Quote of the day–ubu52

Food and water are basic human rights. I can’t believe anyone would argue that they aren’t.

ubu52
August 24, 2010
Comment to Crap for brains
[This came up in the context of a “right” to health care. She supported her claim with a link to the UN declaration of “Human Rights” which includes this statement:

  1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and
    well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and
    medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the
    event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of
    livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
  2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All
    children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social
    protection.

Hence it is not about someone depriving someone else of food, water, or air. This is about some government (people with guns) taking goods and services from some set of people and giving it to others.

And she “can’t believe anyone would argue” against that viewpoint? An “interesting” and totally naive perspective. I would like to remind anyone that believes such a thing that 100+ million people died in the last century because of attempts to create just that type of utopia. If she and others would like to volunteer themselves for the next experiment doomed to failure I only request they take it to some place where my family and friends don’t have to contend with defending our lives and property and disposing of the rotting flesh.

–Joe]

20 thoughts on “Quote of the day–ubu52

  1. Anything that gives you a “right” to someone else’s material goods is, in small part, making you a slave to that person. It can perhaps be argued that a society as wealthy (for now) as ours, that there’s no reason for someone to go without basic necessities, but to have a right to it? Then you have a right to benefit from someone else’s labor. Someone else who doesn’t have a choice. Isn’t that the definition of slavery?

  2. That was pointed out multiple times to her in the comment thread. It appears to be beyond her comprehension or grasp of reality or something…

  3. Again I’m calling Troll, if she was so mentally ill or stupid to not understand the concept as presented in the comments, she would be unable to type the words she wrote.

    She read and understood the rebuttals, and for whatever reason chose to re-assert her bogus argument (with some added rudeness for good measure).

  4. Yup, troll. Proven by the way she suddenly cries out “I don’t have time to argue with you” every. single. time. someone brings actual facts to the discussion that disprove her conclusion.

    I’d say stop feeding her, but she’s so good to use for pointing out to fence-sitters how the other side works.

  5. “but she’s so good to use for pointing out to fence-sitters how the other side works.”

    I’m guilty of using many of her deeply bigoted quotes to show the true nature of anti-freedom advocates. Honestly I have no problem with her coming around, as she only appears to dwell on sites devoted to facts and freedom, so she’s placed herself in a position where she can only do harm. (Not that I think anti-rights bloggers can do much good for their cause, as 90% of their readership is pro-gun people doing opposition research)

    I’m just stating that while I initially thought her comments were made here and in other blogs (like Robb’s) out of curiosity, or desire to educate, I find it quite unbelievable that that original hypothesis is true, so I will treat her like the hateful, narrow-minded bigot she has asserted herself to being from now on. (ie: I’ll probably ignore her if I can manage…I like to talk by nature, just ask Joe!)

  6. No one on the left has ever acknowledged the proper meaning of “rights”. They can’t. Either they misunderstand or they purposely avoid or distort the meaning, depending on which type of leftist we’re talking– the perpetrator or the duped. They view literally everything as within the realm of politics (the very definition of totalitarianism) for starters, so they cannot comprehend that a right means you may do something without government interference or involvement.

    Since the leftist mind enters the conversation with no acknowledgement of property rights they will forever deny the American Principles that have worked so well. If you say that people have no right to food, the left assumes (or wants desperately to believe, because they have to paint you as evil) that you are mandating starvation by force of law. They can’t understand, or refuse to acknowledge, that you have every right to YOUR food, while other people have the right to THEIR food. To deny the all-important definition of property rights, they are in fact (in practice) mandating starvation themselves apparently without knowing it in some cases.

    “We all have the right to food. You have plenty of food and Bob over here doesn’t, so we’re taking your food by force.” Meaning you don’t have the right to your food, and by extension, no one else does either – all food belongs to the government, essentially, as all “rights” come FROM the government.

    But the left has always been, and will always be, for the purpose of stealing wealth and trampling rights. It is evil portraying good as evil and evil as good. All that is good is bad, and all that is bad is good. It’s really not difficult to understand. It’s that simple, which is why the left hates simplicity and gravitates toward complexity.

  7. No one on the left has ever acknowledged the proper meaning of “rights”. They can’t. Either they misunderstand or they purposely avoid or distort the meaning, depending on which type of leftist we’re talking– the perpetrator or the duped. They view literally everything as within the realm of politics (the very definition of totalitarianism) for starters, so they cannot comprehend that a right means you may do something without government interference or involvement.

    Since the leftist mind enters the conversation with no acknowledgment of property rights they will forever deny the American Principles that have worked so well. If you say that people have no right to food, the left assumes (or wants desperately to believe, because they have to paint you as evil) that you are mandating starvation by force of law. They can’t understand, or refuse to acknowledge, that you have every right to YOUR food, while other people have the right to THEIR food. To deny the all-important definition of property rights, they are in fact (in practice) mandating starvation themselves apparently without knowing it in some cases.

    Even this is a misunderstanding of the concept of “Right”. Even the American concept of rights is a political construct. Strip man to his most fundamental animal self and he will acknowledge that which all of nature has programmed into their DNA; The only right is the right to try to survive by any means necessary. All other so-called “rights” are constructs that allow us to interact socially, without killing each other. Better to call them Privileges, or Liberties; less false advertising that way.

