An interesting question was raised in another thread by Scary Capitalist.
He wrote...

"Nobody answers in the affirmative the question:
Do men have a right to exist for their own sake and their own happiness and purpose?"

It is interesting to note that he claims nobody says yes to this question.
It means that people realize that such an obviously simple question has far reaching implications.

No restrictions were placed on this "right" in the asking of the question.

With this lack of restriction in place, the issue is left wide open to abuses ranging from world wars, genocide, serial killing, mass murder, rape, arson and the host of other deviant behaviours humans are capable of.

My answer "NO" was based on the actions of Hitler and Caligula.
I could have added many others to the list, such as Jeffrey Dalmer, Ted Bundy and Clifford Olsen just to name a few.

Every one of these men would probably have answered yes to the question as posed.

What passes for happiness and purpose in one individual is seen as criminally evil and even insanity by others.

I suppose the key part of the question rests in the two words "their own". By using these words, the well being of others is excluded.
No one else is considered in the equation when it relies on "their own" as it's basis.

Strangely enough, after my answer of "NO" was given based on the original question and the context with which it was asked, the arguments coming back had restrictions placed on behaviours.

I am forced to conclude that even those defending the question as asked, do not believe it themselves.

As I said:

Message 817864 - Posted 13 Oct 2008 1:37:18 UTC - in response to Message 817644.

Nobody answers in the affirmative the question:

"Do men have a right to exist for their own sake and their own happiness and purpose"

What happened to you to cause you to believe that the term ``public good`` has taken on the connotation of something bad.

People like you took gov't force and directed it us to make us do things we otherwise would not do, funding their silly programs. Like fund wars and weapons. Like give corporations welfare and bailouts. Like affecting those that can afford it the least, the most.

The answer to your deep philosophical question is NO.

The question comes across as harmless at first glance, and in most cases, a single person`s purpose does no harm to the rest of humanity.

This is telling. Readers, pay attention to this stuff, because it's why Bob and Thorin and the rest of them need to build a wall--and point the machine gun nests inward.

In the case of Hitler`s right to exist for his own happiness and purpose, the outcome was tens of millions of deaths.

Would you even consider that a valid question if you lived under the heel of Hitler or Caligula

I think not.

As usual, you seem incapable of looking at the larger context. The question was "Do men have a right to exist for their own sake and their own happiness and purpose?" If men have that right, all men have that right, and having that right does not mean that it is OK to harm others. What Hitler did was VIOLATE the rights of others. He did not have the right to take from them their right to exist for their own sake, happiness, or purpose.

Neither do you. But that is the direct consequence of the ideology you promote. You think it's OK to use gov't force to make other people provide your health care for you. But that's OK, because they're going to use gov't force to make you pay for weapons delivery systems, wars, and corporate welfare.

If it's OK for you to do it, it's OK for them to do it. And they do. And plenty of them are a LOT better at forcing your precious workers to pony up for "the corporatists," than you are.

Smart plan.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Some further comments:

It is interesting to note that he claims nobody says yes to this question.
It means that people realize that such an obviously simple question has far reaching implications.

No restrictions were placed on this "right" in the asking of the question.

With this lack of restriction in place, the issue is left wide open to abuses ranging from world wars, genocide, serial killing, mass murder, rape, arson and the host of other deviant behaviours humans are capable of.

As I said, you seem incapable of seeing the wider context. If men have this right, to live for themselves, that by it's very nature means that they do NOT have the right to take it away from others.

The "restriction" in inherent in the very question. It's not a right if one is allowed to take it from others using force, fraud, or whim.

My answer "NO" was based on the actions of Hitler and Caligula.
I could have added many others to the list, such as Jeffrey Dalmer, Ted Bundy and Clifford Olsen just to name a few.

Every one of these men would probably have answered yes to the question as posed.

What passes for happiness and purpose in one individual is seen as criminally evil and even insanity by others.

This just further illustrates your misunderstanding and is addressed previously.

I suppose the key part of the question rests in the two words "their own". By using these words, the well being of others is excluded.
No one else is considered in the equation when it relies on "their own" as it's basis.

