I wasn’t making any argument to appeal to majority. My point was that there are no such thing as absolute rights in the universe for humanity or any other being. We create them by convention. And so any government’s constitutions have no absolute validity in “nature” for which you were claiming there is by implication. Just because a constitution was created for your country on paper that declares itself eternal doesn’t mean it must. In fact, the same can be argued for a constitution in a Communist country. Imagine this: “Oh, damn, I know our [Communist or X, or Y] system is bad, but the constitution was written long ago and declared itself eternal. Therefore, we must abide it no matter what!” That’s your argument.
The Constitution is not eternal as we can modify it. But natural rights are eternal. The Constitution is written to form a government to protect them.
Are you even being serious? I am certain that you get the argument and are just playing the duck.
I was being serious as I did not understand your point. A spear can be either an offensive or defensive weapon. Same with a shield.
In ‘nature’, I have every right to kill you just for being paranoid that you might harm me by whatever means. In fact, in ‘nature’, I have a right to torture you just because I’m bored and want to practice my hunting skills like a wild cat may to an animal it doesn’t need or intend to eat. Other than human convention, what do you suppose a “right” is?
A right is a pre-existing principle of freedom.
Again, you’re being obscure. I think that in your mind, you seem to think that there is an innate set of entities or absolutes that assure that there are rights and wrongs even without humans being there to use them. I’m guessing that you are a theist considering you seem to think you know the correct versions of rights and wrongs that only entities like gods declare.
Nope, not a theist. The concept of natural rights does not require any god and predates Christianity.
It’s not possible for a government, being a group of people in and of itself, to be overtaken by insurrection without them thinking that you are the ones in the wrong. Thus, to them, regardless or how evil you could choose to declare them, they would see you as the evil ones. It is always the victor that declares the other as tyrannical and evil. If Hitler succeeded and Germany had a society that existed based on his philosophy today, they would interpret their ways as just. Even if such a society frowned upon his genocidal decisions, they would be just as trivialized in the modern context as the average American views the genocide of North American natives and slavery of the Africans.
Just because different sides declare each other evil doesn’t mean that the concepts of good and evil are arbitrary. That communists declared Nazis evil and Nazis declared Communists evil didn’t stop them both from being evil. And the genocide of the North American natives and the slavery of the Africans is not trivialized in modern America, it is something taught to every American in elementary school.
You are incorrect. Nationalized industries is not nationalism as the Germans understood it; Nationalism referred to
National Socialism, German Nationalsozialismus, also called Nazism or Naziism, totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler as head of the Nazi Party in Germany. In its intense nationalism, mass appeal, and dictatorial rule, National Socialism shared many elements with Italian fascism. However, Nazism was far more extreme both in its ideas and in its practice. In almost every respect it was an anti-intellectual and atheoretical movement, emphasizing the will of the charismatic dictator as the sole source of inspiration of a people and a nation, as well as a vision of annihilation of all enemies of the Aryan Volk as the one and only goal of Nazi policy.
Although this source points out its emphasis to the dictator, the people would not have viewed him personally as the essential reason for voting in him (no one anywhere actually reasons, “Let’s follow one person’s arbitrary desires because we like to be submitted to tyranny.”) The people’s [German aboriginal’s that is] admiration for him was that he empowered them by their sense of heritage and superiority, a strong patriotism that united them by embracing their common ancestral “rights”, as they saw it.
The people of Germany did decide to follow Hitler’s desires, as they voted to give him dictatorial powers. And I wasn’t saying that nationalism depends on nationalized industries, those are a facet of socialism.
All our democratic societies today have way more nationalized industries than Hitler ever did. You obviously didn’t watch the documentary that I referenced that showed how the Bush administration indirectly nationalized it’s preferential powers by handing contracts to particular private industries that are the core of the Republican Party’s foundation. By taking the decisions out of the democracy’s capability to oversee, those industries have no accountability to the people of the United States who vote. This is an indirect way of tyranny because only Republican Party supporters actually decide what those businesses do because the supporters and the companies are one and the same. This is even sneakier than what Hitler even proposed because, at least, he was open and honest about who actually had the authority to govern these businesses. Also, if Hitler was overthrown within his own government, the people would still be able at least to retake the reigns over those nationalized corporations. In America and similar Capitalist societies, this isn’t possible any longer. You, as a citizen, are not able to have a say in those companies that are not part of the actual federal government. I urge you to watch the documentary. You asked for that evidence and I gave it to you. It’s now your burden to actually look at it.
Sounds like conspiracy theory to me. Also, what makes you think this documentary is at all truthful? The presidency does not have the power to just hand contracts to particular private industries of its choice. I would be more concerned with the influence of the large public employee unions, which the Democratic party answers to, and which feed off of the taxpayer, which really are a subversion of democracy.
Like the spears and shield example I gave, you are just playing the duck here. [Playing the duck = acting like a decoy duck does to hunting: faking an innocent dummy to coax the prey in to shoot.] Nuclear Arms are to countries as fire arm are to individuals. Your distinction is insincere to reason.
Not meaning to act like any “duck” at all. Nuclear weapons are to countries what firearms are to individuals, but you were asking does an individual have the right to possess a nuclear weapon.
I already argued the relativity of what one group of people consider evil or violent to another. You’d have to provide evidence that demonstrates that the other sides sincerely believe that they are inherently evil—that they believe that they are ‘wrong’. I also clearly pointed out that villains do not attempt to appear like comic villains because they don’t see themselves as such, contrary to what you want to think. For example, Hitler’s mustache that was uniquely definitive of him and scares people today was inspired by Charlie Chaplin (He didn’t know he was Jewish.) He wanted to look admirable as his hero. Another example: the Hitler salute was inspired by America’s Pledge of Allegiance salute. Only after WWII did the American’s decide to change the salute to placing one’s hand to their chest over their heart’s instead. Even another example: the Swastika that is a symbol of fear to most people today was actually a cool looking symbol, unique, and quite an attractive piece of art. It wasn’t designed as an evil insignia. In contrast, most countries do not think of their flags as magical insignias of essential pride to entrench an absurd law to make it illegal to burn like the American’s do. To them, it’s freedom of speech. Only American flags get burned elsewhere because it represents such an insignia to them as the Swastika did to Germany then.
Yes, the Finnish army I believe had swastikas on their military vehicles. Some people mistakenly see those and think they are German military vehicles from WWII, but the German vehicles had a cross symbol. That said though, I disagree that it is relativist to determine what is an evil regime or not. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out whether it is safer to visit France or Iran, Germany or North Korea.
Watch the damn documentary I presented for such example’s of abuses. Homeland Security is the same as Hitler’s policing organizations (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicherheitspolizei). The term, “Homeland Security” is friendly sounding term. But it’s superfluous in meaning considering American’s already have the FBI for internal security policing, the CIA for external security policing, a Secret Service for top secret Government protections, regular police forces for State and City governments, police for special cases like Highway Patrols, Sheriffs (originally, land right protection police [other country’s sheriffs usually only serve as rentalsmen or real estate right protectors.]
The terms governments that conservatives create are always rhetorically created for emotional affect. For example, the Estate Tax, a tax for real estate inheritance was renamed, the Inheritance Tax by the Bush administration to garner fear that people are losing something by inheriting anything.
Both sides pull that stunt of naming things in completely rhetorical ways. And the Estate Tax (or Inheritance Tax, whatever they want to call it) is a wealth (i.e. property) tax and as such should be done away with IMO. I agree that Homeland Security is probably a useless organization, but that doesn’t mean that its creation implied a tyranny or anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13233 This is another example of how your Republican government likes to name things. In this case, they wanted to hide the relevance of this act by labeling it with as much an innocuous description as possible. Executive Order means that it was a law commanded and enacted by the President alone! That is, an exemption to skip your elected Representative.
Executive Orders are not laws commanded and enacted by the President alone, they are ways of enforcing existing law on the books. Again, the president cannot create laws. Only Congress can do that. That said, that appears to have been a stupid executive order.
The Iraq war was a scandal, as the rest of the world and half of your own population clearly sees it.
It wasn’t a scandal, and what “the rest of the world” and “half of the population” thinks is irrelevant to what the facts are.