quoted is specifically to deal with a debate that was going on in European salons about whether or not the State of Nature was metaphor or an actual state of affairs. It remains unclear which definition Hobbes favored, but it seems like he believed it was actual history--that man began with nothing, and forfeited their rights to a sovereign in order to gain his protection. Originally, this was just the guy with the biggest stick and fire. In Hobbes' time, this was an absolutist monarch, and he was specifically writing to justify absolutism. He believed that man entered into a social contract with these leaders, and that they were not free to break it unless the Sovereign was failing to protect them, or was himself a direct threat on their life. He had the right to do anything to his people as long as neither of those held true.

Locke redefined the state of nature. For one, he did not believe it to be so dark. He believed that the normal social interactions between people were not incompatible with it, but were rather natural in and of themselves. Therefore, the state of nature was a system in which people did not organize themselves, but were also not independent. He also did not believe that the state of nature in a literal sense had ever held--he was not talking about history. A man finds himself in the state of nature if he has not entered into an political* organization, nor acts according to any one.

*To be clear, I don't mean like "United States" or "Russia", "New Jersey" or "New York City". This does not mean "Republican Party". To enter into a political organization, in the way Locke is using it, is to be a part of any social group that actively organizes or manages itself. Families almost always qualify. Communities always qualify. Even if you alienate yourself from the world, if you continue to exist using systems that a political organization manages, then you are still a part of that organization (even if you don't contribute much of anything).

State of Nature, for him, is a statement about your ability to influence, or be influenced by, other people.

Nearly every human being on the planet is not in the State of Nature. Not because they actively chose to leave it. Not because they couldn't leave it. But because they were born into it, and have never felt the need to leave.

Locke mentions dealings between people in the state of nature, but he does not discuss (iirc) dealings between people in, and people outside, it.

Edited, Mar 7th 2012 9:14pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#173 Mar 07 2012 at 7:41 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,471 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
can fit all 3 of those countries you referenced into Canada Texas =D


FTFY


Um I do not think the USA will fit into Texas, I know I know I am a huge skeptic.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#174ThiefX, Posted: Mar 07 2012 at 7:55 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Actually dropped in just to check on a FFXI post for a friend who still plays and just for giggles I decided to see what you shut ins were babbling about when I stumbled on this thread.
#175 Mar 07 2012 at 8:01 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,866 posts
Smiley: lolSmiley: lolSmiley: lol

Aw, TheifX, you're so cute. It's like you want to be insulting, but it just comes out hilarious. Like racist old men.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#176 Mar 07 2012 at 8:18 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
ThiefX wrote:
looking through the book he checked out of the library
At least he can read
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#177 Mar 07 2012 at 8:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
You don't even understand the meaning of that statement, do you? It's sad, actually.


It's shocking how often those who don't understand something project their own lack of understanding on others. You know how you can tell who's doing this? When one person is able to describe what they're talking about in their own words (like I have, multiple times now), and the other guy just keeps repeating 'you don't understand" over and over.


Quote:
Have you ever voted? Yes? Then you aren't in the state of nature. Do you have family or friends? Then you aren't in the state of nature.


Sigh... A->B is *not* B->A.

The state of nature as described by Locke is intended to illustrate the state of perfect liberty. When you are subject to no authority you have complete liberty. Just because you have left the state of nature and joined in a civil society does not mean you must give up *all* liberty though. He uses the state of nature to illustrate what liberty is, then talks about how it's necessary to give up some of that to form a society, then spends a huge amount of time talking about how the rules and powers and laws of that society should be as minimal as possible and aimed towards preserving as much of that liberty you possessed in a state of nature as possible.


What do you think he's saying when he says this:

Quote:
Sec. 123. IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and controul of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.

Sec. 124. The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property. To which in the state of nature there are many things wanting.



Yes. I'm re-quoting the same thing because apparently you didn't bother to read it. He applies the label "property" to "lives, liberties, and estates". He then says that the only reason to put oneself under government is "the preservation of their property". Since property itself includes liberty, you cannot conclude that when one enters into society and puts oneself under the laws of the government that one must give up their liberty.


It's amazing to me how many people can read that and still fail to understand. It's right there in black and white. It's as clear as can be. You really have to work hard IMO to misinterpret what Locke is saying in that pair of paragraphs. It's just not that complicated at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#178 Mar 07 2012 at 8:57 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:

Locke redefined the state of nature. For one, he did not believe it to be so dark. He believed that the normal social interactions between people were not incompatible with it, but were rather natural in and of themselves. Therefore, the state of nature was a system in which people did not organize themselves, but were also not independent. He also did not believe that the state of nature in a literal sense had ever held--he was not talking about history. A man finds himself in the state of nature if he has not entered into an political* organization, nor acts according to any one.

