It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Those in Egypt are asking for social justice. Now where have we heard that before? Obama program goi

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkurkNilsen

I do not know of any country that has no government, even a tribe will have some form of government, but that's the closest I can come to an example. Wich leads me to my next point, how is it natural for humans to have no government? Every group of more than two will naturally have a leader, in other words a government. Just look at a family, that's a dictatorship


Let's say you go hunting for yourself and your family, no luck means no food. Your neighbour does the same, great luck means to much food. What is the obvious solution?


First, its misleading to state as a fact that families are dictatorships.
Second, who needs a government in order to to share your hunting bounty?
Answer - No one.

You infer that the logical conclusion is Government is needed because one man had no hunting bounty?



So in short you are just plain wrong
but then again I'm not a cynic and will never be. Being a cynic just means you have lost all hope.


Thats just your opinion, you disagree with his. That does not make him wrong.




posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
SJ: that means that the "deomcratic" majority will exercise their "power" and take from those that have and give to those that dont; ie, 'spread the wealth' around.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


You are forcing one liners here.

Who is the other monster you are refering to?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
I imagine social justice means they want freedom of speech, a lifting of emergency powers. The chance to vote for an elected president. Just a few of the things you obviously take for granted.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
I dunno.....

Anybody remember this?

President Obama Speech to Muslim World in Cairo



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


First: The families are dictatorships was a joke, hence the
behind it.
Second: It was an example to show why it is needed to share your riches to those less fortunate than you.




You infer that the logical conclusion is Government is needed because one man had no hunting bounty?


I infer no such thing, I infer that it is humane to share if you have an abundance of something. I also think that there would be no poor people in the world if everyone did so.
But, I also think that we need leaders, not necessarily the ones we have now.
I can see how people in the US might think they don't want government however, seeing how it is the enemy of the people, and that is wrong. Propably need another form of government then, like the scandinavian model


Last: It is my opinion that he is plain wrong.


edit on 29-1-2011 by SkurkNilsen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
some more dots....

Egypt protests: America's secret backing for rebel leaders behind uprising
The American government secretly backed leading figures behind the Egyptian uprising who have been planning “regime change” for the past three years, The Daily Telegraph has learned.

The American Embassy in Cairo helped a young dissident attend a US-sponsored summit for activists in New York, while working to keep his identity secret from Egyptian state police.

www.telegraph.co.uk... html

On December 23, April 6 activist xxxxxxxxxxxx expressed
satisfaction with his participation in the December 3-5 \"Alliance of
Youth Movements Summit,\" and with his subsequent meetings with USG
officials, on Capitol Hill, and with think tanks. He described how
State Security (SSIS) detained him at the Cairo airport upon his
return and confiscated his notes for his summit presentation calling
for democratic change in Egypt, and his schedule for his Congressional
meetings.
xxxxxxxxxxxx described his Washington appointments as positive, saying
that on the Hill he met with xxxxxxxxxxxx, a variety of House staff
members, including from the offices of xxxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxxxx),
and with two Senate staffers. xxxxxxxxxxxx also noted that he met
with several think tank members. xxxxxxxxxxxx said that xxxxxxxxxxxx's
office invited him to speak at a late January Congressional hearing on
House Resolution 1303 regarding religious and political freedom in
Egypt.
www.telegraph.co.uk...
World cop pulling strings ?

Again?




posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkurkNilsenThe answer to this is quite simple and dates back to when people started living in groups of more than one.
When a society develops it is natural that everyone works together for the common good, part of that is taking care of all individuals in the group.
If you want to, you can go to societies with no government, and there I think YOU will be hard pressed to work for and share everything with the tribe, in case you don't you won't be a part of that group for long.


So basically you made my point – it is not a human right it is a mutually agreed upon arrangement between two (or more people) absent another you would not have the “right” to anything you could not procure all on your own.

A human right would be something you did not need another person for like say freedom of speech, right to seek happiness or to defend yourself.

When the agreement becomes non-mutual it then requires force or coercion (law or otherwise) to be enforced.


Originally posted by SkurkNilsenLet's say you go hunting for yourself and your family, no luck means no food. Your neighbour does the same, great luck means to much food. What is the obvious solution?

Well the obvious solution for me is not to walk up to him and demand my food because it is my right…likely as not absent a form of law this will make you just as dead as your intended meal.

