Do you have any examples of a state that has came about to protect the rights of its subjects?

Do you have any examples of a state that has came about to protect the rights of its subjects? — NOS4A2

Not subjects. No. Citizens, yes. Read the U.S. Declaration of Independence. No, seriously, go read it. I would post it for you here, but I want you to google it yourself and then read it. It's not very long, really. Then, when you are done, you can read the preamble to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The Declaration of Independence was to announce independence from state rule and to dissolve their political allegiances. Rather, the American state came together under the articles of confederation and the constitution, not because it could better protect human rights, but because it needed a way to acquire money and prepare for war. As soon as confederation began and the state seized power and aggrandized itself, the government became destructive to the ends of the declaration, and the right of the people to abolish it quickly disappeared. Now look at her, the poor bloated thing.

Okay, so you prove you cannot read. You asked if any state had come about to protects rights. I delivered. You then again attack the tool created instead of the people who took it (people who rely upon people like you to disparage the tool instead of them).

As we have repeatedly taught you (and you have repeatedly failed to learn) the state is not and does not claim to be flawless. It's just better than what would be in the absence of it. You have been called upon to prove otherwise and you have failed. Not because you have not tried; but because it cannot be done. It cannot be done because you are wrong. Wrong. Wrong. However, if you want to talk metaphysics, or unicorn Libertarian fantasy land, fine. But even there, you are defeated by fantasy.

Our founding fathers owned slaves. They oppressed Indians. The U.S. is not ideal. But it has ideals. Like your fantasy. And it has done more to achieve it than all the whining in the world.

You didn’t deliver. The United States did not form to protect rights, but to seize power, coordinate war, and to exploit the wealth of the people in order to serve those ends. Every ideal you claim the American state has was violated by the American state. This is because ideals belong to individuals, not states.

And the moment individuals with these ideals wield your tool, they violate those ideals. They utilize organized monopoly and the right to distribute property that is not theirs. The preside over institutions designed to protect their right to do so. They are no longer ideal men, but officials.

You didn’t deliver. The United States did not form to protect rights, — NOS4A2

I did deliver and you can't read worth a shit. Where, in any organic document of the U.S. does it saying anything like "seize power, coordinate war, and to exploit the wealth of the people in order to serve those ends." It doesn't. Does it? No. Learn how to read.

Every ideal you claim the American state has was violated by the American state. — NOS4A2

I don't claim it. It's right there in black and white for anyone who knows how to read. The American state didn't violate shit. It was those human beings who think like you who wielded the tool who violated the tool.

This is because ideals belong to individuals, not states. — NOS4A2

That's a false dichotomy. The ideals belong to both. It's the individuals who fucked it up.

And the moment individuals with these ideals wield your tool, they violate those ideals. — NOS4A2

Bingo! Now you are catching on. They are individuals like you, who blame the tool, and the ideals, instead of the thieves who stole it.

The preside over institutions designed to protect their right to do so. — NOS4A2

No. Those ideals in institutions were not designed to fuck people. That would be people. You are confused. But people want you to be confused. They want the sheep to blame the tool. DOH!

I fear that most are concerned with whom the wealth is given to rather than the fact that it is stolen in the first place. In effect they accept that state institutions are above and beyond common morality. — NOS4A2

And just how high do you think common morality is? Sometimes it can get ugly, you know.

Sorry, but fancy-pants libertarian individualism entrenched in la-la-land utopia doesn't cut it when you belong to a people who are and have been quite a "dispensable", unimportant people. With only few million people in a tough part of the neighborhood you know that others wouldn't care a shit if my country would have been conquered and the people assimilated to another culture. Or if your nation wouldn't have existed at all. Many would actually see it only as logical. History has seen a multitude of larger nations and people simply vanish away.

There are firm reasons for societies to have some collective objectives, that unfortunately have to put the individual second. We can surely argue just what those are, but not if they exist at all. The individual isn't a god-like figure put onto a podium to be worshipped. Just as there are firm reasons for the rights of the individual.

