undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrayiner3mo ago0 comments

Rights can be inalienable but not universal. These rights are conferred by the government, but arise by virtue of membership in a body politic. For example, the right to vote isn’t universal but the government can’t take it away. Free speech arises out of America’s Anglo history and tradition and was viewed by the founders as a political right that protects democracy. There is nothing inconsistent about saying that this right is inalienable for citizens, but doesn’t extend to visitors who aren’t members of our body politic and aren’t entitled to participate in our democracy anyway.

0 comments

scarecrowbob3mo ago

The people you're describing found it consistent with liberty to own other humans, so forgive me if I am skeptical.

I understand your point, I just have a different theory of rights. Just because something is logically conistent doesn't mean I agree with the starting premises.

Personally, are any of your beliefs or statements things that could ban you for entry into the US? Because I have quite a few things that I have said on social media which would likely prevent my entry. It certainly doesn't make me feel like a "member of a body politic" when that body treats my beliefs as intrusive and foreign.

rayinerOP3mo ago

I’m not trying to persuade you about the premises, but only that—as a result of those premises—the slippery slope you fear is longer than you assume. For people who draw fundamental inside/outside distinctions, things that are intolerable for outsiders to say are tolerable for insiders to say.

I view America as a hot cup of coffee, and the outside world as lukewarm day old coffee. I’m not worried about how hot or cold individual molecules inside America are—the average will work out. My concern is about dumping lukewarm coffee from the outside into the cup.

scarecrowbob3mo ago

I know you're not trying to convince me, and fortunately many of us see and have taken note of the ambient racism in your position. I understand your point because it is and has been broadcast to me everywhere I have lived in the US.

As a person looking for a cool drink of water, or who might be okay with drinking an iced coffee as the world burns, I am more concerned that the people I live around think that I should be prevented from drinking as I choose. And that's something that has happened here, often, historically, in other places, with many people.

So you can tell me that my concern isn't warranted; I get that all the time. It starts with "you're being hyperbolic" and ends with "well, we are glad they are gone because they weren't 'real people' anyhow."

The reality is that I'm not being hyperbolic in my concern.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsrayiner3mo ago0 comments

0 comments

scarecrowbob3mo ago

The people you're describing found it consistent with liberty to own other humans, so forgive me if I am skeptical.

I understand your point, I just have a different theory of rights. Just because something is logically conistent doesn't mean I agree with the starting premises.

rayinerOP3mo ago

scarecrowbob3mo ago

The reality is that I'm not being hyperbolic in my concern.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse