18 Sep 14: Be honest about yourselves Public Health

[Kent C]

Not only that, but special/selective rights are incompatible with the concept of equal protection under the law, which is supposed to be the bedrock principle of our form of government. Now, that's not to say the granting of such "rights" to certain groups and individuals, or under certain circumstances, cannot be a worthwhile and morally justified thing (because it sometimes very much is). But such acts should not be confused or conflated with the basic, elemental rights to which every person is entitled simply by virtue of being human.

Another bit of contradiction - IF it is under gov't rule. Equal rights under the law conflicts with your: 'granting' (by whom?) of such "rights" (properly in quotes because they aren't rights) of certain groups and individuals or 'under certain circumstances'?

All individuals have natural rights under all circumstances (except when exercising those rights harms another's equal right - swinging one's hand for example). "Certain circumstances" for certain groups or individuals violates equal protection under the law - what you say, rightly, is a bedrock principle of our form of gov't.

And...Natural rights are not 'granted' by gov't. Gov't is not the source of rights. Rights preceded government. "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their Just powers from the consent of the governed.... "

 

[Kent C]

According to these rights, as stated:

If a person or group of persons (say, Kangertech) chooses of their own volition to manufacture vapor products, and also chooses to make them available for purchase by any other persons, then another person (say, dragonpuff) therefore has the right to purchase said vapor products and vape with them.

I really can't argue with that

dragonpuff is right - both Kanger has the right to sell and dragonpuff the right to buy

 

[DrMA]

@Kent C

I knew you were gonna pick on that (intentional) conflation of "rights" . Nonetheless, it all worked out nicely in my fantasy exercise, and the mental image of glANTZ in an orange jumpsuit put a smile on my face all day.

 

[Nate760]

And...Natural rights are not 'granted' by gov't. Gov't is not the source of rights. Rights preceded government.

Yeah, that was kind of my whole point. Your rights exist by virtue of being human and being alive. The extent to which those rights are protected, or not protected, under law is what separates good forms of government from bad ones.

Privileges, on the other hand, are in some ways antithetical to rights, because when you privilege one group of people (even though there are perfectly good reasons why a society might want to privilege, at least on a temporary basis, a previously aggrieved or marginalized group; on the other hand, the apportion of privilege is often used, on a permanent basis, to create entrenched ruling classes at the expense of less-advantaged underclasses) you have, by necessity, undermined the rights of another group or groups (specifically, the right to equal treatment under law).

 

[Kent C]

And from the Phillips quote on happiness:

"...which is not about the weather any more than the goal of “public health” is about making people happy".

As we have seen from some of the FDA statements earlier about the happiness quotient.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...smoking-s-health-gained-vs-pleasure-lost.html

This "happiness" has nothing to do with Jefferson's "Pursuit of happiness" which was a summary of: the right to property, the right to exchange the fruits of one's labor for those things that would tend to bring one happiness. The presumed reason he didn't state rights in the way Locke did of 'life, liberty, and property' was they wanted to convey the inalienability of life and liberty - those aspects that are part of the person and inseparable from him. Whereas property can and is separated and "alienable" through exchange.

The Philosophy of the Declaration of Independence: Part 2 | Libertarianism.org
"The second thing to note is that Jefferson refers specifically to inalienable rights..." halfway down the essay...

"Happiness quotient" is along the lines of a different ethics - utilitarianism - where one acts for the greatest good for the greatest number - also states as 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number' and this is a calculation that would allow for the violation of natural rights if the goal of the greatest good/happiness/public health/general welfare, etc. is still intact... which was no part of the founding or the constitution as the general welfare was defined by he who wrote it in the Constitution, Madison, as upholding individual rights and is what promotes the general welfare since those are something allcitizens have as a natural right.

 

[Kent C]

@Kent C

I knew you were gonna pick on that (intentional) conflation of "rights" . Nonetheless, it all worked out nicely in my fantasy exercise, and the mental image of glANTZ in an orange jumpsuit put a smile on my face all day.

Even under the correct definition - glANTZ should still be wearing orange, imo. (do they make straight jackets in orange? )...as should Zeller, McAfee, Ashton, Talbot and many others.