Wrong again. The key part of the question is the term "right," being applied to all men. The well-being of others is contained in that term "right," meaning they have a right to themselves and their own well being without being molested by others. EVERYONE is considered in the equation, as the right applies to everyone.

Strangely enough, after my answer of "NO" was given based on the original question and the context with which it was asked, the arguments coming back had restrictions placed on behaviours.

I am forced to conclude that even those defending the question as asked, do not believe it themselves.

You erroneous conclusion is wrong. Of course there are restrictions on behaviors. This reminds me of a previous discussion, concerning the tenets of socialism. Do you even know what the term "rights" means?

Your previous comments suggest that you do not.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

(let me first say that I am guilty of this as well) I just wish we did not have to be so back on forth all the time. It was a philisophical question and he answered it the way he felt. If you wanted to answer it the way you felt please do, but without putting others down or pointing out problems with the way they think. I have read both posts to this question and to be honest I am still on the fence. First I was thinking Yes they do have that right, but now I have moved a bit away from that. But still don't have a solid answer without thinking more about it.

Thanks,
Chris.

---

As I said:

Message 817864 - Posted 13 Oct 2008 1:37:18 UTC - in response to Message 817644.

Nobody answers in the affirmative the question:

"Do men have a right to exist for their own sake and their own happiness and purpose"

What happened to you to cause you to believe that the term ``public good`` has taken on the connotation of something bad.

People like you took gov't force and directed it us to make us do things we otherwise would not do, funding their silly programs. Like fund wars and weapons. Like give corporations welfare and bailouts. Like affecting those that can afford it the least, the most.

The answer to your deep philosophical question is NO.

The question comes across as harmless at first glance, and in most cases, a single person`s purpose does no harm to the rest of humanity.

This is telling. Readers, pay attention to this stuff, because it's why Bob and Thorin and the rest of them need to build a wall--and point the machine gun nests inward.

In the case of Hitler`s right to exist for his own happiness and purpose, the outcome was tens of millions of deaths.

Would you even consider that a valid question if you lived under the heel of Hitler or Caligula

I think not.

As usual, you seem incapable of looking at the larger context. The question was "Do men have a right to exist for their own sake and their own happiness and purpose?" If men have that right, all men have that right, and having that right does not mean that it is OK to harm others. What Hitler did was VIOLATE the rights of others. He did not have the right to take from them their right to exist for their own sake, happiness, or purpose.

Neither do you. But that is the direct consequence of the ideology you promote. You think it's OK to use gov't force to make other people provide your health care for you. But that's OK, because they're going to use gov't force to make you pay for weapons delivery systems, wars, and corporate welfare.

If it's OK for you to do it, it's OK for them to do it. And they do. And plenty of them are a LOT better at forcing your precious workers to pony up for "the corporatists," than you are.

Smart plan.

if you dont want to be part of society, move to some remote island

Some further comments:

It is interesting to note that he claims nobody says yes to this question.
It means that people realize that such an obviously simple question has far reaching implications.

No restrictions were placed on this "right" in the asking of the question.

With this lack of restriction in place, the issue is left wide open to abuses ranging from world wars, genocide, serial killing, mass murder, rape, arson and the host of other deviant behaviours humans are capable of.

As I said, you seem incapable of seeing the wider context. If men have this right, to live for themselves, that by it's very nature means that they do NOT have the right to take it away from others.

The "restriction" in inherent in the very question. It's not a right if one is allowed to take it from others using force, fraud, or whim.

My answer "NO" was based on the actions of Hitler and Caligula.
I could have added many others to the list, such as Jeffrey Dalmer, Ted Bundy and Clifford Olsen just to name a few.

Every one of these men would probably have answered yes to the question as posed.

What passes for happiness and purpose in one individual is seen as criminally evil and even insanity by others.

This just further illustrates your misunderstanding and is addressed previously.

I suppose the key part of the question rests in the two words "their own". By using these words, the well being of others is excluded.
No one else is considered in the equation when it relies on "their own" as it's basis.

