Many Liberals Reject the Idea of America

[Chris]

Nothing in science in technically "provable". A hypothesis can withstand an attempt at falsification, but it cannot be proven. Theories and laws are tentative by definition, subject to revision pending future observations. And all proofs, including mathematical ones, begin with axioms, which are statements assumed to be true. So no matter how hard you try, you cannot escape faith.

Science is also incomplete in that if nothing else it cannot study itself, at least not without becoming subjective.

[Chris]

This is your opinion. There's no data to back up natural law nor anything you say, so. . .

Assume there's not and you will run yourself aground logical contradictions, fallacies, and absurdity. See my challenge to Kilgram to condemn captitalism and justify communism (he's a commie) without recourse to natural law and rights. He describes one as promoting inequality and the other equality. But that's description, not justitifcation, iow, condemn inequality and justify equality--again, not reaching out to natural law or rights.

[kilgram]

Assume there's not and you will run yourself aground logical contradictions, fallacies, and absurdity. See my challenge to Kilgram to condemn captitalism and justify communism (he's a commie) without recourse to natural law and rights. He describes one as promoting inequality and the other equality. But that's description, not justitifcation, iow, condemn inequality and justify equality--again, not reaching out to natural law or rights.

That is a reason. If you cannot see that, it is not my problem. You want that I use the arguments that you expect that I will use. Sorry, I don't read your mind, and I don't know what you pretend. I have explained why, Communism is good and capitalism is not. With facts, like inequality, consequences of having a lot of people unable to access to basic resources...

PS: Wrong and right as rights is something based in the moral that any person may have. What is right for me in my perception may be wrong for you, and the opposite.

[Peter1469]

Exactly. From their point of view they were right. They had the right to murder the Jews.

They most certainly did not have that right.

Our morality and values say us that they were wrong, but it is our point of view.

Incorrect. Our position that the NAZIS were violating natural law was spot on.

As for the radical and extremist Muslim they believe that they have the right to kill other people in name of their religion and even force its religion to the rest of human beings.

Rights are completely linked to moral values, and those values change from person, society, period,... So, the rights change in the time.

For example, today is considered that homosexuals have the same right to marry as the heterosexuals and 20 years ago it was not possible, for example.

This is hopelessly muddled.

[Ethereal]

This is your opinion. There's no data to back up natural law nor anything you say, so. . .

You reject basic American values and traditions. Noted.

[Ethereal]

That is a reason. If you cannot see that, it is not my problem. You want that I use the arguments that you expect that I will use. Sorry, I don't read your mind, and I don't know what you pretend. I have explained why, Communism is good and capitalism is not. With facts, like inequality, consequences of having a lot of people unable to access to basic resources...

PS: Wrong and right as rights is something based in the moral that any person may have. What is right for me in my perception may be wrong for you, and the opposite.

Inequality is bad because Kilgram says so.

What a powerful argument...

[Chris]

That is a reason. If you cannot see that, it is not my problem. You want that I use the arguments that you expect that I will use. Sorry, I don't read your mind, and I don't know what you pretend. I have explained why, Communism is good and capitalism is not. With facts, like inequality, consequences of having a lot of people unable to access to basic resources...

PS: Wrong and right as rights is something based in the moral that any person may have. What is right for me in my perception may be wrong for you, and the opposite.

Let's accept equality is good. Why? How justify it to others?

[Refugee]

Can’t understand why people want to be anti-capitalist. Jealousy? Must be what they read in books? Without it you look like Venezuela or Cuba and just by coincidence, I’ve yet to see a mass communist welfare state. Inequalities? Does that mean there are no inequalities under communism?

[kilgram]

You reject basic American values and traditions. Noted.

Is that bad?

[Dr. Who]

And why is "equality" a good thing? Because you say so? Didn't you just tell us that rights don't actually exist? aren't real? So if capitalism produces inequality and denies people things they need to survive, so what? They have no rights, so nothing unjust is being done to them.

Whether the notion of rights derives from some transcendental force or evolves from the contemplation of our species and how we may best co-exist and succeed, realistically, they are only as relevant as society permits. All societies put restrictions on rights, whether they be predicated on obeying societal rules or whether dependent on age and/or competence and/or our ability to see each other as equally human.

Natural law describes negative rights, only requiring others to abstain from interfering with one's actions (subject to one not extracting one's rights at the expense of another). However even these most minimal rights require social recognition.

Locke broadly characterized natural rights as the right to life, liberty and property. His theory mandated that the highest priority be given to individual self-preservation and whatever is necessary to achieve the preservation of the individual. However Locke also believed that each individual is not the property of him or herself, but the property of God. His theories thus comprise duties and liberties, therefore while the right to life is a duty which also extends to the preservation of the lives of others (as they are God's property), the right to property is a liberty i.e. one is not obliged to own property and can voluntarily give up that right either by literally not owning property or by giving up the product of one's labor to an employer in exchange for consideration.

Locke also believed that man, in subjecting himself to civil authority, gives up the power of autonomy, in order to do whatever he sees fit for the preservation of his life, since this power is "to be regulated by the laws made by society". Man, therefore, enters a social contract such that government is empowered to ensure that its citizens' lives, liberty and property are secured. If government breaches that social contract, then man is empowered to remove that government.

At the end of the day, it always comes back to society and what it collectively wants or demands.