All times are UTC + 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Jul 12th, '13, 17:06 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: May 6th, '11, 12:06
Posts: 12195
Gender: Male
Location: Northern NSW
You crack me up every time I read one of your posts Bodgy ya funny bugger.

:)

_________________
~2010/2011~
~2012/2013~
~2014~
~Backyard farming~


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
    Advertisement
 
PostPosted: Jul 12th, '13, 17:31 
Offline
A posting God
A posting God

Joined: Sep 15th, '07, 09:09
Posts: 3706
Location: WA
Gender: Male
Both sides Now. Sometimes it is difficult to pick between Joni Mitchell and Judy Collins. :lol: :drunken:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jul 12th, '13, 17:42 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mar 24th, '10, 13:00
Posts: 5086
Gender: Male
Are you human?: Daughters think not
Location: Horsham, Victoria, Australia
My three rainwater tanks are full and we are expecting a lot of rain over the next week , so runoff from our roof will go down the drain anyway. You can only catch so much

_________________
IBC system
Bigger system
Greenhouse system


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jul 12th, '13, 17:48 
If the government wants to claim the rain is theirs... and tax me if it collects in puddles.. or containers...

I'm going to ask them to cover over my property.... so that I'm not afflicted with their bloody rain accidently... :D

And they'd better build a containment moot around the property... so that they don't send any runoff on to the property...

I'll meet them halfway... and dispose of any "mooted" water.. over time... :D


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jul 12th, '13, 19:10 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mar 24th, '10, 13:00
Posts: 5086
Gender: Male
Are you human?: Daughters think not
Location: Horsham, Victoria, Australia
That's when council workers will enter your property after every rain with a magic syphon hose


_________________
IBC system
Bigger system
Greenhouse system


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jul 13th, '13, 00:00 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Nov 6th, '11, 10:04
Posts: 5100
Gender: Male
Are you human?: Humans err, I Arrr!
Location: Chula Vista, CA, USA
Sleepe wrote:

Define what you think are inherent human rights and why as a citizen you should not be able to speak out against what you perceive as unjust laws or unjust application of those laws. (BTW that is two questions) :)

http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/human_right_to_water.shtml wrote:
On 28 July 2010, through Resolution 64/292, the United Nations General Assembly explicitly recognized the human right to water and sanitation and acknowledged that clean drinking water and sanitation are essential to the realisation of all human rights. The Resolution calls upon States and international organisations to provide financial resources, help capacity-building and technology transfer to help countries, in particular developing countries, to provide safe, clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation for all.

_________________
What answers I can question for you?

My Patio System

My Indoor System

No single drop of rain believes it is responsible for the flood.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jul 13th, '13, 17:17 
Offline
A posting God
A posting God
User avatar

Joined: Oct 16th, '11, 06:12
Posts: 2019
Gender: Male
Are you human?: 0110010110
Location: Brisbane, qld
What is the difference between positive and negative rights ?
and how does that apply to "inherent human rights" ?

_________________
My System


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jul 14th, '13, 08:30 
Offline
Seriously, this cant be healthy.
Seriously, this cant be healthy.
User avatar

Joined: Feb 23rd, '07, 03:48
Posts: 6715
Location: Lyonville Victoria
Gender: Male
Are you human?: yes
Location: Lyonville
SuperVeg wrote:
What is the difference between positive and negative rights ?
and how does that apply to "inherent human rights" ?


Since you introduced the terms positive positive and negative human rights would you care to define them?

As to "Inherent Human rights" the term itself is a bit of a misnomer. Different societies throughout the world and history have had very different views on this. When an individual talks about inherent human rights they are really talking about the rights that their society grants to humans. In our society the rights that you have as a human are not that different from other rights that you can be eligible for in our society in principle. There are a few exceptions, the unborn for example which is a very sticky topic but a baby that is one day from being born has less rights than a baby that has been out of the womb for one minute. In practice the disabled, women, uneducated and other groups have less rights but in our society the differences while very significant are not very great. Especially when compared with some historical societies and some present day societies in less developed countries.

