rights seem to be everywhere nowadays.
say hello to someone in the wrong way and you've violated 101 of their human rights.
people imagine they have the right to all sorts of things - food, healthcare, housing, internet ... so many things are labelled basic rights and then you get onto their human rights - a favourite of the do-nothing bodies such as the un to declare.
There has never been a truly Socialist country
Just to note: if you watch that presentation I posted by Joe Salerno, he documents a time in the Soviet Union’s history when they tried pure socialism. It lasted for about two weeks. All calculation broke down and the population was reduced to maurading bands of looters burning whatever they could find for warmth.
To fight against lack of calculation, they would order the Sears catalog...
rights seem to be everywhere nowadays.
say hello to someone in the wrong way and you've violated 101 of their human rights.
people imagine they have the right to all sorts of things - food, healthcare, housing, internet ... so many things are labelled basic rights and then you get onto their human rights - a favourite of the do-nothing bodies such as the un to declare.
I’m just getting caught up on the thread.
There is a general conflation between rights and entitlements. I think another conflation happens here:
From George Carlin: Folks I hate to spoil your fun, but... there's no such thing as rights. They're imaginary. We made 'em up. Like the boogie man. Like Three Little Pigs, Pinocio, Mother Goose, shxt like that. Rights are an idea. They're just imaginary. They're a cute idea. Cute. But that's all. Cute...and fictional. But if you think you do have rights, let me ask you this, "where do they come from?" People say, "They come from God. They're God given rights." Awww fxxx, here we go again...here we go again.
Putting aside this was said for comedy, if you really take this viewpoint seriously, you would be conflating the non-existence of human rights with the ability of a tyrant to take them away.
Ask yourself: Is slavery wrong? If yes, then why? We reject slavery now because it violates property rights. In this case it is the right of ownership of your body. If you think, seriously, that only government could grant that right, then you would have no moral objection to government sanctioned slavery. If the government were to proclaim that you report to the killing fields for termination, for the greater good of course, would you just shrug and say, “Oh well, I don’t really have a right to not have my life forcefully taken away.” ?
Carlin is correct that governments can take away rights. They can kill you, muzzle you, enslave you. But that doesn’t imply the non existence of these rights. Rather, it just implies that you are being ruled by a tyrant.
Finally, many Libertarians are atheists. You don’t need God to argue for human rights.
The government should create an environment where people are free to chose to become doctors, surgeons, farmers and so on with the incentives for some to follow that path but if they decide to dictate that people provide those services then that is denying those people their freedom.
I would like to bolster your point with one thought. The incentive problem is a large issue when it comes to socializing an economy. But the calculation problem is rarely addressed. I have, in the past, posted a link to a presentation on Mises’ calculation problem. I’ll post in again below. It is important because the socialist has to contend with raw calculation - or lack thereof. Even if you assume somehow human nature could be changed and a “new socialist man” created, the economy would soon bump up against raw reality. The economy would not be able to calculate the right allocation of scarce resources. The closer you get to a pure socialist economy, the faster the demise. We saw this with the darling Scandinavian counties. They were highly capitalistic. Built up a lot of capital and then turned to a more socialist “balance”. They’ve had to back away from that in recent years because they were headed for ruin. How do you get a small fortune while being socialist? Answer: start out with a large fortune and squander it.
How did she die and why? Why didn't she have better health insurance? Why wasn't she healthier? Why didn't she have any money to get better health insurance?
Agreed! But to add to this, a question rarely asked ... if ever: Why is it so expensive in the first place? And it’s not “because good quality care is expensive.” The care is getting worse and more expensive each year. I propose we are seeing the socialist results right before our eyes: as more of any industry comes under government control, or heavy regulation, as the price system is undermined, the economy can’t calculate properly. We get cheap prices and good quality in every other industry, but somehow health is excluded from these market forces because.... well.... reasons.
It’s not just confined to health now. Food, education... all inflating and becoming poorer in quality for exactly the same reasons.
rights seem to be everywhere nowadays.
say hello to someone in the wrong way and you've violated 101 of their human rights.
people imagine they have the right to all sorts of things - food, healthcare, housing, internet ... so many things are labelled basic rights and then you get onto their human rights - a favourite of the do-nothing bodies such as the un to declare.
Simon, I would like to formerly request a +1000 like button be added to the site, specifically for your previous post.
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
Morphs Law.
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
I don't want to force people to associate. I want to stop religions who force people not to associate.