...

State of Nature, for him, is a statement about your ability to influence, or be influenced by, other people.


It's a bit more than that though. It's about not being under another's authority. You were more correct with your earlier statement about being part of a political organization (and yes, you got the use correct there). But if you actually read Locke instead of just the cliff notes, or having someone give you a brief half section explanation, you'll understand that there are interactions in the state of nature. The state of nature is opposed by the state of war in Locke's definition. In nature, you're not being imposed upon. In war, you are.


He proposes men would naturally prefer to be in the state of nature, but that the threat of the state of war (where someone might force him into slavery) causes him to form those political organizations (most often referred to as commonwealths by Locke, but he uses some other labels as well). He says that by entering into that state men can choose which laws to be bound by and can choose those which give them liberty closest to that in the state of nature, with less risk of those things being lost ("war" doesn't just mean major conflicts obviously. One man beating another and taking his stuff is the "state of war" according to Locke).


This is why he says that the only reason to join such a society is for that protection. We give up some of the liberty we have in the state of nature so as to protect as much as possible from the state of war. The state of war being arbitrary loss of liberty/property.


But there's no point to this if the society you form does not value those liberties. To Locke, that civil society ceases to be civil but becomes a state of war or tyranny.

Quote:
Nearly every human being on the planet is not in the State of Nature. Not because they actively chose to leave it. Not because they couldn't leave it. But because they were born into it, and have never felt the need to leave.

Locke mentions dealings between people in the state of nature, but he does not discuss (iirc) dealings between people in, and people outside, it.



It's not important whether the state exists or can exist, or should exist. As I said earlier, the whole point of him talking about the state of nature and the state of war is to illustrate the concept of liberty so he can argue for why societies should hold most important the preservation of those liberties. When someone argues that since we've agreed to be bound by societies laws that we can't oppose or complain about any infringement of liberty, or even more absurdly that laws passed by a representative government can't infringe your rights, that person simply does not understand the principles of rights and liberties our nation was founded on. Those statements are completely counter to those principles and were both made (more or less) by people in this thread.


Call me crazy, but when someone says that laws don't infringe rights as long as the laws are passed by my own government, I'm going to disagree. Not just a little bit, but a **** of a lot. Because once you adopt that position, you've abandoned any belief in rights or limited government at all.

Locke wrote:
First, It is not, nor can possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people: for it being but the joint power of every member of the society given up to that person, or assembly, which is legislator; it can be no more than those persons had in a state of nature before they entered into society, and gave up to the community: for no body can transfer to another more power than he has in himself; and no body has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another. A man, as has been proved, cannot subject himself to the arbitrary power of another; and having in the state of nature no arbitrary power over the life, liberty, or possession of another, but only so much as the law of nature gave him for the preservation of himself, and the rest of mankind; this is all he doth, or can give up to the common-wealth, and by it to the legislative power, so that the legislative can have no more than this. Their power, in the utmost bounds of it, is limited to the public good of the society. It is a power, that hath no other end but preservation, and therefore can never* have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the subjects. The obligations of the law of nature cease not in society, but only in many cases are drawn closer, and have by human laws known penalties annexed to them, to inforce their observation. Thus the law of nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions, must, as well as their own and other men's actions, be conformable to the law of nature, i.e. to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good, or valid against it.



He's saying that just because you formed into a society and passed laws, you don't get to do more with that than you had in the state of nature. That state did not justify you to take from someone to give to yourself (or a third party), so neither does the government you form have that authority (that's the state of war btw). And no, "public good" does not cover things like health care. Not in the direct form that Obamacare takes. You could argue that it does cover the CDC, or research, and whatnot. But the second you start taking money from people unequally in order to provide direct benefits (also unequally), the government has overstepped its bounds.


This is the same argument against any such directed social programs btw. This is hardly limited to the health care law. There are lots of examples of violations of this. That fact does not and should not be used as a justification for more such infringement though. It should be used as a reason why we need to go in the other direction.

Edited, Mar 7th 2012 6:59pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#179 Mar 07 2012 at 9:05 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,866 posts
I find it hilarious how willing you are to put words in Locke's mouth, just to try and get it closer to your own twisted view of things.

Did I say hilarious? I meant sad. Very, very sad.

My favorite good is that you claim public good can't refer to healthcare, when Locke specifically notes that the absolute limit of legislative power is the public good--they have no right to go beyond that, for at that point they are no longer existing in the spirit of the people.