I would offer something in trade for the food which makes it mutual consent; however, if some third party where to walk up to him and take a portion of his food from him by force then hand it to me without his consent the same fight is likely to ensue don’t you think.


Originally posted by SkurkNilsenSo in short you are just plain wrong
but then again I'm not a cynic and will never be. Being a cynic just means you have lost all hope.


No, I am not wrong in an absolute way; I believe that absent a government people have the right to only those things they can do for themselves – those are the only “human rights”. Anything else one has to have something with a perceived equal value to trade for that which they cannot provide for themselves.

No one is entitled to something for nothing (simply by existing) and like with the OP perhaps it is simply a difference in our up-brining. I would say I deserve that rather than the – no you are wrong answer.

In the tribal societies that you referenced those who contribute nothing would likely be shunned, exiled and left to their own devices. Sure to a certain extent people get hurt and can’t hunt would be taken care of for a short time; even the old and slow can pick berries or watch the kids etc. In a tribal society everyone contributes something; in our society we support a whole lot of people who are little more than parasites.

There would be nothing like our welfare systems of today where we string people along for their whole lives as a public burden while they contribute little or nothing in return.


Originally posted by SkurkNilsenHowever this is derailing the thread for the OP, (Sorry).


I think it was sort of on topic as it asks the question what is a human right and where do they come from in reference to social justice that people are screaming for.

The question you didn’t answer in your response – in you answer you basically indicated what I said and that is this “human right” to healthcare does not exist absent a government and therefore cannot be a human right at all.

It has either forced to exist or traded for by mutual consent – I vote for traded for rather than forced but that’s me.

Bottom line is no one has a right to anything they cannot provide absent another – that makes us dependant on one another for sure but unless it is a mutual agreement between two or more people it comes from force or coercion and something that has to be taken from another by force is hardly a "right" unless you ar asserting that we have the right to take things we need from each other by that force- last I heard that was called theft.

We could carry on elsewhere but I doubt we’d come to any agreement so let’s call it a difference in our up-brining - we can agree to disagree.

Sorry OP -
edit on 29/1/2011 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Our society assures an equal oppourtunity.


Not really.

For example, public education is mostly paid for by property taxes. Huge difference between an inner city school and a wealthy suburban school's tax base. Unequal opportunities lead to dramatically disparate outcomes.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 





So basically you made my point – it is not a human right it is a mutually agreed upon arrangement between two (or more people) absent another you would not have the “right” to anything you could not procure all on your own. A human right would be something you did not need another person for like say freedom of speech, right to seek happiness or to defend yourself.


That is food, and it should be a human right even if you do not have anything to barter with, not only on a national scale, but also on a international scale. And when it comes to healthcare and wellfare, how is this supposed to be a mutual agreement between individuals? A mediator/government is needed, and law is needed.

You are saying that people living in poor countries that do not have the ability to produce do not have the same rights as someone living in an rich nation living in abundance.
The right to seek happiness is not there if you do not have the means to eat or drink.

The government of today (at least in some countries) is the natural evolution of tribal societies' leaders.

And I agree that you do not deserve something for nothing, and if you know anything of the social democratic (it's not communism and it's not capitalism, kinda in the middle) model you would know that there are programs to help wellfare clients contribute in the way they are able to. (It beats dealing crack
)

In every society you will find those that will exploit the system, from the wellfare clients to the leaders of ENRON, but that doesn't mean that all those that need help doesn't deserve it.

I am speaking not only from upbringing, but also out of experience. I survived cancer 3 years ago and was previous to that in no financial state to pay for the hospital bill, lucky I didn't have to
If I lived in a country akin to the egotistical utopia you seem to believe in, I would deserve to die, since I couldn't barter my way to chemo.
Instead I got top of the line medical care, not free ofcourse, we the people paid for it together. I have a good job now and do not mind one bit paying my 35% to others in the same or worse situation.

But, I guess you are right, we will propably never agree. Or maybe the day you have to watch a loved one suffer because of a financial situation you can't barter your way out of you will look on it another way, I don't know how many times my wife said she was so happy we lived in Norway at the time I was sick, but it was maaaany.

I guess that is what social justice means, the oportunity to live a healthy life with enough food for not only you and your family, but also the rest of the people in the society you live in.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join