^We got rid of slavery with physical violence once the majority opinion shifted. The north was more populous and had greater access to technology. They used physical violence to enforce their views, just as you wish to do today.

You advocate slavery, human sacrifice, lynching, oppression, tyranny, and physical violence. I'm advocating the fundamental human right to live in freedom. Damn right I'm claiming moral superiority. Human rights haven't changed in the last 100,000 years. Majority opinion has changed in the last decade. Your philosophy invariably ends in dictatorship. Freedom is not easy to obtain nor is it easy to hold on to.

The men who died 300 years ago in an attempt to obtain a freedom yet untasted by mankind would surely die to end the oppression you lay before America's feet today. You should be ashamed of yourself, and the views you espouse.

^jonny

1. You are correct that this is another debate. My only intention was to discuss this in humans as I am talking about economics. Robots might very well be able to interact with human beings--but if they could, I argue, you would have to call them "alive."

2. What is your definition of a "right" ? You are free to define it in any way you want--words are just labels. I made my argument by assuming the meaning of words--all of which I defined. As defined, my argument is irrefutable, and will continue to be so until someone explicitly refutes it. Challenging my definitions of "right" or "morality" is not valid because I explicitly defined each in the proof. You are using your definitions to try to apply to my logic and that is not possible.

3. Forget self-determination, it means the same thing as the right to life. It is not a precondition. Read the proof again--I show explicitly how I arrive from this:
"This right, the freedom to engage in self-sustained, self-generated action, exists only for individuals in a social context--and is what I term "the right to life.""
to this:
"for every individual, "the right to life" specifies the freedom to think and act, to pursue one's own ends through voluntary, uncoerced action."

All I am doing is substituting words which have identical meaning. The first concept is more abstract so I am merely putting it into common language.

Anyone (or thing) can be coerced into all sorts of actions by others in its social group without impairing its ability to sustain its life.
This is false--I just disproved it above. Again you are confusing "convince" with "coerce". Coercion and compulsion cannot be executed without physical force. That is--physical force on you or someone else.

4. You are severely mixed up. Steve is not threatening anyone. If he was, why would he give them any water, why wouldn't he just take the sun hat? He is exercising his right to own property...nobody is entitled to his water if he doesn't want to trade it. These ideas are radical, I understand that. You are twisting up what steve "should do" and what steve "has the right to do". Yes, if steve is a decent human being who doesn't want to see 5 people die in the desert he should share his water. That is another question altogether. Steve has no obligation to share it, if he chooses not to. He violates nobody's rights by going off to himself in a corner, and drinking the whole jug. How could he if he owns the jug of water?

In effect, you are saying that steve has the obligation to sustain everyone else. This is a serious statement and you need to prove it.

Your sense of "what someone should do" is severely clouding your ability to digest this information--and I understand why. This idea seems to flies in the face of probably everything you've ever heard--just as it did me when I first heard it. However, what someone "should do" and what someone has the "right to do" are two independent things. What someone "should do" is defined by culture, what someone "has the right to do" arises from the fact that they are a living being with the right to life--as I demonstrated above.

Societal values are different than moral values. Morality, here, is the binary label on whether you violate another's rights. If you violate another's rights, you are acting immorally. If you do not, you are acting morally. Thus, steve can choose not to share his water, and be acting "morally" (as defined above)--although upon returning will probably be regarded as a pretty wicked individual (by cultural or societal standards). Societal values change in time which is why they should never be used as a moral guide. If we did, we would think slavery was "moral" 300 years ago just because society did not condemn it. It is important to distinguish between the two because both play important roles.

Without the "right to life" society is not possible, all you would have would be a mass of violence and meaningful interaction would be few and far between. Societal values are also important as they help hold a society together. The reason this probably seems foreign as our current philosophy emphasis societal values but says little to nothing of actual human rights. It tries to muddle the two together and that is just false--its what the bible does, its what the bill of rights does, it whats the UN's "human declaration of human rights" does. None of these mention anything about "the right to life" except perhaps in "the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness" but even here it is not emphasized. I have shown above that human beings have certain inalienable rights (right to life, right to property), that humans must adhere to through all time, and in all countries, societies, cultures, and geographical regions.

Does that help any?

Overall, do you think my proof is valid?

My, this really is a rorschach test of a video, isn't it?

>> ^bluecliff:
And what exactly are the so called benefits of capitalism?
Luxury for the top 5% of the population?
A historical HIGH in poverty and starvation, worse than anything seen before. I mean, the crusades, the jihads and all the historical calamities are horse-shit compared to the ugly mess thats going on today.
Capitalism doesn't even allow men to be slaves (which they de facto are) A slave had value in himself, but a worker has none, its only his labor that has value, and this, unlike a slaves, can be bought and then discarded, creating a vicious cycle. A slave WAS property, but a worker is even less - only his disembodied TIME has any worth.
And even in developed countries - what has capitalism provided for the average man?
Clinical depression, loss of meaning, a sedentary lifestyle filled with neurosis, stress and fear.

This seems like an overreaction, especially when suggesting that a return to slavery would somehow be better than our current iteration of nihilistic wage-slavery.

As for the average man in developed countries, capitalism has provided: cellphones, television, cheap computers, the internet, cheap fast food, cheap sweets, and investment banking to let you buy a home or start a business.

>> ^hatsix:
Now, don't get me wrong, I think that there will be a time where Capitalism no longer provides any benefit to society, but IMHO, that's 2-300 years from now. Maybe the world will switch over then, but if we do, it'll be because of all of the advancements that only Capitalism could have provided.

Yes, advancements only capitalism could've provided, like bottled water, service contracts, marketing, cigarettes with extra nicotine, energy monopolies, operating system monopolies, and healthcare and education costs that increase every year.

So, capitalism does good, and bad...at the same time.

My read is that capitalism can do wonderous things, but it can also do hideous self-destructive things. The trick is to try to channel the good, competitive, profit-driven innovation into things that actually do good for the society, while limiting it's ability to be parasitic to the society, selling harmful or worthless products to people who find them attractive for one reason or another (think cigarettes and bottled water).

I think too many people in the U.S. worship capitalism like a religion; they feel it must be adhered to absolutely, or "bad things" will happen. It's like saying selective breeding is obviously ineffective and morally wrong, because Evolution Must Decide which cows reproduce, and which ones do not.

I get that there's a "voting with your dollars" effect in play with capitalism, but consider this: when you buy clothes at Wal-Mart, do you care about the condition of the workers in the factory who made it, or do you just care about that low-low price?

alright, so... one factory employs 5 workers, with 1 capitalist... They add new equipment, two workers now produce the same amount of goods. What he does not mention is that for every 'generation' of equipment, production companies usually have to hire more technical people to maintain the equipment (it doesn't take care of itself). So, while it might fire 3 people, it will hire one maintenance personnel. So, there are two extra bodies in the unemployed pool.

Then the investors come in, build more factories. To make things simple, let's say that one of the new factories is the same size as the existing one, and one is half the size. This means that there are two more capitalists, two more maintenance workers, and three more laborers.

If you're paying attention, you will notice that the competition has created 1 more labor position than was available before the rise in efficiency, two more technical positions, and two more capitalist positions.

Now, I'm not saying that this example is VALID. I'm saying that the example that he used ends up helping society, rather than harming it, as he suggests.

Our brilliant teacher here also forgets that someone out there has to create the new technologies that are used. Advancements in technologies don't appear out of mid-air.

I also like how he mistakes the voice of Corporations for the voice of Capitalism. Capitalism is about more than just corporations, it's about the entire society. It's called vote with your dollars. If you want to see capitalism at work, look towards your nearest union, or search sift for 'carrot mob'.


Now, don't get me wrong, I think that there will be a time where Capitalism no longer provides any benefit to society, but IMHO, that's 2-300 years from now. Maybe the world will switch over then, but if we do, it'll be because of all of the advancements that only Capitalism could have provided.

For those who are fooled by the "scientist used to think the earth was flat"-argument, I kindly refer you to the video I posted on Eratosthenes, who , by employing the SCIENTIFIC method, calculated the earths circumference , 300 years before Christianity was born, and 800 years before that same death cult lead the human race into a 500-year sleep.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Cosmos-Eratosthenes-calculates-Earths-circumference

I think the song was created sometime during the period when Sweden and Norway were part of the union, can't find a closer approximation than 100-300 years ago, taken from sites when googling for the title of the song (Hårgalåten). But the song is definately from the middle parts of modern day Sweden.

Thanks for the reminder, Thylan. I usually take so long to come up with a title, tags and a summary that I sometimes forget to give it a vote after posting it.

greeeaat post!!!!
south london they say "arks" and "libry"

i totally disagree that this is "wrong" or "bad" or "poor" english. The only reason english got the way it did is because it is so "wrong". To stop that development, to freeze time, is actually more wrong.

My girl learnt "BBC English". I taught her south london. Now she can say "Wha' the fak?" with the best of them.

People quickly forget that english is at root a "low" german heavily influenced by french. if the french hadn't invaded and changed the official language to french, the peasants wouldn't have had 300 years to bastardise and simplify english, making it the perfect language to learn as a second language, precisely because it doesn't have all the crazy endings and cases any more (see scottishmartialarts above)

So, in other words, the english this guy is calling "correct" is actually totally mashed up, and he should probably learn german or lithuanian or greek instead, or sanskrit or something.

But, i totally agree with him that there should be such thing as "business english"... but you should not feel ashamed about your heritage if you learn a different dialect in order to get a job.