Just upholding one or the other (the individual or the collective) isn't idealistic, it's simply stupid.

Because you're pretending something like that exists when you refuse to accept the fundamental rule governments play in upholding human rights. You cannot have minimal government and human rights protection. That's been proven to be impossible.

NOS has more or less stated that the kinds of human rights governments uphold are violations of the kinds of rights he believes in. He basically wants the freedom, in principle, to do whatever he wants to whoever he wants, kill anyone he wants by whatever means, without fear of the state curtailing that liberty. He wants, in principle, to be able to be a slave owner, attack his own government, exploit the vulnerable. I'm saying "in principle" because he doesn't want to do any of these things, rather he wants the _right_ to do these things.

However, he doesn't want this right for everyone. He has historically taken a dim view of other people's freedoms.

When did I pretend something like that existed? Never once. And I disagree with your assertions.



I love when you start gossiping about me. The “more or less” lies increase in proportion to your sanctimony and race-thinking. An ugly combo.



The problem is once you sacrifice some individuals to “collective objectives” you ruin the collective whole in favor of certain individual members of it. You divided it, fracture it, subordinate some of it. So any talk of “collective objectives” or society over the individual is a ruse designed to disguise that you would submit to discrimination and human rights abuse in order to protect your vision of society. Just come out and say it.

The problem is once you sacrifice some individuals to “collective objectives” you ruin the collective whole in favor of certain individual members of it. — NOS4A2

Back in the old days we used to have a Fourth Estate that would help uncover all that. But people who think like you took their ill-gotten gains, bought the Fourth Estate, and cranked up all of the things you lament. They sacrificed many individuals to their Plutocratic objectives, ruining the collective whole in favor of certain individual members of it. They divided it, fracture it, subordinated most of it. So any talk of “individual objectives” over the collective is a ruse designed to disguise that you would subordinate others to discrimination and human rights abuse in order to protect your vision of a free society. Just come out and say it. You are a tool for those who stole the tool. They did it all with your aid, abetting and comforting.

Is it a common ploy of yours to rehash what I write into language that comforts you? It’s been a few times now that you’ve done it, that I have to stop reading as soon as I notice it. You’re a good writer, James, and you should use your gift, even if it’s in service to state power.

Is it a common ploy of yours to rehash what I write into language that comforts you? — NOS4A2

You mean correct your mistakes? Yeah, I'm good with that.

It’s been a few times now that you’ve done it, that I have to stop reading as soon as I notice it. You’re a good writer, James, and you should use your gift, even if it’s in service to state power. — NOS4A2

You're the good writer. I'm just rehashing your writing to correct mistakes. Maybe I should be an editor? I missed my calling.

The problem is once you sacrifice some individuals to “collective objectives” you ruin the collective whole in favor of certain individual members of it. — NOS4A2

How wrong you have it. If you "sacrifice" someone, you start with yourself.

How wrong you have it. If you "sacrifice" someone, you start with yourself. — ssu

:100: :fire: :up: :death:

It might be best to just let this one go. It seems anything but productive.

When did I pretend something like that existed? Never once. And I disagree with your assertions. — NOS4A2

Oh. I'm sorry. Are the logical consequences of your idiocy too difficult to grasp? Instead of denying it flat out, why don't you paint s picture of how such a society would look like and maybe give a historical example or two? I'll wait.

Wait all you need. None of what I said requires painting pictures of how society would look. My only point to you was that states violate the human rights they purport to protect. You even went out of your way to show that rights are subject to abridgement or suppression by the authority that confers them.

States aren't perfect but they sure as hell protect human rights better than any other situation we have seen. You have no argument because you have no alternative, without an alternative your complaint is the equivalent of the whining of a child who doesn't know how to play with other kids.

The idiocy consists of thinking better government with respect to human rights results from minimal government, which is quite clearly an ahistorical account. Strong governments are the only governments that provide good human right track records because most human rights compete in a non-hierarchical manner with each other and those competing interests need to be arbitrated and structured. Minimal governments and failed states do not have the institutions in place to do this properly and therefore have horrible track records in this area.

