Thread: "Cold" War: Who was the winner?

Originally Posted by JJ

Yeah, sure and the second example is P.R.C. where communism doesn't work too. The GDP is growing there for 8% per year.

PRC's economy has certain capitalistic features, in Russia there was also economical growth during NEP. So PRC isn't a good example whether communism works or not.

Originally Posted by JJ

HR is an ideology and it's a totalitarian

With ideology of human rights being criticized here, I'd like to say some words in its defense.
Let's take any two different persons A and B, HR ideology says that the rights of A are justified as long as they don't contradict to B's rights and vice versa. That is the basics of human rights ideology. All the other possible ideologies can only add the following:
1) Some proof that there are some criteria by which A can be considered more important than B and therefore should have more rights. All these proofs and criteria are subjective.
2) Say that yes, A and B deserve equal rights but those rights should be restricted not only by what was written above but also by something else. But who and why has the right to decide what that "something else" should be? So it's also subjective.
Either way, we only go deeper into subjectivity. So even if the human rights ideology is totalitarian (though personally I don't think so), then any other is also.

Originally Posted by bad manners

I always find it amusing how the "human rights" proponents undermine the very ideology by denying the very basic human right, the right of peoples to shape their state the way they want it.

There's actually no state that is shaped the way it's inhabitants want. The shape of a state depends on a lot of factors and has more to do with the circumstances and the will of certain groups than with people's will. Not to say that the term "the right of peoples" is a rather vague thing, and it's certainly not a basic human right (at least because when one speaks about the right of a person it's clear what is meant but when one speaks about the right of the group of people it requires more assumptions and explanations).

Though I must agree that some who consider themselves the human rights proponents are often overdoing it, which mostly shows in their tendency to overuse banning (like Novodvorskaya wanting communist ideology to be banned, for example).

As for HRW, it watches the human rights not only in the countries with "opposite social system" but in USA and EU as well.

Originally Posted by Friendy

Let's take any two different persons A and B, HR ideology says that the rights of A are justified as long as they don't contradict to B's rights and vice versa. That is the basics of human rights ideology.

... which only works so long as there are exactly A and B and nobody else. As soon as there is C, it becomes tricky. And it becomes a joke when there are 150 millions of those not contradicting one another and 10 thousands who want it the other way around.

Not to say that the term "the right of peoples" is a rather vague thing, and it's certainly not a basic human right (at least because when one speaks about the right of a person it's clear what is meant but when one speaks about the right of the group of people it requires more assumptions and explanations).

Basic or not, it is just more significant than the right of one person. I'm simply stating a fact of life here, not a communists or socialist doctrine. The will of a people (or a group large enough) always has implications far surpassing those of a will of a single person. But the "human rights" doctrine simply denies the entire concept and is unable to deal with the reality of this world in its entirety. It may work in societies which have already reached harmony (such as the EU), but it simply breaks down under more severe conditions.

A group does not have more rights than an individual. There is nothing a group can do that an idividual cannot.

I always find it amusing how the "human rights" proponents undermine the very ideology by denying the very basic human right, the right of peoples to shape their state the way they want it.

People can live anyway they want so long as it does not violate the rights of others. If you and your friends want to start a Communist state, go right ahead. But you cannot force anyone to be part of it.

Tim.

Originally Posted by TronDD

A group does not have more rights than an individual. There is nothing a group can do that an idividual cannot.

I always find it amusing how the "human rights" proponents undermine the very ideology by denying the very basic human right, the right of peoples to shape their state the way they want it.

People can live anyway they want so long as it does not violate the rights of others. If you and your friends want to start a Communist state, go right ahead. But you cannot force anyone to be part of it.

Tim.

Oh, let's do it the other way around. I and my friends stay, and the others go ahead and start an anti-communist state. Somewhere else. They cannot force us to be part of it, correct?

Can you achieve anything with this kind of logic?

Originally Posted by TronDD

A group does not have more rights than an individual. There is nothing a group can do that an idividual cannot.

This is ridiculous. And obviously false.