Wrong again. The key part of the question is the term "right," being applied to all men. The well-being of others is contained in that term "right," meaning they have a right to themselves and their own well being without being molested by others. EVERYONE is considered in the equation, as the right applies to everyone.

Strangely enough, after my answer of "NO" was given based on the original question and the context with which it was asked, the arguments coming back had restrictions placed on behaviours.

I am forced to conclude that even those defending the question as asked, do not believe it themselves.

You erroneous conclusion is wrong. Of course there are restrictions on behaviors. This reminds me of a previous discussion, concerning the tenets of socialism. Do you even know what the term "rights" means?

Your previous comments suggest that you do not.

you did not understand the question, but you were wrong
( and yes, cause i seez so )

(let me first say that I am guilty of this as well) I just wish we did not have to be so back on forth all the time. It was a philisophical question and he answered it the way he felt. If you wanted to answer it the way you felt please do, but without putting others down or pointing out problems with the way they think.

I point out the problems with they way they think to demonstrate one of the reasons why the conclusion they have reached is erroneous.

That he "felt" something is of no interest. People may "feel" that the sky is green. People may feel that the earth is flat. People may feel that they are entitled to a response. People may feel that Jeff Dahmer had a right to kill. While people are entitled to feel however they wish, that they feel something does not give it any particular validity.

I have read both posts to this question and to be honest I am still on the fence. First I was thinking Yes they do have that right, but now I have moved a bit away from that.

You have that right as a matter of existence. You can choose to live your life for others, they cannot force you to do so as a matter of right.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I just felt the guy was stating his opinion. To me he didn't seem to say it was fact.

When I was reading your response it seemed (to me) that you were concerned too much about his opinion that it got in the way of your opinion.

With that said I do believe that your opinion has good points. Both opinions do. In this case and at this moment I lean a bit more towards your opinion. Could I be an evil no good flip flopper ... maybe. Personally I believe in free will. I do think people have the right to exist for their own sake and own happyness. I selfish thought, but a right. This being said a lot of crazy people's definition of happyness is well ... crazy. So there are limits, even if those limits are applied by other people stopping the crazy people. Then the definition of crazy becomes important. What happens if two people try to exist for conflicting happyness? What if one can not be happy unless the other is sad? These are questions that I will have to answer to myself before I can form my complete opinion.

The quesiton is not an easy one to answer. It has more levels than it may first appear.

Chris.

(let me first say that I am guilty of this as well) I just wish we did not have to be so back on forth all the time. It was a philisophical question and he answered it the way he felt. If you wanted to answer it the way you felt please do, but without putting others down or pointing out problems with the way they think.

I point out the problems with they way they think to demonstrate one of the reasons why the conclusion they have reached is erroneous.

That he "felt" something is of no interest. People may "feel" that the sky is green. People may feel that the earth is flat. People may feel that they are entitled to a response. People may feel that Jeff Dahmer had a right to kill. While people are entitled to feel however they wish, that they feel something does not give it any particular validity.

I have read both posts to this question and to be honest I am still on the fence. First I was thinking Yes they do have that right, but now I have moved a bit away from that.

You have that right as a matter of existence. You can choose to live your life for others, they cannot force you to do so as a matter of right.

---

Do men have a right to exist for their own sake and their own happiness and purpose?

Do as ye will, harm ye none! ;)

(Yes, even witches have ethics... and fanatics.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

The quesiton is not an easy one to answer. It has more levels than it may first appear.

I'm glad to see you trying to think about the grey areas Chris.
We do not live in a black and white world.
There are no absolutes when human behaviour is concerned.

My bottom line is the absolute manner in which the question is phrased.
Based on the context of the question, in the manner it was asked, there really is no other answer than "NO".

Even the responses against my opinion state that one cannot override another's "right".

It truly is an interesting question. I agree in in current state ... asking for a pure absolute answer I guess I would have to say no. Now you can break the question in many smaller more detailed questions to get an answer with more detail. But the way it stands it would be hard to say yes.

