Requiem for the American Dream

[billvon 3,063]

1 minute ago, jakee said:

My final point there would be that if there are inalienable rights in practice - rights that the government cannot legislate away - it is because the government has defined what those are.

 

Ok, but you have both. It's not one system or another, it's a mix of both. And on both sides of the divide there are concepts that I would regard as fundamental to the operation of a free society. Then, you'll notice that while you're characterising both types as rights (which I also would), others are characterising only subtractive rights as rights, and additive rights as privileges. Which leaves them, in my opinion, stuck with the conclusion that something as simple as access to a fair judicial system is a privilege and not a right.

Justice is a right.  Access to a particular justice system is a privilege.

Free speech is a right.  Being given an Internet platform to exercise that right is a privilege.

The right to travel freely is a right.  Getting free public roads is a privilege.

They are different things.

[jakee 1,558]

32 minutes ago, billvon said:

Justice is a right.  Access to a particular justice system is a privilege.

Then what is justice?

 

If the government does not additively give you a justice system, what do you have? Where does your justice exist?

 

(To be clear, do you think it is accurate to say that your specific Miranda rights are not rights, but privileges?)

Edited January 20, 2019 by jakee

[billvon 3,063]

36 minutes ago, jakee said:

Then what is justice?

 

If the government does not additively give you a justice system, what do you have? Where does your justice exist?

 

(To be clear, do you think it is accurate to say that your specific Miranda rights are not rights, but privileges?)

Your justice exists innately.  The concept of "justice" - of fairness and of the right to be free from crime against you - is innate.  How that is implemented in a given society is up to government.  Do they allow vigilante justice?  Sounds like a bad idea most of the time, but maybe.  Do they have a central governmental justice system?  That's another way to do it.  Do they just hire private companies to do it, and can citizens do the same?  That's a third way.  All with pluses and minuses.

Keep in mind that the map is not the territory.  Here in the US, the Justice Department ADMINISTERS justice.  The Justice department is not justice.

As to Miranda rights, people have always had the right to not talk.  That hasn't changed; Miranda just called them out explicitly.  The right to legal representation is a privilege, one administered by the justice system.

[jakee 1,558]

3 minutes ago, billvon said:

Your justice exists innately.  The concept of "justice" - of fairness and of the right to be free from crime against you - is innate. 

But the actuality of it doesn't exist. You can desire fairness, but you can't have it unless the government provides it. You can desire to be free from crime against you but you can't... well, you can't ever be free from crime against you, but you can prosecute crimes against you by people bigger, stronger or richer than you if the government provides a way of doing it. Otherwise you're SOL.

 

To use your style, you can't burp an attorney or fart a courtroom. They don't exist unless they are provided.

 

Quote

Do they allow vigilante justice?  Sounds like a bad idea most of the time, but maybe.  Do they have a central governmental justice system?  That's another way to do it.  Do they just hire private companies to do it, and can citizens do the same?  That's a third way.  All with pluses and minuses.

Yeah, the minus of options 1 and 3 (as you well know) is that they won't provide justice. Seems like a biggy.

 

Quote

The right to legal representation is a privilege, one administered by the justice system.

 

Are privileges as important as rights?

[billvon 3,063]

7 minutes ago, jakee said:

(original post broken out below)

Quote

But the actuality of it doesn't exist. You can desire fairness, but you can't have it unless the government provides it.

 

Puzzled over this.  I have dealt with thousands of people over my life - co-workers, bosses, managees, teammates, competitors, relatives, children, foreigners and military.  In the US, in other countries and in the air and sea between them.  And in the vast majority of cases I get fairness from them and they get fairness from me.  No government involved.  I am pretty sure you experience the same thing.

Quote

You can desire to be free from crime against you but you can't... well, you can't ever be free from crime against you

I desire to be free from crime.  And so far I have been (with the exception of really minor cases, a vendor who didn't ship something.)  One guy tried to mug me in NYC, but I stopped him (almost accidentally, but that's a different story.)  Again, I didn't need the government for that.  If I AM ever the victim of a serious crime then I will be glad we have a justice system, of course.

Quote

To use your style, you can't burp an attorney or fart a courtroom.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Quote

Are privileges as important as rights?

