Aventine
- Thread starter 8of5
- Start date
^An understatement, if e'er there was, mate. 
NOW--might as well bring up the bloddy pic again, so new folks don't have to go all the way back:
NOW--might as well bring up the bloddy pic again, so new folks don't have to go all the way back:
Don't you start dragging us back on topic. We're enjoying this! 
It just reminds me of a girl on my course at uni who even though was British she had lived in America most of her life and one morning before a presentation on a documentary made us swear allegiance to the United States of America with the whole putting your hand up and the like.
Now I'm all for discussing the finer points of political systems and I am finding this all rather interesting, it's just, well this is meant to be a discussion on Starfleet's latest and most advanced Starship and not, whether or not it's right or wrong to burn one's nations flag etc.
John Lennon use the Nutopian flag to blow his nose. hehehe
I do agree that it is unwise to make the people transfer their loyalty from what is truly important, the Constitution, to a symbol of the union. I do always stand for the National Anthem at ballgames (and I go to a few dozen a year), and I sing the harmony part. I don't agree about putting God Bless America in there, too. The minority known as atheists in this country is by far the largest minority, and that seems to make it OK to dismiss their (our) patriotism by conflating it with religiosity. It's not OK by me.
I think the concept of rights means (and I'm not arguing pol sci definitions, just saying my feelings) that rights are something that are not subject to a vote. Inalienable means they can't be taken away. But "endowed by their creator" is the premise of the 18th century idealists. Just because that was the paradigm they had in their mind doesn't mean the concept is invalid. They meant that you are born with rights, and they couldn't find a support for the idea other than the old appeal to authority. But I can find support enough in simply wanting the rights. We all want these rights for ourselves, so we extend them to everyone and it covers ourselves. It isn't necessary to say that we have rights because they were imbued within us by a creator. But people who have lived under petty despots for thousands of years have been whipped into a submissive attitude and need to justify their desire to be free, so they have to appeal to authority. Now, years later, we can see that the appeal to authority served its purpose but now we can base it on the desire of all people to be free.
Even Trill captains... and even the unjoined... and especially those who were victims of the cover-up about Dax's insane host, all have rights under the Articles of Federation because they desire to be free. (How's that for a lame attempt to get back on topic?)
I do agree that it is unwise to make the people transfer their loyalty from what is truly important, the Constitution, to a symbol of the union. I do always stand for the National Anthem at ballgames (and I go to a few dozen a year), and I sing the harmony part. I don't agree about putting God Bless America in there, too. The minority known as atheists in this country is by far the largest minority, and that seems to make it OK to dismiss their (our) patriotism by conflating it with religiosity. It's not OK by me.
I think the concept of rights means (and I'm not arguing pol sci definitions, just saying my feelings) that rights are something that are not subject to a vote. Inalienable means they can't be taken away. But "endowed by their creator" is the premise of the 18th century idealists. Just because that was the paradigm they had in their mind doesn't mean the concept is invalid. They meant that you are born with rights, and they couldn't find a support for the idea other than the old appeal to authority. But I can find support enough in simply wanting the rights. We all want these rights for ourselves, so we extend them to everyone and it covers ourselves. It isn't necessary to say that we have rights because they were imbued within us by a creator. But people who have lived under petty despots for thousands of years have been whipped into a submissive attitude and need to justify their desire to be free, so they have to appeal to authority. Now, years later, we can see that the appeal to authority served its purpose but now we can base it on the desire of all people to be free.
Even Trill captains... and even the unjoined... and especially those who were victims of the cover-up about Dax's insane host, all have rights under the Articles of Federation because they desire to be free. (How's that for a lame attempt to get back on topic?)
^Still, that begs the question:
WHAT is it that makes rights inalienable?
WHAT is it that makes rights inalienable?
^ Why are you asking this question?
Because I want to be free, and it can only happen if I let you be free. And because you want to be free and it can only happen if you let me be free.
We are back to what you allow yourself to imagine.
Because I want to be free, and it can only happen if I let you be free. And because you want to be free and it can only happen if you let me be free.
We are back to what you allow yourself to imagine.
Yeah. Our rights are only inherent because we want them to be inherent. Sure. 
Because a logically straightforward question demands a logically straightforward answer. And frankly, "It is, because I want it to be so" hardly strikes me as logical.
Because a logically straightforward question demands a logically straightforward answer. And frankly, "It is, because I want it to be so" hardly strikes me as logical.
Two things. 1.) Wanting to be free is reason enough. 2.) I don't do "logic", I go for "Reason", which is a process of induction and deduction. YMMV
You are, of course, referring to the same Declaration written by a Deist who denied the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth and who believed in a god who did not intervene in human affairs.