Chris.

The quesiton is not an easy one to answer. It has more levels than it may first appear.

I'm glad to see you trying to think about the grey areas Chris.
We do not live in a black and white world.
There are no absolutes when human behaviour is concerned.

My bottom line is the absolute manner in which the question is phrased.
Based on the context of the question, in the manner it was asked, there really is no other answer than "NO".

Even the responses against my opinion state that one cannot override another's "right".

---

I just felt the guy was stating his opinion. To me he didn't seem to say it was fact.

When I was reading your response it seemed (to me) that you were concerned too much about his opinion that it got in the way of your opinion.

He supports a system that uses gov't force to make people do things and support things that they would otherwise not do.

When the only standard is "whatever someone can convince the gov't to force onto others" what you have is this result. It's OK to force people to pay for wars and weapons and corporate welfare--and it's OK to force them to pay for the CIA and the WHISC and everything (or anything) else. There's always someone who will get the gov't to force crap onto people, and that will ALWAYS utterly destroy those that can afford it the least.

With that said I do believe that your opinion has good points. Both opinions do. In this case and at this moment I lean a bit more towards your opinion. Could I be an evil no good flip flopper ... maybe. Personally I believe in free will. I do think people have the right to exist for their own sake and own happyness. I selfish thought, but a right. This being said a lot of crazy people's definition of happyness is well ... crazy. So there are limits, even if those limits are applied by other people stopping the crazy people.

Of course, there are limits. Scary Capitalist knows better than most that there are limits, and he knows exactly where they lie and why. He understands the principles involved and the nature of the rights that humans have. He understands that one cannot have a right that infringes on the same right that other people have.

Then the definition of crazy becomes important. What happens if two people try to exist for conflicting happyness? What if one can not be happy unless the other is sad? These are questions that I will have to answer to myself before I can form my complete opinion.

The short answer is that one cannot seek to initiate force or fraud onto others. Your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose, your right to contract freely with me ends at the point where you would use fraud to induce me to do something I otherwise would not have done.

The quesiton is not an easy one to answer. It has more levels than it may first appear.

The question isn't that difficult, but it does require a bit of thought and an understanding of the nature of the rights that humans have.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I'm glad to see you trying to think about the grey areas Chris.
We do not live in a black and white world.
There are no absolutes when human behaviour is concerned.

Odd then, that your last two sentences are absolutes.

That's a real contradiction there.

My bottom line is the absolute manner in which the question is phrased.
Based on the context of the question, in the manner it was asked, there really is no other answer than "NO".

This doesn't become more true because, once again, you've just restated your conclusion without any argument, reasoning, or refuting the reasoning presented in other posts.

The answer, for the reasons previously presented, is "of course," because my right to something does not contain the right to violate that very same right in others.

Even the responses against my opinion state that one cannot override another's "right".

And yet you still missed it entirely.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I'm glad to see you trying to think about the grey areas Chris.
We do not live in a black and white world.
There are no absolutes when human behaviour is concerned.

Odd then, that your last two sentences are absolutes.

That's a real contradiction there.

My bottom line is the absolute manner in which the question is phrased.
Based on the context of the question, in the manner it was asked, there really is no other answer than "NO".

This doesn't become more true because, once again, you've just restated your conclusion without any argument, reasoning, or refuting the reasoning presented in other posts.

The answer, for the reasons previously presented, is "of course," because my right to something does not contain the right to violate that very same right in others.

Even the responses against my opinion state that one cannot override another's "right".

And yet you still missed it entirely.

Funny how the abstract argument is used when you discuss the meaning of the question but the concrete is used when rewriting my thoughts.
You are a funny guy Rush.
I've come to the conclusion that you practice corporate law. (if you are a lawyer at all)
You seem to have no foundation.

I'm glad to see you trying to think about the grey areas Chris.
We do not live in a black and white world.
There are no absolutes when human behaviour is concerned.

Odd then, that your last two sentences are absolutes.

That's a real contradiction there.

My bottom line is the absolute manner in which the question is phrased.
Based on the context of the question, in the manner it was asked, there really is no other answer than "NO".