 

[Nate760]

(do they make straight jackets in orange? )

I don't think so, but Joe Arpaio probably has some pink ones laying around somewhere.

 

[Kent C]

Yeah, that was kind of my whole point. Your rights exist by virtue of being human and being alive. The extent to which those rights are protected, or not protected, under law is what separates good forms of government from bad ones.

Privileges, on the other hand, are in some ways antithetical to rights, because when you privilege one group of people (even though there are perfectly good reasons why a society might want to privilege, at least on a temporary basis, a previously aggrieved or marginalized group; on the other hand, the apportion of privilege is often used, on a permanent basis, to create entrenched ruling classes at the expense of less-advantaged underclasses) you have, by necessity, undermined the rights of another group or groups (specifically, the right to equal treatment under law).

I of course disagree with the idea that there are 'perfectly good reasons why a society (ie individuals) might want to privilege, etc. etc.' In fact, it is against the concept of equality, rule of law and rights, to do so when the people responsible for the aggrieved, are no longer around. Many of the immigrants of this country were 'aggrieved' in the countries from which they came. Prior grievance is no justification for privilege. Only justice is sufficient for that and then only exercised on the offenders themselves. Otherwise, it is a mockery of justice and tends to undermine justice as well.

 

[Nate760]

I of course disagree with the idea that there are 'perfectly good reasons why a society (ie individuals) might want to privilege, etc. etc.'

Yes, I thought you might.

 

[Kent C]

Yes, I thought you might.

.....

 

[DrMA]

Even under the correct definition - glANTZ should still be wearing orange, imo. (do they make straight jackets in orange? )...as should Zeller, McAfee, Ashton, Talbot and many others.

In spite of our different view on "rights," I think we agree that the people on that list should somehow be stopped from doing any more damage to public health, as well as human dignity.

Their attitude adds insult to the injury caused by their lies for 1.22 billion smokers worldwide.

 

[Kent C]

In spite of our different view on "rights," I think we agree that the people on that list should somehow be stopped from doing any more damage to public health, as well as human dignity.

Their attitude adds insult to the injury caused by their lies for 1.22 billion smokers worldwide.

Utilitarianism is a 'consequentialist' ethic, where consequences are most important. While not all forms of consequentialist ethics are in the form of the greatest good, that type uses the oft heard concept that the 'ends justifies the means'. (ends=consequences ... (wiki)..." meaning that if a goal is morally important enough, any method of achieving it is acceptable."

Zelller's goal is ending addiction (greatest good/happiness) in the "net population" (greatest number)

Knowing this, we should expect, and not be that surprised, that lies are used, that censorship occurs of opposing ideas in publications and hearings and seminars, where no credible opposition is allowed, where studies are bought or done by the similarly minded, where the results of the studies - consequences - have already been decided and the means/methods used, are biased toward them; and where the lapdog media is used as a propaganda tool to promote these lies and junk science, and is used to dismiss the opposition.

 

[Nate760]

Knowing this, we should expect, and not be that surprised, that lies are used, that censorship occurs of opposing ideas in publications and hearings and seminars, where no credible opposition is allowed, where studies are bought or done by the similarly minded, where the results of the studies - consequences - have already been decided and the means/methods used, are biased toward them; and where the lapdog media is used as a propaganda tool to promote these lies and junk science, and is used to dismiss the opposition.

It all starts with the idea that "This social-engineering goal is so important that any and all means, however dishonest or illegal, must be used in achieving it." Not coincidentally, most forms of popular tyranny originate with a similar moral compromise.

 

[Kent C]

It all starts with the idea that "This social-engineering goal is so important that any and all means, however dishonest or illegal, must be used in achieving it." Not coincidentally, most forms of popular tyranny originate with a similar moral compromise.

“How many men?” thought experiment. You begin by asking if it is okay for a man to steal your car. The answer is usually no. How about if five men steal your car? How about if they vote first? How about if they let you vote? How about if the whole neighborhood votes, and they give you a scooter? Or give the car to someone who can't afford a car? Is it still theft?

 

[Nate760]

How about if the whole neighborhood votes, and they give you a scooter?

Sounds like a typical day in Europe.

*insert rim shot here*