Better government is the consequence of how social institutions interact, how its people engage politically, how laws are established, what the voting process is, indeed, how their entire culture is organised. But that is obviously too nuanced for someone who only has an ideological axe to grind. So boring.

My only point to you was that states violate the human rights they purport to protect. — NOS4A2

Individualists bring those violations upon themselves. And they deserve it.

Don't want a violation of human rights? Then don't violate the human rights of others. And support the state when it is trying to protect the victims of individualists who violate other people's human rights.

Otherwise, I will champion the state getting even heavier with it's hand. No one wants to go there. That's the parade of horribles, the slippery slope that is feared. Anyone who thinks the state is oppressive now, by asking people to distance, mask and vax, ain't seen nothing yet. And it will be all their fault. All of it. Don't want to play ball? Stay home. Or just wait till your father gets home.

(More paternalism for you, because I know that appeals to your sense of entitled victimhood)

My alternative to a state that violates the rights it purports to protect is a state that doesn’t violate the rights it purports to protect. When I criticize one behavior it follows that I expect the other. It doesn’t follow that I have no argument because I won’t produce some better or historical political organization.

wow. So incredibly profound. My alternative to a shitty world is one that isn't. Go back to kindergarten you manchild.

Even now you won’t touch the argument, and that you buttress it with petty ridicule makes it all the more cringe-worthy. Is the protection of rights not an alternative behavior to the violation of rights?

My alternative to a state that violates the rights it purports to protect is a state that doesn’t violate the rights it purports to protect. — NOS4A2

And that is the alternate we have. The U.S./Canada, et al, does not violate the rights it purports to protect, so long as the individual who's rights it purports to protect does not violate the rights of others.

I hate caveats, but sometimes feel they are necessary, so here goes: I know I don't represent or speak for the state. And you don't represent or speak for individuals who have had their rights violated. But, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that we do. I will make a deal with you: I won't violate your rights if you and yours don't violate the rights of others. However, you have failed to keep your end of the bargain. Thus, I violate your rights, sometimes prophylactically.

If we are to remove the rhetorical representation, then you, of course, only speak for yourself and don't want your rights violated simply because some other individuals happen to have violated the rights of others. I get that. And it actually sounds somewhat appealing.

But the alternative is no state, with a bunch of individuals running around violating the rights of others, unchecked by a state.

I, on the other hand, side with the state against you. I charge you (a charge that you admittedly do not accept) with controlling your individualist comrades and, if you want the freedom from right violation that you think you are entitled to, then get them to stop violating the rights of others. If you don't control those of your bent, then we will. And it will include you, whether you like it or not. Tough. And it will be righteous and moral and lawful and consistent with individual human rights for us to do so. You (the individualist) may be special. But you aren't that special. We set up a system to protect your individual human rights. But no right is without responsibility, freedom is not free, and you will suffer unless and until human beings individually change; and start, individually, to honor and respect others. So long as there is an aberrant, selfish, inconsiderate, disrespectful, jerk, then we, the state, will violate. Don't want violation? Get your own house in order. And by "your" I mean individualist who think like you. Ooops! Guess what? That is exactly what you did in 1776.

My analogy was clear, manchild.

There is a point of agreement. We agree that coercion and force and rights violations are often required to defend another's rights from those who would violate them. That, to me, is the extent of my own statism and the proper sphere of government. Beyond that it should not go.

But your idea that the state should violate my rights because someone else is violating another's is absolutely absurd and nonsensical.



Your analogy was false.

But your idea that the state should violate my rights because someone else is violating another's is absolutely absurd and nonsensical. — NOS4A2

I assume you know that a privilege to drive can be conditioned on a speed limit, and that such does not constitute a deprivation of basic human rights.

So I'll try to come up with something else, like prophylactic measures designed to stop the spread of disease; specifically lockdowns. I do believe in a basic human right to peacefully assemble, and to travel interstate. However, I don't believe those rights are unconditional. Specifically, when the state is merely limiting a privilege that is commonly used as a convenience in furtherance of exercising those rights, then it is not violating those rights when the privilege is denied to stop the spread of disease. You can still assemble and you can still travel, but you can't use the state's assets and resources to do so, unless you mask, distance and vax. The state can mandate employers to mandate vaccines because employers do not have a basic human right to run a business.