Hmm.  I would say rights are more important, because they encompass all the things you can do.  But privileges are important too, because we often want to do things like use public property (roads) to do what we want,

[jakee 1,558]

17 minutes ago, billvon said:

 

Puzzled over this.  I have dealt with thousands of people over my life - co-workers, bosses, managees, teammates, competitors, relatives, children, foreigners and military.  In the US, in other countries and in the air and sea between them.  And in the vast majority of cases I get fairness from them and they get fairness from me.  No government involved.  I am pretty sure you experience the same thing.

Y'know, when you're so intent on avoiding the point it's kind of a giant flashing neon sign that you know you're on shaky ground with your argument. We're talking about the justice system. When you were experiencing all this fairness from the people in your life, how many of them were you involved in a civil or criminal dispute with?

 

Quote

And so far I have been (with the exception of..

Right, you're not free of crime. That's what I said.

 

Quote

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Burping is something you can simply do, right? That's why you used it as an example, right? When someone does something bad to you, or you're accused of doing something bad to another, how do you simply "do" justice?

 

Quote

I would say rights are more important, because they encompass all the things you can do.  But privileges are important too, because we often want to do things like use public property (roads) to do what we want,

But you've defined a right as literally anything you can do that isn't currently illegal.

 

So... say it's currently legal to smoke in your car with your child inside (Is it? I don't know. Lets say it is). So, that's a right. Is it more important to be allowed to smoke with a child inside your car than be able to have legal representation at a trial?

[billvon 3,063]

7 minutes ago, jakee said:

Y'know, when you're so intent on avoiding the point it's kind of a giant flashing neon sign that you know you're on shaky ground with your argument.

Sounds like we're not communicating well, so I will let this one go.

[jakee 1,558]

3 minutes ago, billvon said:

Sounds like we're not communicating well, so I will let this one go.

I'd prefer it if you gave a genuine answer on the topic we're discussing, but it's your call.

[yoink 321]

I’m actually with Bill on this one. I’m so confused by this conversation that maybe we need to rethink how we present what it s obviously a fairly esoteric argument.

 

Either way we’re miles from the original post.

 

Regardless, I don’t think the American dream is dead. I, an immigrant, have come to America, started a business, am being relatively successful, have found a wife, bought a home and had a baby.

What is that if not the American Dream? 

 

It’s easy to get all pessimistic given the current state of politics but I do think that we’re not far from being fantastic. IMO we’re taking steps away from that at the moment but the momentum America has is enourmous. One presidency isn’t going to annihalate that.

That said, we have started considering options if the trend keeps going in 2020 and 2024. New Zealand is looking good.

[jakee 1,558]

1 hour ago, yoink said:

I’m actually with Bill on this one. I’m so confused by this conversation that maybe we need to rethink how we present what it s obviously a fairly esoteric argument.

That you don't have the right to an attorney? That you don't have the right to a fair trial? That you don't have the right to justice beyond that which you get when you are dealing with simple matters and reasonable people?

 

Why do you think the definition of the word 'rights' is so limited?

 

Why do you think the authors of documents like the US Constitution, or Universal Declaration of Human Rights are using the wrong word?

[SethInMI 174]

all this talk of rights reminds me of (geez can't recall her name. Kristen?)'s sig line from PJ O'Rourke.

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.

I'm not religious, so the rights "we" have and the way we have them are what we decide they should be. God doesn't grant rights, people do. The idea of fundamental rights, or inalienable rights, or just really really important rights, feel to me like matters of degree so that is where the debate here seems to have fallen into mere sematics. 

 

[airdvr 210]

9 hours ago, yoink said:

It’s easy to get all pessimistic given the current state of politics but I do think that we’re not far from being fantastic. IMO we’re taking steps away from that at the moment but the momentum America has is enourmous. One presidency isn’t going to annihalate that.

 

If you watch the entire doc the point being made is how we've sold out the legislative branch to big business.

[Phil1111 1,149]

13 minutes ago, airdvr said:

If you watch the entire doc the point being made is how we've sold out the legislative branch to big business.

Yet for the sole new member of the congress that is not beholden to special interest money.The one who doesn't toe the party lines of the leadership. You had this to say about her:

" I disagree, sort of. She's a lightweight. No degree other that an undergrad from a good school, no real professional chops, just some experience in education and political social justice issues. I do agree that Republicans are going after her because they think she represents all that is wrong with millennials and yes, they're playing up the points you cover.