Originally Posted by bad manners

Originally Posted by TronDD

A group does not have more rights than an individual. There is nothing a group can do that an idividual cannot.

This is ridiculous. And obviously false.

What do you mean "obviously false"? Might does not make right.

In the real world, yes, groups of people will work together to get their way regardless of the rights of other's that they trample on. But they are in the wrong.

Tim.

Originally Posted by TronDD

Originally Posted by bad manners

Originally Posted by TronDD

A group does not have more rights than an individual. There is nothing a group can do that an idividual cannot.

This is ridiculous. And obviously false.

What do you mean "obviously false"? Might does not make right.

A very simple example: an individual cannot breed offspring. A small group can, but it will degenerate in a very short timeframe.

A group and an individual both have exactly the same right to breed. Obviously, only the group (possibly) has the ability, but that doesn't allow them any more rights.

Tim.

Originally Posted by TronDD

A group and an individual both have exactly the same right to breed. Obviously, only the group (possibly) has the ability, but that doesn't allow them any more rights.

I am talking about the ability. You were very explicit about the ability, too: "There is nothing a group can do that an idividual cannot."

Moreover, I find this "right without ability" talk quite pointless. Who needs a right that can never be enforced?

Besides, a group might restrict some rights of an individual. For example, the right to "move freely" (for a criminal).

Originally Posted by bad manners

I am talking about the ability. You were very explicit about the ability, too: "There is nothing a group can do that an idividual cannot."

Moreover, I find this "right without ability" talk quite pointless. Who needs a right that can never be enforced?

Besides, a group might restrict some rights of an individual. For example, the right to "move freely" (for a criminal).

I was refering to rights in my statement you quoted. A group cannot violate anyone else's rights in the same way an individual cannot.

One always has rights. Regardless of whether or not they can, or choose to excercise them.
Groups are not seperate entities from individuals. Groups are made up of individuals and groups exist only because individuals have the right to associate with others.

A criminal is a different situation. When you violate the rights of others (commit a crime) you forfeit some of your rights (freedom, or even your life in the case of capital punishment).

Originally Posted by TronDD

I was refering to rights in my statement you quoted. A group cannot violate anyone else's rights in the same way an individual cannot.

It can and does in every society.

One always has rights. Regardless of whether or not they can, or choose to excercise them.

So long as "one" is alone or the society grants them.

Groups are not seperate entities from individuals. Groups are made up of individuals and groups exist only because individuals have the right to associate with others.

Separate. Groups do consist of individuals, but their existence creates a new many-to-many relationship, which is ignored by the human rights doctrine. I have said that the doctrine works when the many-to-many is uniform and the society is stable, then the weaker one-to-many or even one-to-one relationship is OK.

A criminal is a different situation. When you violate the rights of others (commit a crime) you forfeit some of your rights (freedom, or even your life in the case of capital punishment).

Problem is, you need a society to make sure a criminal shall forfeit his rights. And that creates a right of a society to suspend or revoke a right of an individual.

Originally Posted by bad manners

Originally Posted by TronDD

I was refering to rights in my statement you quoted. A group cannot violate anyone else's rights in the same way an individual cannot.

It can and does in every society.

I am talking about what is correct (right vs. wrong). Yes, bad things can and do happen but that does not make them correct. I think we are arguing about different things.

Originally Posted by bad manners

Originally Posted by TronDD

One always has rights. Regardless of whether or not they can, or choose to excercise them.

So long as "one" is alone or the society grants them.

A correct society grants Man his rights and protects them. They are deemed inalienable.

Originally Posted by bad manners

Originally Posted by TronDD

Groups are not seperate entities from individuals. Groups are made up of individuals and groups exist only because individuals have the right to associate with others.

Separate. Groups do consist of individuals, but their existence creates a new many-to-many relationship, which is ignored by the human rights doctrine. I have said that the doctrine works when the many-to-many is uniform and the society is stable, then the weaker one-to-many or even one-to-one relationship is OK.

What is the "human rights doctrine"? We may be arguing on different pages again. I support and am speaking from the viewpoint of laissez-faire Capitalism which is based around the rights of Man. I don't see how what you are saying about ignoring group relationships is part of that system.