Personally I don't really like to define societal contracts in terms of rights. I much prefer to define responsibilities. Rights encourage the individual to think of them selves without consideration for their fellow citizens. Responsibilities encourage citizens to participate in the maintenance and improvement of their society.

In practice you need both but in our society the pendulum is too far towards rights with almost no discussion about responsibilities.

A funny thought has just struck me. A society based on rights requires a state and hence a government to protect those rights from miscreants in society who would impinge or violate them. Yet it is the anti government, no government, small government, anti tax right wingers who complain the loudest about their human rights.

_________________
Grow more with less


http://www.FishFarmers.com.au
https://www.facebook.com/fisharmers?ref=aymt_homepage_panel
http://hedgerowfarm.com.au/
https://www.facebook.com/HedgerowFarmVictoria/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jul 14th, '13, 09:06 
Offline
A posting God
A posting God

Joined: Sep 15th, '07, 09:09
Posts: 3706
Location: WA
Gender: Male
No it doesn't it merely requires empathy and selflessness.

I decided on Joni Mitchell; mainly because she wrote the song and I like Big Yellow Taxi, and two lines in it remind me of parts of this thread. :)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jul 14th, '13, 10:22 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mar 12th, '06, 07:56
Posts: 17778
Images: 4
Location: Perth
Gender: Male
Blog: View Blog (1)
Stuart Chignell wrote:
A funny thought has just struck me. A society based on rights requires a state and hence a government to protect those rights from miscreants in society who would impinge or violate them. Yet it is the anti government, no government, small government, anti tax right wingers who complain the loudest about their human rights.


Ahhh, but SV will tell you that the only way to protect peoples rights is by litigation in a privatised court system.

_________________
www.havehomewilltravel.com
Life on the road


Top
 Profile Personal album  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jul 14th, '13, 11:01 
Offline
A posting God
A posting God
User avatar

Joined: Oct 16th, '11, 06:12
Posts: 2019
Gender: Male
Are you human?: 0110010110
Location: Brisbane, qld
Stuart Chignell wrote:

Since you introduced the terms positive positive and negative human rights would you care to define them?
Your right, I should have been more informative.

Negative rights are those that give someone the right to NOT have something done to them.
eg: I have the right to not be harmed by others.

Positive rights are those that require that other people give me something.
eg: I have the right to a portion of your income.

Quote:
Personally I don't really like to define societal contracts in terms of rights. I much prefer to define responsibilities. Rights encourage the individual to think of them selves without consideration for their fellow citizens. Responsibilities encourage citizens to participate in the maintenance and improvement of their society.

In practice you need both but in our society the pendulum is too far towards rights with almost no discussion about responsibilities.

I think you have hit the nail on the head here.
I think it would be so much better if people willingly helped others rather than being forced to.
While that does happen, it becomes much more difficult as the welfare state grows.

Quote:
A funny thought has just struck me. A society based on rights requires a state and hence a government to protect those rights from miscreants in society who would impinge or violate them. Yet it is the anti government, no government, small government, anti tax right wingers who complain the loudest about their human rights.

A society based on positive rights needs a state to enforce them.
I think the reason many of the small/no government anti-tax right wingers (you have to exclude the neo-con typs who also for big government, but these guys are really left-wingers) complain is because they oppose the positive rights and wish that their negative rights were respected.

_________________
My System


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jul 14th, '13, 11:07 
Offline
A posting God
A posting God
User avatar

Joined: Oct 16th, '11, 06:12
Posts: 2019
Gender: Male
Are you human?: 0110010110
Location: Brisbane, qld
earthbound wrote:
Ahhh, but SV will tell you that the only way to protect peoples rights is by litigation in a privatised court system.

Actually I wouldn't.
But thanks anyway for trying to save me some time and speak for me :D

_________________
My System


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jul 14th, '13, 11:39 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mar 12th, '06, 07:56
Posts: 17778
Images: 4
Location: Perth
Gender: Male
Blog: View Blog (1)
You have said that many times before...