One could at least expect that someone elected to congress would know the three branches of government. You guys love to point out the stupid Rs...back atcha. "

A lightweight who is on the Financial Services Committee.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could probe banks’ earnings

Ocasio-Cortez: I give 'zero' f---s about pushback from other Democrats

The consistency of policy and political beliefs that you possess is a full match to trump. I'll give you credit for that.

[yoink 321]

9 hours ago, jakee said:

That you don't have the right to an attorney? That you don't have the right to a fair trial? That you don't have the right to justice beyond that which you get when you are dealing with simple matters and reasonable people?

 

Why do you think the definition of the word 'rights' is so limited?

 

Why do you think the authors of documents like the US Constitution, or Universal Declaration of Human Rights are using the wrong word?

I don’t.

I think you’ve been explaining your position poorly and it’s become confusing.

[jakee 1,558]

12 minutes ago, yoink said:

I don’t.

Then you'll have to explain why - because that is absolutely the result of Bill's position. Bill has specifically clarified that he doesn't think access to an attorney or a jury trial is a right, yet the US Constitution and the Declaration of Human Rights both call these government supplied things (among others) rights. They are consistent with my position, not yours.

 

Quote

I think you’ve been explaining your position poorly and it’s become confusing.

I think the confusion comes from Bill explaining his position poorly and (as shown above) you misunderstanding what he's saying.

 

But please, tell me what you think is confusing about my position?

[airdvr 210]

5 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Yet for the sole new member of the congress that is not beholden to special interest money.The one who doesn't toe the party lines of the leadership. You had this to say about her:

" I disagree, sort of. She's a lightweight. No degree other that an undergrad from a good school, no real professional chops, just some experience in education and political social justice issues. I do agree that Republicans are going after her because they think she represents all that is wrong with millennials and yes, they're playing up the points you cover.

One could at least expect that someone elected to congress would know the three branches of government. You guys love to point out the stupid Rs...back atcha. "

A lightweight who is on the Financial Services Committee.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could probe banks’ earnings

Ocasio-Cortez: I give 'zero' f---s about pushback from other Democrats

The consistency of policy and political beliefs that you possess is a full match to trump. I'll give you credit for that.

Look again Phil.  My only comment was about her knowing the three branches of government.  

What I find more interesting is how nervous she makes the Democrats in Congress.  

[Phil1111 1,149]

41 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Look again Phil.  My only comment was about her knowing the three branches of government.  

What I find more interesting is how nervous she makes the Democrats in Congress.  

-Lightweight

-lacks educational qualifications, " No degree other that an undergrad"

-" no real professional chops, "

-All thats wrong with " I do agree that Republicans are going after her because they think she represents all that is wrong with millennials

Yeah, i guess i looked again.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Revenge of the Millennials

The Democrats’ major economic initiatives tend to favor the young at the expense of the old. 

A politician that believes that young working people should have equal rights to representation. ...The same as old rich white men. That and old white men who couldn't be bothered with education but who still feel they deserve $40-60 an hour. As long as they can keep those brown border jumping bastards. That want those same no-longer existent jobs.

I won't compare her to President Regan. But all he had going for him was a BA an a acting gig.

But he had integrity, vision and a ability to motivate.That will trump a degree from Wharton any second of the week.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Phil1111

[billvon 3,063]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

Look again Phil.  My only comment was about her knowing the three branches of government.  

What I find more interesting is how nervous she makes the Democrats in Congress.  

She's definitely making both sides nervous (which is a good thing.)  Per the posts here, she's making the right way more nervous than the left.

[dmcoco84 5]

On 1/20/2019 at 2:52 PM, jakee said:

I'd prefer it if you gave a genuine answer on the topic we're discussing, but it's your call.

I'd prefer it if you continued as well, Bill... quite comical; a red coat trying to understand "rights" from a progressive.

This entire thread, too, is "Fucking Hilarious."

[gowlerk 2,246]

What are rights, where they come from, and what does the word even mean in what context is a never ending debate. It's also one that I have had with Bill in this forum before. We disagreed at least somewhat, but in an amicable way. Given the title of the thread I would assume the context here should be the American legal and societal definition. Even that is not readily agreed to. Some people scoff at Wikipedia, but I find it an excellent source as a beginning point to understanding many issues. For that reason, I would start here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

 

We have a thread going on AOC already. I would say that it seems Phil has mis-attributed airdvr as the source of post actually made by DJL.

Edited January 23, 2019 by gowlerk