Originally Posted by bad manners

Originally Posted by TronDD

A criminal is a different situation. When you violate the rights of others (commit a crime) you forfeit some of your rights (freedom, or even your life in the case of capital punishment).

Problem is, you need a society to make sure a criminal shall forfeit his rights. And that creates a right of a society to suspend or revoke a right of an individual.

That is the roll of goverment. So, yes, I can see your point that society, the group, has power over the individual in this case. But only government is given that power by the people governed by it, that includes the criminals. If you do not wish to be governed by it, you are free to leave that nation.

Within that society, no group has any more or less rights than any individual or other group.

Tim.

I would like to retract my statement that rights are granted by society.

Rights exist because of Man's interaction with others. No one grants them.

This scenario hopefully demonstrates what I mean:

If you lived on an island alone, rights are a nonissue because there is no interaction with other people. If I showed up on this island and I decide I want you dead, would it be ok to kill you because no one has granted anyone any rights? Since you haven't been granted the right to life, do you let me kill you? I would think you would fight back. That would be you exercising your right to life. No one had to grant it, it just came out in our interection with each other. It would be ok to kill me in self-defense because I did not recognize your right to life. A right no one had to grant to you.

Society is simply interaction between Men. A rational society, will uphold each individual's rights and protect them from others. They use a government for that purpose.

Tim.

This is truly a most charming discussion, but, I'm afraid, not in the slightest related to the subject of this topic or indeed the whole forum.

Originally Posted by TronDD

Originally Posted by bad manners

Originally Posted by TronDD

I was refering to rights in my statement you quoted. A group cannot violate anyone else's rights in the same way an individual cannot.

It can and does in every society.

I am talking about what is correct (right vs. wrong). Yes, bad things can and do happen but that does not make them correct. I think we are arguing about different things.

"Right" and "wrong" are subjective. Use more specific terms please. I, however, did not mean "right" or "wrong". I simply stated that groups did (and do) "violate" rights of an individual according to the laws established within those groups. For example, in most countries in the world it is illegal to have weapons of mass destruction "privately". Gross injustice, if you ask me.

Originally Posted by bad manners

Originally Posted by TronDD

One always has rights. Regardless of whether or not they can, or choose to excercise them.

So long as "one" is alone or the society grants them.

A correct society grants Man his rights and protects them. They are deemed inalienable.

And then the society alienates them whenever it feels like that. That's precisely what I mean. The society has special rights that an individual has not.

What is the "human rights doctrine"? We may be arguing on different pages again. I support and am speaking from the viewpoint of laissez-faire Capitalism which is based around the rights of Man. I don't see how what you are saying about ignoring group relationships is part of that system.

Then I suggest that you familiarize yourself with this doctrine. As for "laissez-faire Capitalism", I do not see how it connects with human rights. This is a term for a special utopist model of economy. Get your terminology right.

Originally Posted by TronDD

That is the roll of goverment. So, yes, I can see your point that society, the group, has power over the individual in this case. But only government is given that power by the people governed by it, that includes the criminals. If you do not wish to be governed by it, you are free to leave that nation.

Role. What you just said will suffice to deem you a die-hard totalitarian. In a liberal and democratic state, government is merely an agent of the people, it is elected by the people, is driven by the people and implements the will of the people. It is the people.

But I agree with this definition of yours, because it actually makes more sense than the democratic nonsense I wrote just above. If a person cannot live in a society, that person should leave the society, and I have said that before.

Within that society, no group has any more or less rights than any individual or other group.

Ever heard about immunity? And how come that when a police officer pulls me over, whatever the reason, I suddenly lose my right to "move freely"?

Originally Posted by TronDD

I would like to retract my statement that rights are granted by society.

Rights exist because of Man's interaction with others. No one grants them.

This scenario hopefully demonstrates what I mean:

If you lived on an island alone, rights are a nonissue because there is no interaction with other people. If I showed up on this island and I decide I want you dead, would it be ok to kill you because no one has granted anyone any rights? Since you haven't been granted the right to life, do you let me kill you? I would think you would fight back. That would be you exercising your right to life. No one had to grant it, it just came out in our interection with each other. It would be ok to kill me in self-defense because I did not recognize your right to life. A right no one had to grant to you.