_________________
www.havehomewilltravel.com
Life on the road


Top
 Profile Personal album  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jul 14th, '13, 12:47 
Offline
Seriously, this cant be healthy.
Seriously, this cant be healthy.
User avatar

Joined: Feb 23rd, '07, 03:48
Posts: 6715
Location: Lyonville Victoria
Gender: Male
Are you human?: yes
Location: Lyonville
SuperVeg wrote:
A society based on positive rights needs a state to enforce them.
I think the reason many of the small/no government anti-tax right wingers (you have to exclude the neo-con typs who also for big government, but these guys are really left-wingers) complain is because they oppose the positive rights and wish that their negative rights were respected.


A society based on negative rights also needs a state because sooner or later some is going to be naughty and some form of governement is going to be needed to provide justice because if justice is left in the hands of individuals things get nasty really quickly. Peoples faith in the state is one of the foundations of a stable society. Australia is so fortunate because its citizens have so much faith in the state. That faith allows us to sleep at night trusting that the state has a monopoly on the employment of violence and any individual or group that infringes on that monopoly will face the power and fury of the state.

This situation actually arises out of market forces. Systems such as markets, economies, ecosystems, societies are more productive when a high degree of specialisation exists compared with comparable systems with low specialistion. Way back in the day farmers soon realized that they would be better off if they didn't have to fight their neighbours themselves and this developed a warrior class. Such an institution allowed farmers to concentrate on what they were good at and for the warriors to hone their skills and specialise in what they became good at, warfare. Over all this led to reduced death rates and more stable healthier societies. Since people had to be rewarded handsomely in order to put their lives on the line they got nice houses, clothes and non economic rewards like respect and getting to make rules. As long as the basic contract of "you protect me and I'll pay you to do so and let you have control" was kept by all parties the society ran along quite nicely. When ever the warrior/ruling class forgot that the only reason they were in power was because the farmers/workers had placed them there you sooner of later had a revolution which if successful meant that you had a new group of rulers/governers (ie government) and if it failed the rulers resisted the revolution and then reformed or if they did not would sooner or later be toppled by a successful revolution.

All that might seem to be an over simplification of human history and it is but that doesn't mean that it is wrong. People crying out against taxes forget that those taxes are used to pay for things for their benefit. The way SV defined a positive right seems very odd to me. I don't think anyone can have such a right and while some bureaucrats may act like they have a right to our money I am sure they would not express it that way. Trying to visualise these societal contracts is difficult in the modern age because we are so divorced from their origins.

Another example. In various periods of history society has become increasing urbanised. Towns sprang up and due to the nature of people these towns citizens got together and elected Mayors and councilors to manage the affairs of the town for the benefit of all its residents. Due to the nature of the period a common project of towns was the construction of a defensive wall. To help pay for this construction all the towns people agreed on a way to fund it and then ongoing charges were levied to maintain and improve it. We would call these charges taxes. People could avoid those charges by simply moving their premises to an area outside of the town wall. Back in the day many people did this and were happy to not have the protection of the wall as long as they didn't have to pay the taxes to maintain it. Mind you life got rather hard when a besieging army came along. As societies developed those governments raised money of labour for other projects like sanitation, roads, etc.

Today in Australia we are free to do exactly the same thing. If you don't want to pay the taxes because we are a free society you may leave. Or you may stay and agitate for a different way or degree of levying taxes but make no mistake societies that don't have taxes are not pleasant places to live. There are too many historical and present day examples to allow us to think otherwise.

_________________
Grow more with less


http://www.FishFarmers.com.au
https://www.facebook.com/fisharmers?ref=aymt_homepage_panel
http://hedgerowfarm.com.au/
https://www.facebook.com/HedgerowFarmVictoria/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jul 14th, '13, 18:41 
Offline
A posting God
A posting God

Joined: Sep 15th, '07, 09:09
Posts: 3706
Location: WA
Gender: Male
And WTF has all that (not just the last one) got to do with taxing water that falls on your roof, or not allowing you to use it for your own use? :)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC + 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Portal by phpBB3 Portal © phpBB Türkiye
[ Time : 0.369s | 18 Queries | GZIP : Off ]