And you think healthcare doesn't fall into that? You don't think helping people afford lifesaving medications isn't a public good?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#180 Mar 07 2012 at 9:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
ThiefX wrote:
blah blah blah FFXI blah yadda yadda blah

Smiley: facepalm
#181 Mar 07 2012 at 9:31 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Nadenu wrote:
ThiefX wrote:
blah blah blah FFXI blah yadda yadda blah

Smiley: facepalm


Hey, that's not fair. He was totally just looking at for his friend. Not for himself, no. He's too cool for that stuff. It was just for his friend, arite?

Smiley: lol
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#182 Mar 07 2012 at 9:54 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,471 posts
FFXI Is a waste of time, yet I still pay them to let me waste that time each month. I am Canadian and they say I am slow eh.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#183ThiefX, Posted: Mar 07 2012 at 11:06 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yes somebody with the username of ThiefX and who has an account on Zam would never admit to playing FFXI. You're a ******* bright one aren't you.
#184 Mar 07 2012 at 11:15 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Ah, the classic, "it's not for me, it's for my friend!" defense. Thiefx, you are the pinnacle of creative thinking.
#185 Mar 07 2012 at 11:19 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,866 posts
He only plays it for the articles.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#186 Mar 08 2012 at 8:33 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,937 posts
Guenny wrote:
Ah, the classic, "it's not for me, it's for my friend!" defense. Thiefx, you are the pinnacle of creative thinking.
Maybe once he gets to high school he'll come up with higher quality thoughts. I kind of doubt it, but we have to hope for the best for the future generations.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#187 Mar 08 2012 at 2:41 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
ThiefX wrote:
Quote:
Hey, that's not fair. He was totally just looking at for his friend. Not for himself, no. He's too cool for that stuff. It was just for his friend, arite?


Yes somebody with the username of ThiefX and who has an account on Zam would never admit to playing FFXI. You're a @#%^ing bright one aren't you.


I think I struck a nerve. Smiley: lol
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#188 Mar 08 2012 at 3:00 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,937 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's shocking how often those who don't understand something project their own lack of understanding on others.
No shock at all you run to this security blanket style comment as often as you do.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#189 Mar 08 2012 at 4:53 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,937 posts
Debalic wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Debalic wrote:
****, you can take 200 mile trips within New York...
I know I have, on more than one drunken Saturday night.
Cruisin' up and down the Taconic?That's what I did when I was nineteen and drunk!
More along the lines of "*hic* Hay taxi driver. Drive me home!" "Where is home, sir?" "That way!" "Um .." "Just keep goin' and I tells you where, k?"
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#190 Mar 08 2012 at 6:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I find it hilarious how willing you are to put words in Locke's mouth, just to try and get it closer to your own twisted view of things.


Interesting defense mechanism. When you know you're wrong, you fall back on "laughing" at the other guy. I'm quoting Locke and then providing my interpretation of his words. You're free to argue for a different interpretation, but to just laugh it away suggests you are unable to.

Quote:
Did I say hilarious? I meant sad. Very, very sad.


Yeah. Definite defense mechanism.

Quote:
My favorite good is that you claim public good can't refer to healthcare, when Locke specifically notes that the absolute limit of legislative power is the public good--they have no right to go beyond that, for at that point they are no longer existing in the spirit of the people.


Favorite why? You're equating what he said to a public policy today, but with zero rationale behind it. Just declaring something so isn't terribly persuasive.

Quote:
And you think healthcare doesn't fall into that?


No, I don't. Why should I? I thought I pretty clearly explained myself on this point.

Quote:
You don't think helping people afford lifesaving medications isn't a public good?


You're simplifying (and double negating) the question. I already provided a very clear answer, so why ask the question again?

gbaji wrote:
And no, "public good" does not cover things like health care. Not in the direct form that Obamacare takes. You could argue that it does cover the CDC, or research, and whatnot. But the second you start taking money from people unequally in order to provide direct benefits (also unequally), the government has overstepped its bounds.


If you want to argue that legislative power, as defined by Locke, includes taking money from people unequally in order to provide direct unequal benefits, then do so. Just repeating the question as though in shock that I disagree doesn't really accomplish anything. Tell me why you think I'm wrong. Don't just express your assumption again.

Edited, Mar 8th 2012 4:39pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#191 Mar 08 2012 at 7:30 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,866 posts
Oh, so you're all for a socialized health care system that actually provides everyone with care, not just the poor and elderly?

Good to know, glad we sorted that out.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#192 Mar 09 2012 at 12:46 AM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:


Quote:
You don't think helping people afford lifesaving medications isn't a public good?


You're simplifying (and double negating) the question. I already provided a very clear answer, so why ask the question again?No, I don't. **** the poor.


FTFY
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#193 Mar 11 2012 at 3:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Protip: Universal healthcare is the very definition of an equal benefit.