Society is simply interaction between Men. A rational society, will uphold each individual's rights and protect them from others. They use a government for that purpose.

Tim.

I have already replied to a similar "binary" argument. As soon as there are more Men, its simplicity becomes oversimplification.

Originally Posted by bad manners

It can and does in every society.

Ok agreed, but a just society doesn't allow it. I guess the question is: Can a just society exist?" That's another debate.

Originally Posted by bad manners

"Right" and "wrong" are subjective. Use more specific terms please. I, however, did not mean "right" or "wrong". I simply stated that groups did (and do) "violate" rights of an individual according to the laws established within those groups. For example, in most countries in the world it is illegal to have weapons of mass destruction "privately". Gross injustice, if you ask me.

I don't agree that right and wrong are subjective, but that is also another debate. I agree that groups do violate rights and laws support them. That goes back to the "just society" question.

Originally Posted by bad manners

And then the society alienates them whenever it feels like that. That's precisely what I mean. The society has special rights that an individual has not.

Maybe I just disagree with the term "rights" here. Just because society has the ability to do something an individual cannot, doesn't mean it has a right to. We are going in circles on this one.

Originally Posted by bad manners

Then I suggest that you familiarize yourself with this doctrine. As for "laissez-faire Capitalism", I do not see how it connects with human rights. This is a term for a special utopist model of economy. Get your terminology right.

It is not utopian any more than any other govermental system is considered utopian. It is a specific method of governing, not simply a term. Like democracy, communism, or a dictatorship. I don't think either of up understand eachother's view point on this subject. Kinda kills the debate.

Originally Posted by bad manners

What you just said will suffice to deem you a die-hard totalitarian. In a liberal and democratic state, government is merely an agent of the people, it is elected by the people, is driven by the people and implements the will of the people. It is the people.

That's what I said. However, that goverment is based on human rights. Not majority rule.

Originally Posted by bad manners

Ever heard about immunity? And how come that when a police officer pulls me over, whatever the reason, I suddenly lose my right to "move freely"?

Because the officer has to have just cause to pull you over. They can't just pull you over and detain people willy nilly.

Originally Posted by bad manners

I have already replied to a similar "binary" argument. As soon as there are more Men, its simplicity becomes oversimplification.

I disagree, it'll be exactly the same. The problem, as you are pointing out, is enforcement of "proper interaction".

I guess this debate isn't going to go much further here. I'm satisfied with much of it, anyway. Fell free to post final comments or message me if you want but I guess the aguing is over.

Tim.

Originally Posted by Jasper May

This is truly a most charming discussion, but, I'm afraid, not in the slightest related to the subject of this topic or indeed the whole forum.

Boo. I thought it was going well. Political debates rarely stay civil.

Tim.

Originally Posted by TronDD

It is not utopian any more than any other govermental system is considered utopian. It is a specific method of governing, not simply a term. Like democracy, communism, or a dictatorship. I don't think either of up understand eachother's view point on this subject. Kinda kills the debate.

It is utopian because it is not implemented anywhere in the world. Communism is and was utopian, too.

That's what I said. However, that goverment is based on human rights. Not majority rule.

I do not know any state whose government is "based on human rights". Some governments are "democratically elected", while in fact usually controlled by a group of oligarchs, others are explicitly oligarchies.

Because the officer has to have just cause to pull you over. They can't just pull you over and detain people willy nilly.

Either way he has more rights than I do, and, importantly, the right to suspend some rights of mine.

Originally Posted by Jasper May

This is truly a most charming discussion, but, I'm afraid, not in the slightest related to the subject of this topic or indeed the whole forum.

Oh my dear Jas-Jas, you do sound very moderator-like there, don't you! Our little Jas is becoming a man!

C'mon, Jas, let 'em argue. I don't think they'll listen to you anyway As long as they stay off of me, it's fine with me.