What do you mean “forced”? Language matters here. They aren’t forced. They agree with the rules and therefore shun you. Or they could just talk to you anyway. They can do that. There is no gun to their head. But they agreed to the rules of the group, and to a large extent, agree with them still - enough to put them above a relationship with you.
Why stop with Polygamy? Why allow abortion?
What? I think you missed my point. BTW, I am against abortion based on private property rights, and think polygamy is perfectly fine, as long as it’s between consenting adults.
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
If their rules has a serious negative effect outside of their group...
Why stop with shunning? Ask any atheist - religion as a whole has a “serious negative effect” on society. I am troubled that you can’t see the negative side effects, the unintended consequences, your proposals will have to a true free society.
The bottom line is this:
When people are threaten by organized shunning, can we say that they are free? We are supposed to be a free society, however, these abusive religions create a sub-society where these rights are abusively taken away from them. This is where society as a whole is seriously impacted.
Who is “threatening”? Can you define that term and it’s boundaries? Who gets to interpret that? You? Who gets to decide if a religion is “abusive”? You? The members of the religion, whatever it might be, surely disagree.
What “rights” are taken away from the shunned? The right to associate goes both ways, and it seems you wish to force one side to associate at the expense of the other. And you don’t see the long term harm in such a stand? You honestly don’t see how that power, when given to a government that you won’t control forever, can’t be used against you?
I think you are conflating freedom with emotional safety.
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
@vienne: +1000
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
Please explain how preventing the JWs from ENFORCING the shunning practice (that is, excommunicate people who do not practice it) would undermine their freedom of association.
People have the right to form groups, with the rules they see fit. Others can join and agree, or leave. If the group is forced to behave, not in the way the members agree upon, but rather the way YOU think they should behave, and they have no recourse ... because accoring to you they can’t enforce the rules, then there are a myriad of rights being trampled on, one of which is freedom of association. (They can’t kick out people associating with other people they see as “bad”).
Again, I am not saying they are moral for doing this. They could be ass holes. But you can’t legislate away ass holes.
Then compare this to the freedom of association of the people being shunned by their entire social circle all at once.
Yes, the person that left the group has great freedom. He/she left!! Even if they were kicked out, they had the freedom to break the rules and the group exercised its freedom not to associate.
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
People have the right to shun whoever they want.
Progress!
The issue with JWs, is that only a minority would actually put it in practice if it was considered a conscience matter. We all know that “left to the conscience” is synonymous with “Yes! You can do that!” to most JWs.
So? This is irrelevant. The fact is this has been the policy, and still is. And it is no secret. In just about any position a religion takes, we could imagine what it would be like if the religion actually didn’t hold that position. But this has nothing to do with thinking it’s a good idea to force groups to behave the way you think they should behave.
When the WT presents the shunning practice to the courts and tell them that it is a personal religious practice that must be protected, they are lying.
It’s an official rule of the group, and they haven’t been shy spelling that out. When the rubber meets the road, the members have to inforce it. For that to occur, each member has to choose to go along with it. They have the choice to leave too.
People who do not comply with the rule or simply talk against it can be excommunicated and become victims of shunning.
Yes. Those are the rules.
If JWs want to prove that this is indeed what individual JWs want, they will need to make it a conscience matter.
This is illogical. For example, I can assert that most JWs would love to be swingers, and IF ONLY the WT would change their position on this, most would find some other couples to hook up with, and in order to prove otherwise, the WT has no choice but to make it a conscience matter. Nonsense. They don’t have to do anything. The rules were set out before hand. There is no bait and switch here.
Sadly, the only way for this to happen is likely government intervention.
No. They may change their mind in the future. But you should not force it because it sets an incredible legal presedent.
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
@poopie:
The Constitution binds government, not private institutions or individuals - “Congress shall make no law....”
That is, you are allowed to purposefully shut someone out of your life. That might make you a jerk, or it might not (maybe you consider the person a jerk). But in any case, people have that right.
In the end, this boils down to your family. The rules of the group were set out long before they joined. They have the right to speak with you, to invite you over, to eat with you. They just choose not to because they are convinced their religion is right and you are wrong. They chose the religion over family. They are convinced God wants it that way. Don’t take away their agency in this.
Also, we should minimize OUR own agency in this matter. We made our choices. At one point we all got baptized. If you were a minor and made that choice, can you honestly say that you didn’t see and understand what disfellowshipping really was? Can you honestly say you didn’t witness first hand the consequences of leaving?
And more importantly, don’t run to the government, feeling hurt, looking for blood, and advocate for a legal precedent that undermines freedom of association.