In any event, that Declaration is actually not part of U.S. law -- it's a part of colonial law that terminated the existence of the colonies and declared the existence of the states. The United States of America as a polity only came into being with the establishment of the Articles of Confederation -- or the U.S. Constitution, depending on whether you think that the Articles of Confederation established the same United States that the Constitution did, or if you think that the Articles merely established a confederation with the same name that was abolished with the ratification of the Constitution.
To make a comparison to a TV series, the Declaration of Independence is the series finale of TOS, and the Articles of Confederation is the first episode of TNG. One declares the end of one thing, and the other declares the beginning of a new thing.
And if you were to look at the United States Constitution? No mention of God whatsoever.
Nonsense. When I say that the United States is under its people, I am saying that the people of the United States are the ones who are sovereign, just as James Madison argued.
By the actual definition of a nation, the United States is not a nation.
"Melting pot" implies that those different cultures and nationalities cease to exist and instead change into the dominant Anglo-Saxon culture. I don't think that's the case at all -- Native Americans are still Native Americans; Latinos are still Latino; and goodness knows that numerous European ethnic groups have retained their individual cultures here in the U.S. A quick jaunt through Greektown in Chicago will disabuse you of the notion that Americans of European descent necessarily "melt" into Anglo-Saxon copies.
I don't think "one nation" is accurate, but I'm also more inclined to ignore that part because it is common to use the terms "nation," "country," and "state" interchangeably in common American vernacular. I'd argue that "one state, indivisible" would be more accurate than "one nation," but I can't say I'd consider getting it changed to be as important as removing "under God" (since, in my view, forcing children to declare that they and their state are under a religion's god constitutes endorsing a religious belief and therefore violates the First Amendment).
Our decision as a culture to view them as such.
"Rights" obviously no more exist, empirically, than other abstract concepts like "justice" or "love."
We create these things. We imbue our worlds with meaning.
That's the great thing about being human.
Yeah. Our rights are only inherent because we want them to be inherent. Sure.
Because a logically straightforward question demands a logically straightforward answer. And frankly, "It is, because I want it to be so" hardly strikes me as logical.
And saying that rights exist because a wizard did it is any better?
It's perfectly logical to say that we as a culture create our rights (and that thus there is always a conflict between those who regard one set of rights as a natural right and those who think no such thing is a natural right -- e.g., abortion), so long as you don't cling to the illusion that these things have an empirical existence.
"Rights" obviously no more exist, empirically, than other abstract concepts like "justice" or "love."
We create these things. We imbue our worlds with meaning.
That's the great thing about being human.
Props for this! I loved your post. I'm just going to quibble a tiny bit, but mostly I agree.
By qualifying that "empirically", it is true, but there are other ways for things to exist than as sense objects. Once we have created a thing, an idea like justice, freedom, or love, and we keep our attention focused on that idea, it has an effect on our behavior. So that means the idea does exist during that time. I think ideas exist as long as they cause effects, but then they decay and disappear just like material things. Quibbling, I know, but it makes a big difference to include ideas in with material things, especially when writing history and such.
"Rights" obviously no more exist, empirically, than other abstract concepts like "justice" or "love."
We create these things. We imbue our worlds with meaning.
That's the great thing about being human.
Props for this! I loved your post. I'm just going to quibble a tiny bit, but mostly I agree.
By qualifying that "empirically", it is true, but there are other ways for things to exist than as sense objects. Once we have created a thing, an idea like justice, freedom, or love, and we keep our attention focused on that idea, it has an effect on our behavior. So that means the idea does exist during that time. I think ideas exist as long as they cause effects, but then they decay and disappear just like material things. Quibbling, I know, but it makes a big difference to include ideas in with material things, especially when writing history and such.
Well, sure, they exist insofar as they exist in our minds and affect our behavior. The point is that they don't exist empirically, that's all. We create them and use them as the basis for organizing our behavior.
And, I don't know that there's a conflict between this and the idea of natural law, because there are certain rights that I think human beings create so universally -- the right of children to be loved and cared for by their parents; the right of people to live in their communities -- that I think it's fair to call the natural rights, because almost every culture creates them. And certainly I think every culture has the right to define for itself a set of natural rights -- rights it regards as existing just because the individual is human.
Are all the ships in the same line as Aventine named after the hills of Rome? Or are there any others yet? I was daydream during that part...
I don't think it's even that. It's not a formal statute, it's a political tract explaining to the world what America's justifications were for seceding from the British Empire. The actual legal document establishing the United States as an independent country was the Lee Resolution approved on July 2, 1776. The Declaration dated July 4 was the public announcement and explanation of that resolution.
The text of the Lee Resolution reads:
No mention of God.
