I’ve never seen a conscious brain and nervous system. And if I ever saw a brain and nervous system, perhaps in a jar or something, I’d be hard-pressed to describe it as conscious.

That’s because consciousness is a property of organisms, which are a great deal more than brains and nervous systems. Sapiens, for example, have digestive, endocrine, skeletal, respiratory and other systems. Each of these are required for human consciousness.

Neuroscience has a great deal to say about consciousness, but it is not the full story.

Rights are a kind of normative principle. We entitle people to act within a sphere of acceptable activity. These entitlements are afforded to others in order to let them know we will not intervene in these activities, and defend them if necessary.

I observe that humans tend to speak. I conclude that it is in their nature to speak, that speaking is required to live. So I confer the right to speak. Since I confer the right I do not intervene when they speak and defend them as they do. No institution required.

—

The quoted statements do not contradict each other because one is concerned with human nature and the other with sub-group characteristics and dynamics. One can observe what is universal about human beings while at the same time remembering what is unique and original about each of them.

—

The biology is universal. From it comes a variety of needs and tendencies. We need to eat, drink, and breathe, for example. We tend to move. We tend to speak. We tend to find shelter. We tend to associate with others. What is wrong with founding a set of principles upon these most basic needs and tendencies?

Viper 2: a vicious or treacherous person.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/viper

Trump has landed in the viper's den, New York, where the two-tiered justice system is at its strongest and most blatant. I hope we get to watch this Potemkin court in all of its glory, but my guess is a media circus will be barred and a gag order thrown upon the accused.

Collectivism of the national sort does compel one to conform, and conformity does work well towards “social cohesion”. Many embrace it as it can give one a sense of belonging in an otherwise alienating world.

But wherever a group is represented in people’s minds through its more salient features, whether it be shared government, religion, race, and so on, those features will invariably be used against that group in a fashion that blinds one to the unique and original characteristics of any individual person.

One need not adopt another collective myth to find affinity with other others, especially one that is exclusive to a vast majority of human beings. Nationalism is often used as an excuse to persecute outsiders, to engage in war, and to increase state prestige and power at the expense of individual human rights, and no amount of social conformity is worth it.

I think that is a good point. What’s missing from both is the morality. It would be nice if we didn’t need both, either state-enforced cooperation or private interest, to tackle social ills such as poverty and redistribution.

All I know is morality cannot be developed through immoral means such as coercion and involuntary association. We’ve tried all that and the results are nothing to be proud of. Freedom has always been the only condition under which any kind of moral fiber can be developed. Unfortunately I fear those conditions will never be realized.

Hah. Thanks.

I can’t blame someone for getting on the tax-payer gravy chain, vying for state contracts, and becoming ultra-wealthy thereby. But it is stolen money. Anyone can do any of the above without stealing someone’s money and without forced cooperation.

Only for you would the use of a first-person plural lead you nowhere.

Oh dear. My rejecting of the “common good” and “we the people” does not prohibit me from using first-person plurals. What an odd little angle you’ve taken.

Calling, chanting, fomenting. The guy must be a sorcerer.

I don’t get it.

Who gets to decide how tax-payer dollars ought to be spent?

They same people who you want to decide how your money is spent get to decide how your money is spent. How is this so difficult?

They receive contracts from governments and private people. The point is, governments do not build roads.

I meant construction companies do not collect taxes.

The stupidest thing anyone has ever believed is that only taxes can pay for roads and infrastructure. Private companies build the vast majority of roads and infrastructure, and they don’t collect taxes.

As you know I’m against taxation. You are for it. I don’t want the state to dictate anything. You do. So what’s the problem with the state doing just what you want it to?

I don’t know the details of the bill but I still don’t think race and gender ideology ought to be taught in public schools. Tax-payer dollars ought not to be spent on such schooling. But if this bill extends to private institutions, businesses, and universities, then that is wrong and I oppose it.

