Conversation
Notices
-
@kaia @Ninji The "known to the State of California to cause cancer" is such a passive-aggressive tone, and they have put these signs everywhere. Parking garages have them posted at the entrances and elevators and on support columns because car exhaust is "known to the State of California to cause cancer". You may think car exhaust is healthy, but it's known to the State of California to cause cancer, the same way pi is known to the State of Indiana to be 3.
-
@p @kaia @Ninji "playground sand" causes cancer (in California)
-
@thatguyoverthere @Ninji @kaia It's known to the State of California.
-
@p @kaia @Ninji thankfully we all get Californian wisdoms printed on all packaging
-
@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.)
-
@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.
-
@p @thatguyoverthere @Ninji @kaia
End public schooling, problem solved!
-
@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
-
@11112011 @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere They're shutting those down, but I bet they have to put those signs all over the place.
-
@p @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere
Screenshot 2024-01-18 at 15-10-26 PiQ (@PiQSuite).png
-
@p @thatguyoverthere @Ninji @kaia like credits for diablo canyon nuclear?
-
@p @kaia @11112011 @Ninji we sold all of our really good uranium to Russia
-
@thatguyoverthere @p @Ninji @kaia theres nukes everywhere do not worry
Screenshot 2024-01-18 at 15-20-43 Microsoft Word - Portugal.docx - Portugal.pdf.png
-
@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
-
@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.)
-
@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.
-
@p @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere
Natural rights > human/civil rights.
There's no way getting around that one, I'm afraid.
-
@JohnGritt @kaia @amerika @thatguyoverthere @Ninji Apparently no one appreciated the irony that the UN has declared that you have a right to be compelled.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@amerika @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere Yes; the government doesn't know any of us.
parasite.jpg
-
@p @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere
neech.jpg
-
@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.
-
@amerika @Ninji @kaia @thatguyoverthere Seconded.
pistolero :thispersondoesnotexist:
Disinformation Purveyor :verified_think:
≠ Brett Stevens ≠
DJ Solomon
JohnGritt
All ０７６萌ＳＮＳ content and data are available under the 
