For more details essentially everything in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a negative right while the majority of what's in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Right (ICESCR) are positive rights that use government force to redistribute outcomes. The stark difference between the two is telling simply by the fact that they exist separately with China failing to ratify the ICCPR while the USA has failed to ratify the ICESCR (but there's so many other UN docs that this may be largely moot).
Based on that then I would say that human rights are just a concept rather than any kind of natural law and can be arbitrarily granted and taken away by whoever has the gun.
Generally yes. Natural law appeals to some higher entity or concept for its legitimacy. This may be something like God, or moral standards, purpose etc. It exists regardless of our current human condition or experience. It exists even if it is extinguished by whoever has the gun, or protected by whoever has the gun.
Yep. Natural or negative rights are those that can (or simply do) exist universally. Positive rights cannot, by definition, exist universally in all circumstances (hence, I personally refuse to think of them as "rights" rather than as aspirations). For example, everybody in the world can have the natural right to the inalienable ownership of their person but not everybody in the world can have the positive right to adequate medical care, housing, food, education, etc without some large caveats or forced servitude of at least some portion of the population. As I have posted before over the years, this whole thing is the IS/OUGHT/REALITY trichotomy.
And even though Might Makes Reality, it is not a case of Might Makes Right. People like renovator tend to dislike thinking about what Ought to be because of the reality of Might makes the rules, while I tend to like thinking about what Ought to be and how to use Might to make better rules that better reflect what Ought to be. This is not a sledge at reno, just more a statement of our relative socio-political interests.
Youve got it all wrong its not that i dislike thinking ...i think a lot just not about pie in the sky shit like you & shiney. its all good we need dreamers that fight the status quo & try/fight for change i just cbf anymore the only things i feel like fighting for cant /wont be changed while we are a nation of sheeple....nothing i can do while the plebs wont do anything else but whinge & whine or just accept it . I started on a crusade of anti establishment /rights/fairness early in my life & wasted too many hours banging on about most the stuff you & shiney go on about & realised it was futile. Until we get a senate half full politicians with a brain & all on the same page [which btw i dont think will happen in my lifetime]there is very little anyone can do unfortunately
Okay I'll tweak my generalisation to be that you dislike thinking about fighting for what could (ought) be in the face of today's reality. Although I am still not disillusioned (yet) my approach and tolerance have changed after the many conversations on here with people like yourself. As I said, the generalisation was not intended as a sledge, just a difference.
dont get me started il never stop. Theres so much to whinge about . it wont change anything & theres nothing proactive i can do unless i become a politician & that isnt going to happen & even if i did i would be outnumbered by the majority. So you & bordy can carry the torch ...have fun let me know when you have made a difference
Making a difference every day of my life. I've been raising awareness and implementing my beliefs in my daily life. Unlikely to change the world overnight, but every little bit helps. You see, libertarians are optimists.
The problem here in the US when the issue of income inequality and such comes up, is that those on the left think everyone should have equality in every way: income, lifestyle, home, school, etc. That is not what the US is about. It is about equal opportunities and rights - not equal results. The way the physical world was created (by whomever) there can never be no poor, no sick, no bad, etc. The world is binary and you can't have good without bad and bad without good. Think the yin yang theory/symbol. Good and bad may be subjective but I am talking opposites such has having money and being poor, being healthy and being sick, etc. That doesn't mean as societies we shouldn't strive to help the unfortunate. The problem is, those pushing agendas want to get the haves to believe they are evil and the have nots are automatically good and benevolent, and the haves are thus evil if they don't give their shit away to those who don't try and are lazy in many cases. The laws on the books in the US can't get any more fair for minorities and other such groups. Some groups in past years have gotten stuff for being a minority, which is obviously racist and wrong because it does exactly what they say they are trying to prevent. Some "groups" will probably always be unsuccessful and nothing will change that. That may violate the "logic" that some like to follow but all you have to do is look around the world and observe. If you observe the current US trend, they are constantly criticizing white people to I suppose try and raise up others. Instead they should help the less successful resolve their long term negative issues, instead of ignoring them and blaming others for them. PS The leftist anti white stuff all magically appeared after Trump won. Anyone notice that? I guess when Obummer was in office all the evil white people didn't exist (they actually voted in Obummer in reality).
The political left politicians despise the poor, despise immigrants. Whether it’s the Democrats in America along with their pet media outlets like CNN or the Australian Greens and their pet ABC they are all wealthy inner city sleaze bag Post Modernists who live as far away from the poor suburbs as possible. They are the worst kind of politician imaginable - They want as many people as possible living in an innesacapable welfare underclass to provide them with a permanent voting base. They want as many “refugees” as possible to move in on welfare for the same reason. The urban latte set that run the Greens and the ABC would never be seen dead in a poor suburb for any other reason than a media opportunity and they would not tolerate any poor refugee living anywhere near them. They are even worse that Trump or Abbott who are at least honest about their goals and motivations. The democrats, Greens, Labour and the other far left Marxist parties are as power hungry as any other degenerate politicians but they are doubly bad because they actually want to create the largest permanently poor underclass they possibly can for them to feed from and rule over forever. They know that once someone is trapped in poverty they will almost never get out and that suits the Socialists just fine.
@reno, you've got your cane toads, I've got my folk economists: https://www.silverstackers.com/foru...coiners-are-so-mean.87611/page-3#post-1046059
its one thing to be optimistic another to be dilusional & thinking you can change things that will not be changed . The indoctrination & brainwashing of the majority is a sad thing. Whatever happened to the free thinkers ? this site is a prime example you & bordy are the only vocal ones theres many here but they say very little like myself .Its definitely not apathy its more reality imo . sometimes i miss auspm.....sometimes lol
if only i could skewer politicians & throw them over the neighbours fence oz would be a better place. i guess they had a feral pest cleanout a while ago with the citizenship debarcle.
There's quite a few free thinkers, but most of them probably say "I'll just let shiney! post. He can't seem to shut up anyway." Yep, auspm's views are sorely missed. Sometimes. Not saying you've got fears, just that cynicism is often a barrier erected to protect us. Don't know if you're on FB at all, we are through our business, but the number of middle-aged and older men posting about their disaffection with politics is astounding. It's a worry actually. Disaffected and cynical. Most of the women seem to whinge about customer service or making comments about how beautiful their friendsfamily looks - its' as if they're incapable of making any other comment.
Back OT, we need to make a distinction between "nominal" wages and "real" wages. Nominal income is the amount we are paid, real income is the value in purchasing power of our income. A universal income would raise an individual's nominal income but it would have no effect on their real income. Raising the nominal income of members of society does little to enhance wealth as it is our real incomes that determine our capacity to enhance our wealth. In fact, we can even experience declines in our nominal wages and still enhance our wealth as long as our productivity is growing. This is because productivity increases drive the cost of goods lower as cost savings are passed on to consumers by manufacturers in order to have a competitive advantage over others.
1.yep fair observation . Go hard you old cnut 2. Obviously have taken the time to watch question time in parliament or watched the smokescreen on the MSM.the country is falling to pieces but make gay marriage the headline story or like today barnaby joice has a new missus thats pregnant . well fk me he is not gay & has a new squeeze but its headlines what a joke 3.no comment