I see nothing wrong with the Parental Rights in Education bill because it restricts the power of the state and expands the power of parents. State employees ought not have the power to instruct children in gender ideology. Those teachers can teach their own kids about sexuality as much as they wish, but they ought not have that same power over other children.

Changing election laws before an election is not suppressing a vote; it’s to ensure voting. All that dark money, those Zuckerbucks, were used to help voters, just like they helped people by suppressing stories that made Trump’s opponents look bad. Not to mention the belligerent groups conspiring to riot should Trump have won. After a full year of violent riots, surely none of those threats led to an alliance of Big Business, Big Tech, and Big Woke to fundamentally alter American elections in the lead up to one of the most important elections ever held, and all behind the backs of voters. It’s no surprise that all of it favored one candidate over the other. Meanwhile a Trump supporter was just convicted of election interference for sharing a meme on Twitter.

The Stalinism was in reference to the politicization of the justice system. Stalin’s chief of his secret police famously said “you show me the man, I’ll show you the crime”. The New York AG campaigned on getting Trump. DA Bragg frequently brought up the numerous times he sued Trump and his family. Trump has been raided while Biden gets away with the same thing for over a decade, and treated with kids gloves. Don Junior and Ivanka are sued into oblivion while Hunter Biden, a corrupt crackhead and philanderer, who left a hand gun in a garbage can next to a school, with photographic evidence of innumerable crimes, is not.

We are human beings.

It’s the nature of state education to have its curriculum determined by the state. If you want to tell kids about sex I would advise doing it at home.

Like I said, word crimes. He spoke and I felt some way, therefor it’s a crime.

His opponents (who are of both parties) fundamentally altered election laws and changed how elections are run. And now they are abusing the justice system in something resembling Stalinism. If Trump did any of that you might have a case, but all you can do is try to make the sound of his voice and words that come out of his mouth into something they are not.

The nature of Trump’s supposed crimes are invariably of the verbal variety. Word crimes. No violence, no criminal intent, just that his mouth made certain sounds at certain times. They don’t like what he says or the way he speaks, this much is obvious, but his voice can bring about the end of Democracy herself. But it is their reactions to his voice that threaten the republic.

By what mechanism do men confer rights? And how do you reconcile this with your earlier statement:

I believe rights are naturally founded, derived from human nature, and not the edicts of those in power.

We use our reason, speech, and bodies to derive, confer, and protect rights, like any right that has ever been uttered.

We observe human nature in order to find what is universal about human beings. For instance, humans need to speak, to communicate, to be creative. So we grant them the freedom to speak, refuse to intervene when they are doing so, and defend that right if necessary.

There are no such rights because you refuse to give them. You will not afford anyone the right to life or the right to own anything. And of course you will not defend them. Only government can do that.

And therefor you wouldn’t confer someone the right to life or to own property, let alone advocate or protect such rights. Is that correct?

Because rights only exist in the context of a wider society and governmental system. You have no power to give that, but people as a collective do.

If the government were to fall tomorrow, would you deny someone the right to life, or steal their property?

I’m sure you’ve helped plenty of children get off the streets. Let me guess: restricting everyone’s rights helps the children—unless it’s Hollywood. They can hire whomever they want.

What will a child do if they are forced to work because the rest of their family is unable to, but they are not allowed to work because some white night fears a Dickensian nightmare? Selling Chiclets to tourists or far worse.

No it wouldn’t.

It’s true. I wasn’t directing it at you.

I do not think so.

You restrict the rights of children to work. What if they want to? Instead they have to sell chiclets on the streets.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

It’s a fallacy for a reason.

Why not?

But you don’t restrict the rights of everyone to be alone with children so as to protect children. Isn’t that so?

Still appealing to the populace. Cringe-worthy.

My only point is that restricting someone’s rights is not the same as protecting children. You’re welcome.

No. In order to protect someone they must first exist outside of the imagination.