And, since the rights are not unconditional, the state could go further and actually violate those rights if necessary to stop the disease.

Finally, if the ONLY reason the disease continues to spread is because the state must do so to

defend another's rights from those who would violate them — NOS4A2

then it can do so. People don't have a right to infect others. And the burden is not upon the state to prove a particular individual has a disease when individuals claim a basic human right to not be tested. That is not absolutely absurd and nonsensical. Where there is a compelling state interest, and the state utilizes the least intrusive method it can to achieve the objective, then it makes sense and it is lawful and moral to protect it's citizens thus.

But your idea that the state should violate my rights because someone else is violating another's is absolutely absurd and nonsensical. — NOS4A2

The point here is, the state can act preemptively to stop you from killing another. It need not wait for you to kill them to try and stop you from killing them. The state can do this through any number of ways, up to and including the threat of capital punishment. But there are many lesser ways. If someone else is violating another's rights, the state can regulate the conduct used. That is not violating your rights. You have not been imprisoned or punished. Rather, you've been stopped (we hope). If not, the state will raise the ante until you are stopped. One way or the other. That is the state's obligation to others, not to itself.

Meanwhile in Europe, sabre rattling:

Earlier the Ukrainian President was worried about a coup plot, six days ago:

Ukraine’s president has said intelligence services uncovered a plot involving a group of Russians and Ukrainians to overthrow his government next week.

Speaking at an hours-long press conference, Volodymyr Zelenskiy said Ukrainian intelligence had obtained audio recordings of the plotters discussing their plans, which he said involved tying to enlist the support of Ukraine’s richest man, Rinat Akhmetov.

“We have challenges not only from the Russian Federation and possible escalation – we have big internal challenges. I received information that a coup d’etat will take place in our country on December 1-2,” Zelenskiy said.

Belarus teeming up with Russia:

The West realizes that if it sets off a conflict on the Russian border, Minsk won’t stand aside, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said at a Defense Ministry meeting on military security on Monday, according to the BelTA news agency.

"They understand perfectly well that if they once again start a war in Donbass or somewhere else on the border with Russia, Belarus won’t stand aside. And it’s clear whose side Belarus will take. They understand it, which is why they have begun to strengthen their northern border, the Ukrainian-Belarusian border. Although there is no reason to do it at the moment," Lukashenko pointed out. "Nevertheless, they are deploying troops there, making clear statements about it. It’s about approximately 8,000 troops at this stage," he added.

According to Lukashenko, "intense actions are underway around Russia under the assumption that it plans to attack Ukraine. "I don’t have information about Russia’s plans to attack Ukraine, while if such plans existed, the Belarusian military, me included, would have been aware of them," he said.

Biden administration sending a warning:

The Biden administration warned on Wednesday that a Russian invasion of Ukraine would trigger “high impact” U.S. sanctions that would surpass any previously imposed on Moscow.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken, speaking in the Latvian capital of Riga after meeting with his NATO counterparts, said Russia’s large-scale troop buildup on Ukraine’s border and other pressure tactics resembled steps Moscow took before it invaded Ukraine in 2014 and seized the Crimean peninsula.

“Now, we’ve seen this playbook before in 2014, when Russia last invaded Ukraine. Then as now they significantly increased combat forces along the border. Then as now they intensified disinformation to paint Ukraine as the aggressor to justify pre-planned military action,” Blinken said.

But it remained unclear if Russian President Vladimir Putin planned to order an invasion, Blinken told reporters.

Sounds worrying? Well, let's hope that it's just like earlier people being extremely jittery. But of course, the war is still going on in Ukraine.

Would Ukrainians be better off if they ended the war and surrendered to Russia?

It doesn't exist hence you have an idiotic ahistorical view which is purely driven by naive ideology. — Benkei

:clap: