#individual rights

[americanmarketplace]

CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!!!!

PEOPLE WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY WE ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC !!!!!!!!! DEMOCRATS WANT A DEMOCRACY TO TAKE AWAY YOUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS !!!!!!! DEMOCRACY HAS NO INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS MAJORITY RULES !!!!!! PLEASE STOP THIS DEMOCRACY CRAP ITS A TOTAL LIE < FOR THE LOVE OF GOD START THINKING FOR YOURSELVES DO SOME RESEARCH AND LEARN THE FACTS !!!!!!

[dosesofcommonsense]

[philosophicalconservatism]

"If you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you're not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you're probably doing something wrong."

Antonin Scalia (1936-2016) U.S. Supreme Court justice.

[bostonwalks]

IF YOU BELIEVE IN HUMAN RIGHTS, WOMEN'S RIGHTS, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, DEMOCRACY - SUPPORT ISRAEL.

[uboat53]

Just remember folks, the same Supreme Court that has openly and repeatedly declared that individual rights do not exist if they aren't explicitly spelled out in the Constitution and cannot be implied from the text just declared that the President has the right to be immune from prosecution because they inferred it from the text.

You really can't make this stuff up. The Supreme Court is willing to stretch the bounds of the law and the text of the Constitution as far as possible to protect the powerful, but isn't willing to grant even the slightest bit more than the letter of the law to the average person. That should tell you all you need to know about who they value.

[whats-in-a-sentence]

The forceful American Catholic liberal Father John A. Ryan, among others, warned that once the sacredness of the individual was weakened, all human rights were placed in jeopardy. Compulsory sterilization of the mentally deficient might well lead to compulsory sterilization of the "socially inadequate", then to "the killing of all sorts of incurables".

"In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity" - Daniel J. Kevles

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Objectivism

Objectivism is a philosophy developed by Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand, which emphasizes rational self-interest, individualism, and the pursuit of one's own happiness as the highest moral aim. It advocates for a laissez-faire capitalist society, where individual rights are paramount and the role of government is limited to protecting these rights through law enforcement, military, and the courts.

Here’s a breakdown of the central tenets of Objectivism:

1. Metaphysics: Reality Exists Independently of Perception

Objective Reality: Objectivism holds that there is an objective reality that exists independent of human consciousness or perception. The universe is what it is, and facts are facts, regardless of what anyone thinks or believes.

Rejects Mysticism: Rand rejects any form of mysticism or supernaturalism, asserting that reality is objective and can be understood through reason.

2. Epistemology: Reason as the Only Means of Knowledge

Rationality: Reason, defined as the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses, is seen as the only reliable way to gain knowledge. Objectivism rejects any reliance on faith, emotions, or authority as a means to know reality.

Conceptualization: Human beings form concepts based on sensory input and must use reason to understand the world. Objectivism places a strong emphasis on logic and the scientific method.

3. Ethics: Rational Self-Interest

Moral Egoism: Objectivism promotes the idea of rational self-interest, where individuals should pursue their own happiness as their highest moral purpose. Altruism, or the idea that one should sacrifice for others, is seen as a destructive moral code. Rand argues that self-sacrifice undermines human flourishing.

Virtues of Rationality: Key virtues in Objectivist ethics include rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, and pride. According to Rand, these virtues guide individuals toward a life of purpose, productivity, and personal fulfillment.

Happiness as the Moral Purpose: The ultimate ethical goal in Objectivism is the pursuit of one’s own happiness, which is achieved by living rationally, productively, and in harmony with reality.

4. Politics: Individual Rights and Capitalism

Individual Rights: Rand argues that each person has the right to live for their own sake, without interference from others. The central political principle of Objectivism is that the only moral social system is one in which individuals have the freedom to act according to their own judgment.

Capitalism: Objectivism supports laissez-faire capitalism, viewing it as the only economic system that fully respects individual rights. In a capitalist society, interactions between people are voluntary, and the government’s role is limited to protecting individual rights from force or fraud.

Non-Initiation of Force Principle: One of the fundamental political principles is that no one has the right to initiate force against others. The government’s role is to protect individuals from the initiation of force by others, whether by individuals or groups.

5. Aesthetics: Art as a Celebration of Life

Romantic Realism: In aesthetics, Rand advocates for romantic realism, where art reflects what life can and ought to be. Art, according to Objectivism, should inspire and uplift, depicting the ideal man and the potential for greatness in human beings.

Purpose of Art: Rand sees art as a spiritual need that allows individuals to project their most deeply held values and to contemplate the idealized vision of life. Art is not a tool for conveying societal or political messages, but rather for reflecting the creator’s vision of what is possible and desirable.

Criticism of Objectivism:

Criticism of Ethical Egoism: Critics argue that Rand’s emphasis on self-interest as the highest moral virtue can lead to a lack of empathy and disregard for the well-being of others, which could harm social cooperation and cohesion.

Overemphasis on Capitalism: Rand’s vision of laissez-faire capitalism has been criticized for its perceived neglect of social welfare and collective responsibility. Critics contend that unchecked capitalism can lead to inequality, exploitation, and environmental degradation.

Absolutism in Moral and Political Philosophy: Some philosophers argue that Rand's moral and political theories are too rigid, failing to account for the complexity of moral dilemmas or the importance of social cooperation beyond voluntary exchange.

Objectivism offers a radically individualistic framework, emphasizing personal responsibility, rational thought, and the pursuit of individual happiness within a framework of capitalist ethics and individual rights.

[insanethrottlebikernews]

The Second Amendment Comes Into Play If They Try To Lock Trump Up : Biden Says They Should Lock him Up

By James “Hollywood” Macecari Today Joe Biden said in a event that “Donald Trump Should Be Locked Up!” All the lawfare this man has gone through, just because he wants to return America to it’s former glory is insane. All these damn democrats screaming about he’s a threat to democracy, in reality they’re the people who forced a dude out that got the votes, for a woman who didn’t get a single…

[hezigler]

[libertarian-druid-ny-separatist]

OMG I JUST LEARNED ABOUT THE COOLEST SHIT FROM THIS LINK

It's a Wikipedia article on jury nullification. The practice in which a jury can say "Yeah they broke this law, but it's a dumb law".

Let this get you started on your journey friend. And always remember, just because it's against the law, doesn't mean it's wrong.

You can just say "not guilty" if you don't think their crime should be one.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

75 years after Orwell wrote 1984, does any of this sound familiar?

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites.

The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognise their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. \

One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.” 

“The masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed.”

“So long as they (the Proles) continued to work and breed, their other activities were without importance. Left to themselves, like cattle turned loose upon the plains of Argentina, they had reverted to a style of life that appeared to be natural to them, a sort of ancestral pattern...Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbours, films, football, beer and above all, gambling filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult.”

“It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realise that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.”

[Thanks to Ian Sanders]

[americanmarketplace]

[dosesofcommonsense]

If Trump’s going to end the Oligarch’s democracy and restore the Constitutional Republic that’s by the people and for the scarecrow, then I’m all for it.

[gamer2002]

It's already a failure of society whenever an individual's life or property is facing a direct risk from a wrongdoer.

The society that wishes to restrict the individual's right to manage upon its own failure is malevolent.

[bostonwalks]

A classic ploy: Iran feigns interest in deal as it edges towards nuclear capability https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-816994?utm_source=jpost.app.apple&utm_medium=share

[uboat53]

I had a discussion with a friend of mine in the (US) military recently and it reminded me that most people in the US and, in fact, in the world, are almost entirely unaware that there is a new Cold War taking shape. I think more people should be aware of it, knowledge is power after all, and knowing about something gives you the opportunity to help shape it, particularly if you're a citizen of a country where your voice has an impact in government. I hope this LONG RANT (TM) helps someone better understand.

INTRODUCTION

As I said, there's a new Cold War beginning, and, like the previous Cold War, there's a strong component of ideology to it. Specifically, the world is beginning to fracture between liberal democracy and autocracy.

What makes this conflict particularly complex is that we're at the early stages. When thinking about the Cold War, capitalism vs communism, it wasn't until the 1950s, 1960s, or even the 1970s in some cases that it was really clear which side most consequential nations would end up on. It was pretty obvious that the Soviet Union and the United States would be the major communist and capitalist powers, respectively, but the status of many other nations didn't become clear until long internal political debates and outside interventions had a chance to play out.

So, without further ado, let's get into it.

WHY IS THERE A CONFLICT AT ALL?

This is one of the key questions and, honestly, it all comes down to the interconnectedness of the modern world. You see, modern autocracies that don't rely on the divine right of kings to justify their rule generally justify it by results. In order to make sure the results come out correctly, they control the information available to their people to ensure that their people are told that the autocratic rulers are giving them the best results, whether that's in terms of economics, culture, religion, or whatever else they want to focus on.

As my old boss used to tell me a decade and a half ago, "North Korea can't afford to allow YouTube to get to the average person even if the average person just watches stupid videos because it's going to become really obvious that, yes, this person is an idiot, but that idiot has a fridge, a TV, a car, and has obviously never missed a meal in their life; they can't possibly be poorer than us."

In the olden days that would be fairly easy. Radio signals only travel so far, so as long as you control the TV and radio stations and limit the ability of printed media to spread too widely, you could completely control what information your population receives.

Nowadays, however? Well, that's very different. The internet allows people from all over the world to talk to each other in an instant and it can even go a long way to easing language barriers. The advent of satellite internet means that even efforts to control internet traffic such as the so-called "Great Firewall of China" will be increasingly limited in their effectiveness.

Today, in order for an autocracy to control the information their people receive, they not only have to control the information environment in their own country, they have to control the information available in other countries as well. That's the reason you're seeing things like the Saudi Arabia's murder of dissident Jamal Khashoggi, Russia's poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko and Sergei and Yulia Skripal, a Chinese attempt to kidnap dissidents in the US, India's alleged killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, and it's attempt to kill Gurpatwant Singh Pannun.

All of these were killings or other physical violence that took place in liberal democratic countries (except for Khashoggi who, though American, was lured to the Saudi embassy in Turkey where was killed) where what the individuals were doing was perfectly legal. This is the driver of conflict today, authoritarian nations attempting to maintain their monopoly on the information their citizens receive in a global information environment.

THE EARLY DAYS

We're currently in the early days of this autocracy vs liberal democracy competition and there are numerous nations currently in conflict over which side they're going to be on including, unfortunately, our own. In order to explain that, I need to get a bit technical over the difference between "democracy" and "liberal democracy".

Democracy, basically, can describe any situation where leaders are elected by some kind of popular vote. If you look closely at that for a second, you'll realize that it's such a broad category that even the autocratic Soviet Union technically qualified. Obviously, a category broad enough to include actual autocracies isn't really in opposition to them.

Liberal Democracy, on the other hand, is a Democracy, but with a whole bunch of other things as well. In general, a Liberal Democracy will feature multiple distinct candidates and/or parties in their elections, some sort of separation of powers between branches of government, the rule of law (law that applies equally to all), an open society (one in which individuals make choices rather than being controlled by tribes or other type of collectivism), a market economy with private property, universal suffrage, and the protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms for all people.

(That definition borrowed almost entirely from the Wikipedia article on Liberal Democracy, check it out if you're interested.)

In other words, Liberal Democracy is more than just "do people vote for leaders?", but encompasses just about everything we'd associate with individual rights and liberties and the structure of institutions to ensure them. People in an Illiberal Democracy may technically vote for their leaders but, without all of these other rights and protections, they can hardly be said to have truly chosen them. And, when you define it clearly, you can see that there's a bit of a disagreement about that in American politics right now.

The Republican Party, and particularly its MAGA wing, is increasingly of the mind that not everyone's vote is legitimate and has been putting in place barriers to voting that disproportionately affect disfavored groups. In addition, they're pushing to end much of the separation of powers, putting more unchecked power in the hands of the president at the expense of checks, balances, and sometimes guarantees of individual liberty. Democracy would continue, but Liberal Democracy would end.

To be clear, this isn't just an American problem, but one that is faced by nearly every Liberal Democracy today. As part of autocrat's efforts to control information outside of their own borders, they've been attempting to influence politics within Liberal Democracies and promote internal autocratic movements; usually right-wing nationalists. From the Republican Party's MAGA wing to France's National Front to Germany's Alternativ Fur Deutschland, just about every Liberal Democracy in the world now has a fundamentally autocratic right-wing party that is doing much better than it did just ten or twenty years ago and, if you scratch the surface, you will find support for them, both financial and otherwise, from autocrats around the world.

Of course, it's not just the far-right either, autocrats have been promoting the far-left in Liberal Democratic countries as well. While the far-right has had much more electoral success and is much more politically organized in the west and, thus, has received more attention, we can't ignore the fact that autocracy is largely neutral on the political scale and operates anywhere that conspiratorial thinking can take hold and distract people from the removal of their freedoms or even convince them that those freedoms hold no value in the first place.

WHERE WE GO FROM HERE

Well, that's the trillion dollar question, isn't it?

Conflict will likely continue between autocratic and liberal democratic states, but the complexities are growing. Much like communism vs capitalism, autocracy vs liberal democracy is more of a spectrum than a hard binary and many states are actively sloshing around along that spectrum.

There's also the uncertainty of how different countries react to incidents like the ones we're seeing. Technically, killing a person on the soil of another country is an act of war, but not many people in the modern world are willing to go to war for the killing of one person. Most likely what we'll see is a gradual hardening of blocs as liberal democracies react to provocations by slowly pulling back from cooperation and connection with autocratic nations.

We're also likely to see countries switch sides. Unlike the rapid shift in allegiances that we saw during the Cold War, however, these are likely to be more gradual shifts like what we've seen in Hungary and Turkey where individual rights are stripped away gradually and a governing autocrat is slowly ensconced in power rather than a hard and fast coup. We could, of course, see countries go the other way as well, as in the case of Ukraine which has slowly strengthened individual rights and overthrown its autocrats.

All of this, the solidification of blocs and the shifting of countries within this spectrum, is going to create the opening situations for this particular conflict. Whether it becomes a conflict of more rigidly defined blocs or even sparks proxy wars remains to be seen.

CONCLUSION (TL;DR)

The days of a fairly open world, both in physical travel, the movement of goods, and in communication, is starting to come to an end as that openness begins to threaten the hold of autocrats on power. Those autocrats are attempting to keep both the openness and power by working to control the information available in countries that practice Liberal Democracy and generally guarantee individual liberties.

Over the next several decades, it is likely that we will see increasing separation between a bloc of autocratic nations and a bloc of liberal democracies, much as the Cold War saw separation between pro-capitalist and pro-communist countries. Some of that separation will likely not go smoothly and we will likely see at least some military tension and possibly even armed conflict as leaders react to changes or even try to distract from them with military force.

Just as importantly, we are likely to see tension within countries all over the world as autocratic political parties attempt to take control of liberal democracies and pro-democracy movements attempt to overthrow autocrats.

I'll admit this isn't the most hopeful vision of the future that we'd like to see, but I think it's fairly realistic given the current realities we see. I hope that this gives you some insight into what's going on and allows you to plan accordingly.

As always, let me know if you think I missed something or got something wrong, I'm always up for adjusting my thoughts, and I hope you enjoyed the read.