This doesn't become more true because, once again, you've just restated your conclusion without any argument, reasoning, or refuting the reasoning presented in other posts.

The answer, for the reasons previously presented, is "of course," because my right to something does not contain the right to violate that very same right in others.

Even the responses against my opinion state that one cannot override another's "right".

And yet you still missed it entirely.

Funny how the abstract argument is used when you discuss the meaning of the question but the concrete is used when rewriting my thoughts.

You DO just make this stuff up. You would have to quote where I re-wrote your thoughts. I simply stated that the nature of them is the same as "the corporatists," whom you so decry. They just have different stupid programs that they want to force on you. But you should love that, right?

You are a funny guy Rush.
I've come to the conclusion that you practice corporate law. (if you are a lawyer at all)

My LL.M is in Corporate and Securities Law from the London School of Economics.

You seem to have no foundation.

You seem unable to read. I post the exact foundation for the statements I make, I make it a point to note the reasons behind them.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Do men have a right to exist for their own sake and their own happiness and purpose?"

My answer to this question is a big no. Rights are granted by something. A person born under a benevolent government might be given the "right" to exist for their own sake. A person born under a malevolent government likely will have no such right.

In a godless Nature you are on your own. You fight and scratch your way for everything. The term "Rights" means nothing without a granting power. I don't think Nature cares much about rights. I had no part of the decision to be born. I was tossed into the world equiped with tools to struggle for survival. I do have control of what I will do in the fight to survive. I don't have or need a right to exist. I just exist. And in the end, I exist primarily for my own survival.

simple answer: no we(I) don't

arguing against someones view is pointless lawyer(barister) talk. The original intent was to see what people think about the original question not to show your derision to their view. Perhaps if we just stick to our view without getting political and lawyerly we'd actually have a discussion.

I have noticed in my years that the more emphatic and personal an attack gets the more the person making the attack is unsure of their own beliefs. Have your beliefs and live by it. Don't expect anyone one to follow or understand and you'll be a happier man.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Do men have a right to exist for their own sake and their own happiness and purpose?"

My answer to this question is a big no. Rights are granted by something. A person born under a benevolent government might be given the "right" to exist for their own sake. A person born under a malevolent government likely will have no such right.

This is idiocy. Human rights ARE NOT "granted by something," they are derived from principles.

Under this idiotic idea, it was perfectly OK for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to cause the death of nearly 2 million people, nearly 25% of Cambodia, because those people didn't have human rights. Pol Pot didn't grant them those rights, so they didn't have them, so it was OK for Polsy to slaughter them.

That's idiotic.

In a godless Nature you are on your own. You fight and scratch your way for everything. The term "Rights" means nothing without a granting power.

To you, maybe.

I don't think Nature cares much about rights. I had no part of the decision to be born. I was tossed into the world equiped with tools to struggle for survival. I do have control of what I will do in the fight to survive. I don't have or need a right to exist. I just exist. And in the end, I exist primarily for my own survival.

What an interesting contradiction. You exist for your own survival, but you don't have a right to do that, and it's OK for Pol Pot to torture you to death, just for the hell of it, because he didn't grant you any human rights.

Nice.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

simple answer: no we(I) don't

arguing against someones view is pointless lawyer(barister) talk. The original intent was to see what people think about the original question not to show your derision to their view. Perhaps if we just stick to our view without getting political and lawyerly we'd actually have a discussion.

I have noticed in my years that the more emphatic and personal an attack gets the more the person making the attack is unsure of their own beliefs. Have your beliefs and live by it. Don't expect anyone one to follow or understand and you'll be a happier man.

Well, except a LOT of the people here want to use gov't force to make others do as they wish. They want to use that force to take away your beliefs and your right to live by them. They "don't expect anyone to follow or understand," so they use the awesome and nearly unlimited power of gov't force to make damn sure they follow.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

The absence of government would be mayhem.

Some feel that governments can be a source of great good, if peopled by honest representatives and directed by an educated and involved public.