Wanna see one of these about the contributions of late, from the following countries: Jordan Iraq Syria Lebanon Iran....covering the last ohhhhh, 300 years or so

That doesn't change the fact that your paradigm is incredibly narrow. Look at any country and you can make a long list of atrocities. Notions may be laughable to you but you have no support other then your opinion. I have over 300 years of history to show of all the great things America has done.

Also your take that all these things are the fault of the United States is flawed in that all things involve two or more parties and events that circulate around the world. You want to cast blame on a single entity when your dealing with the entire world? That sir is laughable.

Firstly - the issue of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). This is an appalling crime, and one that is sadly prevelant in some parts of the Islamic world (I have studied FGM under the leading expert on women's rights in Africa - Dr Fareda Banda). However, it is important to be clear about the position of the Shari'ah with regards to FGM - and to do this I am going to have to provide a detailed explanation of some aspects of Islamic law.

Male circumcision is advocated by Islam - as it is by the Jewish faith. There is no dispute about this. However, there is a great deal of dispute about FGM. There is nothing in the Qur'an which advocates FGM. The most important source of Islamic law after the Qur'an is the hadith - sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. The hadith were compiled about 300 years after Muhammad's death. While some are authentic and beyond dispute, others are not and have been held by scholars of Islamic law to be weak. The only possible justification for female circumcision is the following hadith:

"A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina [Madîna]. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to her: 'Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband." (Sunan Abu Dawûd, Book 41, #5251.)

It is important to look at the authenticity and strength of this hadith. The hadith is found in the Sunan of Abu Dawud - an important collection of hadith. However, the compiler himself - Abu Dawud - classified this hadith as "weak". A hadith can be classified as weak for a number of reasons - but normally it is because the chain of transmission (isnad) from the Prophet to the compiler is broken or incomplete. When this happens, it is often suspected that the hadith could be fabricated. Consequently, one cannot derive a legal ruling from a weak hadith. Therefore, the vast majority of experts in Shari'ah law believe that there is no justification for FGM in Islam.

However, FGM still exists in parts of the Islamic world, and the above quoted hadith is sometimes used to justify it. What is important to note is that in those countries where Muslims advocate FGM and justify it by reference to Shari'ah law, Christains also practice FGM and justify it by reference to the bible. In reality, FGM is a practice who's origins lie not in the religious texts of the major world faiths but in the barbaric traditions of traditionally male-dominated societies.

Secondly, I will try and qualify what I think Farhad means when he says that "Sharia is no in no way representative of the religion of Islam." Shari'ah in many of its modern manifestations is not representative of the rich traditions of Islam. Much of the rigidity which people associate with Shari'ah law is a relatively recent phenomenon brought about by a number of factors. For example, there was an inherent flexibility in classical Islamic law. For example, there were five schools of law (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali, Zahiri) who differed in their opinions on certain issues, and this gave Shari'ah an inherent pluralism. Judges could choose between the positions of the various schools, and exercise their own judgment in order to reach fair judgments. However, in the 19th Century there was an enormous amount of pressure put on the Islamic world by the West to reform its legal system - either directly, in the form of colonialism, or indirectly in the form of economic/military pressure - to change its legal system in order to facilitate trade with Europe. The result was that the Ottoman empire, during the Tanzimat reforms, instead of working within the rich Islamic legal tradition, simply got rid of Islamic law in many areas and replaced it with European style legal codes. The Islamic law which was kept was that which would be called in Western legal systems the law of personal status - family law, inheritance. But, what the Ottomans did was codify this law - they codified one of the key Hanafi manuals of Islamic law. A similar codification occured in India under the British resulting in what was referred to as Anglo-Muhammadan law.This codification - which has continued in recent years throughout the Islamic world - has removed the inherent flexibility and pluralism in Islamic legal thinking. It has meant that judges only have one opinion to choose, and it has also meant that many judges have stopped practising ijtihad - deriving the law from its sources. All progressive scholars in the Islamic world agree that the Islamic tradition of ijtihad must be revitalized. Scholars must turn back to the sources - Qur'an and hadith - and derive Islamic law which is appropriate for modern times, and which is flexible.

There are some important examples of ijtihad worth mentioning. In the sub-continent, the prevailing legal tradition is Hanafi. Under Hanafi law, the grounds on which a woman could apply for divorce were limited. However in a landmark case, the judges used ijtihad to ensure that women could divorce much more easliy. What they effectively did was adopt a position from Maliki law and extended it. In Tunisia, women have complete legal equality with men - in marriage, divorce, no polygamy, etc. Morocco has also made important advances similar to those taken by Tunisia. In both cases it is important to note that instead of replacing Islamic law, scholars instead embraced the flexibility and pluralism inherent in the classical Islamic legal tradition. They derived new Islamic law - based on the Qur'an and the hadith - which provided full equality for women.

Its the Hamilton Effect. A related effect was used in Star Trek Insurrection to save that 300 year old MILF.