    Language shapes the way we think (yeah I know, the reverse is also true) and I think part of the reason leftists think the way they do is that this misunderstood word has entered, by means most insidious, common parlance and has been bandied about until its true meaning has been lost. A right is something one is entitled to. No one is entitled to anything.

    Again I’m calling Troll…

    Yup, troll. …

    Y’know, while it is possible that she’s a troll (an artless attempt to be sure), I think it more likely that she’s just wrongheaded and actually thinks like that. I think she’s unable to find any logical arguments to counter those made to her and so falls back on the tried and true response of the fool. “Nu-uh!”

  8. I really don’t have a lot of time to post right now. I work for myself and I don’t have a 9 to 5 schedule so this may be all you’ll get for awhile…

    On the old thread, Joe asked “How is it that you determine truth from falsity?” I wanted to discuss this further before but I asked that you define what “truth” is for me because truth can have many meanings. (And I know we are getting into philosophy here.)

    Lyle: “”We all have the right to food. You have plenty of food and Bob over here doesn’t, so we’re taking your food by force.” Meaning you don’t have the right to your food, and by extension, no one else does either – all food belongs to the government, essentially, as all “rights” come FROM the government.” BINGO! “Human Rights” do come from government. The UN is essentially a world governing body. That’s why “Human Rights” and “Natural Rights” are two different things.

    Rauðbjorn: “Even the American concept of rights is a political construct.” Correct. “Language shapes the way we think…” Totally. That’s why these discussions tend to go on to the point that everyone thinks I’m the idiot. I tend to try and shorten them because I know that discussing philosophy fully can take a long long time — but I get the feeling that that is what this crowd wants. They want to discuss different philosophical constructs.

    So… First we must agree on what “truth” is before we can even start to discuss “falsity.”

  9. One more thing….

    Slavery was one of those things our freedom/liberty-loving forefathers were “okay” with — at least, “okay enough” with that they didn’t make it illegal when the wrote the Constitution. But I know that you all know this and no, I don’t want to discuss the history of slavery.

  10. ubu52, you’re stating that food and water are basic human rights. This is wrong. You do however have the right to OBTAIN food and water for consumption, but you DO have to pay for it. The problem with the Obamacare stuff (among other items) is that what you give to the poor has to come from somewhere. Those that are NOT quite so poor, perhaps like myself, my wife, and my 11 month old son, have to pay for it. We have no say in the matter. The government is PUNISHING us by taking our hard earned cash because someone else is poor and made poor decisions and now cannot afford to buy their own health insurance in the private sector.

    I agree! I think they SHOULD be entitled to health care… assuming that there were parties WILLING to give those services or money away. It should NOT be taken by force, which is exactly what Obamacare is.

    There are 2 ways to get me to do something. You can convince me or you can force me. The Democrats cannot convince us to give them donations, so they now FORCE us to do so under penalty of fines, etc.

    How is this fair to those that have no desire to partake in Obamacare?

  11. ubu52,

    If something is given or allocated by the government it is a privilege, not a right.

    For our purposes here I propose the following definition:

    Truth–That which is true.

    This aligns with 2 c here and “Correspondence and Coherence Theories here.

    Hence, elaborating just a bit, the question becomes, “What is the process by which you determine that which is true from that which is false?”

    I find it odd that you want to define truth before falsity because it is far easier to demonstrate something is false than to demonstrate something is true.

  12. “Slavery was one of those things our freedom/liberty-loving forefathers were “okay” with — at least, “okay enough” with that they didn’t make it illegal when the wrote the Constitution. But I know that you all know this and no, I don’t want to discuss the history of slavery. ”

    Ahhh, dropping a red herring into the discussion (without actually addressing the point where slavery is mentioned above….so Ubu are you claiming that the Slavery that occurs when the Government proposes the labor of one person is the right of another, be it producing potable water, growing or preparing food, or administering medicine, a reasonable form of Slavery?) And then saying “But I don’t want to talk about that”

    Troll, and frankly starting to appear like a rather rude one.

  13. Ah, but at least he’s an artful troll, Beard.

    Now then, to be fair and true, there are times when it is appropriate for a producer to give the fruits of his labor to one that does not produce; children, the elderly and the sick and lame of your people. This is simply common sense. Children cannot produce effectively and since your family will die off without children you feed, cloth and house them. The elderly you take care of to repay all those years that they fed, clothed and housed you as a child. You take care of the sick and injured because you’d want them to do the same for you if your roles were reversed. In many cases the sick and injured can be returned to health and again become productive members of society, and if they can’t you take care of them because the truly disabled usually are important to those who are important to you (in one way or another).

    All of this however only applies to your family group. It works well in small groups; witness both the Scandinavian and Gaelic clan systems), and is contingent on one simple rule. Each adult is a member voluntarily, and can leave at anytime. It breaks down somewhat when you move to apply it to a larger (national) scale because resources like food, potable water and construction materials are limited and it is more important to me, for me and mine to survive than it is for you and yours to do so. Sorry.