I don't see how you can't understand that, gbaji. Also, as I've said before, you don't have to pay more than the average person pays for health insurance and everyone gets covered as a result. You aren't losing anything and there are tens of millions of stand to gain.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#194 Mar 11 2012 at 3:22 AM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Protip: Universal healthcare is the very definition of an equal benefit.


I don't see how you can't understand that, gbaji. Also, as I've said before, you don't have to pay more than the average person pays for health insurance and everyone gets covered as a result. You aren't losing anything and there are tens of millions of stand to gain.
BUT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE FORCING HIM TO PAY FOR HEALTHCARE FOR OTHER PEOPLE TOO AND THAT'S WRONG AND AWFUL AND BAD AND OMGWTF HOW CAN YOU NOT GET THAT!?*




*The fact that he already spends that money and that it would likely be cheaper too is irrelevant.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#195 Mar 11 2012 at 3:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Protip: Universal healthcare is the very definition of an equal benefit.


I don't see how you can't understand that, gbaji. Also, as I've said before, you don't have to pay more than the average person pays for health insurance and everyone gets covered as a result. You aren't losing anything and there are tens of millions of stand to gain.
BUT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE FORCING HIM TO PAY FOR HEALTHCARE FOR OTHER PEOPLE TOO AND THAT'S WRONG AND AWFUL AND BAD AND OMGWTF HOW CAN YOU NOT GET THAT!?*




*The fact that he already spends that money and that it would likely be cheaper too is irrelevant.

Apparently, spending less/the same money to help more than one person is bad. It infringes on his liberty!

Even though gbaji insists that he donates money to help poorer people get medical care any way. (He has done in the past, any way). His whole liberty argument is smoke and mirrors so that he can be a good little republican and support everything the party says.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#196 Mar 12 2012 at 3:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Protip: Universal healthcare is the very definition of an equal benefit.


But not equal cost. Also, by the very definition. Why is one thing lauded, while the other ignored?

If two people go into a store to buy the same shirt, but it costs one guy $5 and the other guy $20, wouldn't you say that the store owner was being unfair and treating his customers unequally? Jumping up and down and insisting it was fine because they both got the same result (the same shirt) ignores half of the issue. It's an important half.


Quote:
I don't see how you can't understand that, gbaji.


I do understand it. It's not a lack of understanding on my part that is the issue here. It's a refusal on your part to acknowledge that there are other aspects of the issue itself that is.


Quote:
Also, as I've said before, you don't have to pay more than the average person pays for health insurance and everyone gets covered as a result.


False. Mathematically impossible in fact.


Quote:
You aren't losing anything and there are tens of millions of stand to gain.


False. Of course I'm losing something. I'm losing a **** of a lot. Everything else being equal, if I pay more taxes than someone else for the exact same benefit, then I'm losing out and he's gaining. The only way a case for universal health care being less expensive (or even the same cost) is by playing tricks with averaging across the whole population. Of course the "average" is going to be the same. The question is who's paying more and who's paying less?

The reality is that those who could afford to pay for their own health care absent some sort of socialized system will always pay more under said socialized system. It's a mathematical impossibility for it to work any other way. Either that, or the value for their health care dollars is decreased. Something has to give. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#197 Mar 12 2012 at 4:19 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,866 posts
Quote:

Quote:
Also, as I've said before, you don't have to pay more than the average person pays for health insurance and everyone gets covered as a result.


False. Mathematically impossible in fact.


HA.

Cite please.

Edited, Mar 12th 2012 6:19pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#198 Mar 12 2012 at 4:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:

Quote:
Also, as I've said before, you don't have to pay more than the average person pays for health insurance and everyone gets covered as a result.


False. Mathematically impossible in fact.


HA.

Cite please.


You need a cite for math? Really!?

Read the quote and think about it. If the average price is X, and anyone pays less than the average price (which is an assumption in any sort of universal health care system), then someone... wait for it... must pay more than X. It's axiomatic to the concept of an "average". The only way for no one to pay more than the average is if no one pays less than the average.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#199 Mar 12 2012 at 4:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Please, let's have an argument about what the term 'average person' means.

I'll just be over here in the corner, jerking myself off with a fistful of broken glass.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#200 Mar 12 2012 at 4:50 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,937 posts
It's been my experience that the only people that argue they're anywhere near being average are the people that are clearly below that particular bar.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#201 Mar 12 2012 at 5:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Please, let's have an argument about what the term 'average person' means.


In this context, I'm assuming that even though he said "average person", he meant "average amount paid". Because otherwise his statement is completely meaningless.

Quote:
I'll just be over here in the corner, jerking myself off with a fistful of broken glass.


Or, you could do that!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 54 All times are in CDT
Debalic, Demea, feelz, Jophiel, klausneck, Anonymous Guests (49)