No, just by one definition of a nation. The concept of a nation refers to a people who share a common identity, and different peoples in different times have defined their nationhood based on a variety of different bases -- sometimes religion, sometimes language, sometimes ethnicity, sometimes ideology, sometimes just a shared community. Basically, it's whatever a populace chooses to define as the basis of its shared identity as distinct from other national groups.
That's true. The "melting pot" ideal is a relic of a time when assimilation and uniformity were seen as a desirable goal. I like to think of America more as a tossed salad.
Another point to make regarding the Declaration:
At the time it was believed that God appointed the King. Since God appointed him, people have to obey him. But if God also gave people inalienable rights, and the King flouts them, then it's OK to secede.
At least, that's the thinking at the time.
Never mind that they each had different definitions of the word God; they each agreed to the wording because the common man would never agree to revolt against God's appointed King without another reason, and that was the idea that this same authority figure also gave us rights.
Anyway, self-evident should mean we don't have to argue it with Tories, then or now.
At the time it was believed that God appointed the King. Since God appointed him, people have to obey him. But if God also gave people inalienable rights, and the King flouts them, then it's OK to secede.
At least, that's the thinking at the time.
Never mind that they each had different definitions of the word God; they each agreed to the wording because the common man would never agree to revolt against God's appointed King without another reason, and that was the idea that this same authority figure also gave us rights.
Anyway, self-evident should mean we don't have to argue it with Tories, then or now.
Yet both are canon.
No one's forcing the kids to do anything. If they don't want to say "under God", they don't have to.
"Rights" obviously no more exist, empirically, than other abstract concepts like "justice" or "love."
We create these things. We imbue our worlds with meaning.
That's the great thing about being human.
...It's perfectly logical to say that we as a culture create our rights (and that thus there is always a conflict between those who regard one set of rights as a natural right and those who think no such thing is a natural right -- e.g., abortion), so long as you don't cling to the illusion that these things have an empirical existence.
But understands the implications of that belief, Sci, Christopher, and snakespere.
If rights are not constant--if they are not inalienable--if the culture, the state, can create rights...you mark my words, that culture, and state, can take those rights away--as, I think, they will, if those rights are deemed inconvenient.
Every assertion that "I Have The Right" could thus be met with, "By what standard?"
So, if the culture somehow decides that some rights are obsolete...are you saying that said culture is thus allowed to take rights away from an individual?
"Rights" obviously no more exist, empirically, than other abstract concepts like "justice" or "love."
We create these things. We imbue our worlds with meaning.
That's the great thing about being human.
...It's perfectly logical to say that we as a culture create our rights (and that thus there is always a conflict between those who regard one set of rights as a natural right and those who think no such thing is a natural right -- e.g., abortion), so long as you don't cling to the illusion that these things have an empirical existence.
But understands the implications of that belief, Sci, Christopher, and snakespere.
If rights are not constant--if they are not inalienable--if the culture, the state, can create rights...you mark my words, that culture, and state, can take those rights away--as, I think, they will, if those rights are deemed inconvenient.
But that's already the case, even if we adopt the "rights come from God" argument. An authority figure is perfectly able to argue that God has taken away someone's rights and that we must obey God by acknowledging his recension of those rights.
Yes, it is an inevitable consequence of the acknowledgment that rights are a cultural construct that the rights that people have will end up being a matter of what the traffic can bear. But that was already the case -- as demonstrated by the very fact that the King of Great Britain, who felt that he had the God-given right to judge that God had rescinded the American colonists' rights, had to be opposed by the use of force to restore the rights that the colonists believed they possessed.
It's already met by that standard. Prime example: LGBT Americans argue that they have the right to marry, and conservative religious Americans can respond by saying, "By what standard? God doesn't grant you the right to get married."
Counter-question: If God somehow decides that some rights are obsolete, are you saying that God is thus allowed to take rights away from an individual?
We take rights away from felons.
I don't believe that rights are a cultural construct. I believe that sapient beings intrinsically have certain fundamental rights, not because of an indulgence from God but because they intrinsically deserve them by virtue of what they are. If a society hasn't yet learned to recognize and acknowledge those rights, it doesn't mean the rights don't exist, just that the society is falsely or ignorantly denying them.
Sure, I could step back and see the merit in the scholarly position that the perception of rights is a cultural construct defined differently by different societies. But that's not what I believe to be ethically true. Rights have to be intrinsic or they aren't really rights at all, just indulgences.
Sure, I could step back and see the merit in the scholarly position that the perception of rights is a cultural construct defined differently by different societies. But that's not what I believe to be ethically true. Rights have to be intrinsic or they aren't really rights at all, just indulgences.