    Unless. If you could demonstrate that you and yours could be helpful to the survival of me and mine, then it could become us and ours. And since it’s now us vs them, instead of me vs you, of course I’ll help to feed your injured and clothe you children and house your elderly. Because that’s what you do for family.

    The leftists are trying to say that we’re all one big family, and so we should take care of each other. Bullshit! The flip side of of the “each adult is a willing participant” rule is; if the group don’t want you, you’d best get out. Or at the very least reconsider the course of action that brought you to this juncture in your life.

    Some people are neither children nor elderly. They are not sick, they are not lame, they are not even injured. They’re just lazy. I feel no compulsion to support the lazy. I’d not do it for my kith and kin (I’d whup somebodies ass and then set them to work until they understood the value of it) I’ll definitely not do it for random lazy bastards that should have been taught better by their own people.

    I am hesitant to ascribe motives to people, especially those whose thought processes are alien to me, but here it goes. It’s possible the leftists feel incredibly guilty over being members of successful family groups and feel they should include more of the have-nots in their family of haves so that everyone can have some. The only other possibility I can see is that by subverting the allegiance of the have-nots to that of the leftist ideal, rather than national identity the leftists seek to form a fifth column to overthrow the government. While I usually find the old axiom “Never ascribe to evil what can be adequately explained by stupidity.” to be true, I have to wonder.

  14. The government didn’t make slavery illegal because the government wasn’t in the bondage business. The Constitution tells government what it can and can’t do. Or it did, before people with large, tax-payer funded salaries started hearing voices whispering the promises of power, fame and wealth by riding the back of a leviathan central government. (Then they started seeing invisible words in the Constitution.)

    Technically, slavery was illegal, since it violated any sort of equal protection and rights endowed by the Creator. Slave owners therefore denied that slaves were actually human.

  15. Tango got it right. There is charity and there is theft. It is more probable that I would be willing to do more charity if I had more instead of it being stolen from me by those who feel they know better.

    Whether they know better or not is really not the point though, is it? It would not be defensible in court to say “I took it because they were misusing it” but the government does that with our money and our land “for the greater good” everyday.

    I have rights because I am a human being and I do not recognize the UN as any governing force of this sovereign person. Honestly, they can go bite me. They have done more harm than good.

  16. “BINGO! “Human Rights” do come from government.”

    ubu; You realize I was engaging in blistering sarcasm in re-stating your beliefs, and then you respond with, “BINGO”? OK then.

    “Slavery was one of those things our freedom/liberty-loving forefathers were “okay” with — at least, “okay enough” with that they didn’t make it illegal when the wrote the Constitution. But I know that you all know this and no, I don’t want to discuss the history of slavery.”

    Girl, you be trippin’! If you’d have discussed history a bit more, you’d realize that the Founders thought slavery a terrible evil. A stain. They’re on record, if you’re interested in looking. They unfortunately had a revolution to fight, and had to keep the colonies together for that end, rather than fight the revolution and the battle for abolition both at the same time. You might also want to know that slavery was practiced in much of the world at that time, and still is in some quarters.

    The question is; didn’t you know all this already, and are you so programmed by the leftist spin machine that all you can do is parrot their talking points? I heard the same garbage, by the way, on Radio Moscow during the Cold War. Now our college grads are saying it, practically word-for-word.

  17. Joe,

    I’ve bookmarked this post so I can return to it — so we can have our discussion here, yes?

    I love your definition: Truth–That which is true.

    Would that be absolute truth? Relative truth? Subjective truth? Objective truth? (I know you believe in the scientific method so that gives me some insight into your beliefs.)

    Also, can you rephrase “Just one question” as a statement? I can do it but I think you should write your own statement.

  18. The discussion can remain here for a while. But 10 days after the post date the comments automatically get turned off. If the spam isn’t too bad I might extend that some if needed.

    As to the “type of truth”, I gave that in the previous thread and gave a link to it: Correspondence and Coherence.

    Sure, it can be rephrased in terms of the implication of the question. “I do not believe there has been even one instance throughout all of human history where legal restrictions on the personal use of handheld weapons have made the general population safer.”

  19. ubu,
    Your wrong-headed stupidity scares me. Mainly because it’s mirrored so sharply in today’s society.
    You think if you ignore our questions that somehow we’ll come around to your way of thinking.
    Even animals have to work for their food. An antelope isn’t going to jump into a cheetah’s mouth just because said cheetah has a need to eat.

    If it becomes necessary to purify air and water, those will have to be paid for.
    you seem to think that because people need food to live, that it’s a basic human right.
    If you feel that strongly, please send me 1/2 of your take home pay.

    you have the right to feed those who can’t or wont feed themselves.
    you DON’T have the right to demand I pay for your generosity.

    Barak Obama, who has been on the public payroll most of his life, has no right to demand that my grandchildren pay the bill for him to bail out the banks, for him to buy votes from the poor with money I had to work for, he basically has sold my great grandchildren into slavery, to hopefully buy himself a pitiful bare majority of votes next election.

    He and you, should fund these beliefs out of your own wallets, not mine.

Comments are closed.