Determinism Refuted Theologically

[Ringtone]

 

[justinacolmena]

It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters. —Edmund Burke

That's why liberal gun-grabbing cops deal drugs and alcohol so freely.

 

[Gdjjr]

Does ring tone understand the difference between inalienable and unalienable?

 

[Ringtone]

Does ring tone understand the difference between inalienable and unalienable?

They are interchangeable in terms of etymology and meaning, and inalienable is the more common term since the early Nineteenth Century. Jefferson, by the way, in the Declaration of Independence, uses unalienable, though in earlier drafts he used inalienable to denote the same idea about the inherent rights of natural law.

 

[Gdjjr]

They are interchangeable in terms of etymology and meaning,

Not really- the SC made clear, inalienable rights are privileges and immunities of citizens- that makes them tangible- unalienable rights are not tangible, thus Jefferson's use of it in the final writing where the words were, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness vs, Life, Property and the pursuit of Happiness- property being tangible.

 

[Ringtone]

They are interchangeable in terms of etymology and meaning,

Not really- the SC made clear, inalienable rights are privileges and immunities of citizens- that makes them tangible- unalienable rights are not tangible, thus Jefferson's use of it in the final writing where the words were, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness vs, Life, Property and the pursuit of Happiness- property being tangible.

False.

The matter is significantly more complex than your post would suggest.

First, your juxtaposition Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness vs Life, Property and the pursuit of Happiness is redundant and nonsensical. Pursuit of happiness entails the inherent rights regarding private property. There's no this vs. that.

The inherent right is intangible, only the practical, material means thereof are tangible.

Pursuit of happiness is a term of art that was widely used and understood in the 17th Century to entail the inherent rights of property, indeed, predicated on the very first principle thereof, namely, the ownership of one's own self or life. It's derived from John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding in which he argues that "the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness." He expounded on this in A Letter Concerning Toleration, in which he asserts, as a self-evident imperative, that the purpose of government is to preserve/protect the individual's civil interests, which in this work he defined as "life, liberty, health, indolency of body and the possession of outward things".

Hence, in natural law, property entails both the tangible and intangible.

Locke most exhaustively expounds the triadic of natural law in Two Treatises of Civil Government wherein he establishes their ontological justification and then expounds the attending principles of limited government and private labor, which, generally, goes to the inherent right of persons to be secure in the fruits of their labor. Here he flatly asserts that the only legitimate purpose of government under God is to protect property, which entails a person's "life, liberty, and estate." In practical terms this imperative delineates the necessary duties of civil government regarding the general welfare of the body politic under the social contract of consent relative to the voluntary exchanges of charity and commerce. Regarding the latter, which Locke also touches on in A Letter Concerning Toleration, the state may be legitimately empowered by the people to tax a reasonable portion of such voluntary exchanges in proportion to the general expense of the attending infrastructure. In other words, the direct appropriation and redistribution of private assets by the state beyond the voluntary exchanges of commerce is a direct violation of natural law.

Jefferson's original draft, which was subsequently revised by The Committee of Five and by the whole Congress, respectively, reads, "We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness" (emphasis mine). Unalienable was not Jefferson's original term at all, but that of the whole Congress pursuant to the more commonly used term of the time.

Once again, unalienable and inalienable are synonymous terms and, therefore, interchangeable, and inalienable has been the more commonly used term beginning, roughly, in the latter half of the Nineteenth Century in American English.

The rights of natural law are inherent, inalienable/unalienable. They cannot be given, taken or transferred. They can only be illegitimately suppressed.

With regard to the DoI, the Founders delineated the distinction between the three aspects of the inherent rights of property: (1) the ownership of one's own self or life, (2) the ownership of one's own actions and expressions, which entails the principles of free-association and self-determination (i.e., liberty), and (3) the ownership of the fruits of one's labor. That's all. The inherent right to and the attending rights of private property are intangible. It's only the material means thereof that are tangible. Within the context of the social contract, a reasonable portion of these means may be legitimately taxed for the general welfare of the people, howbeit, as derived from the voluntary exchanges of commerce.

The direct taxation and redistribution of property beyond the voluntary exchanges of commerce is the statist bullshit of European governance, indeed, of the world at large. That albatross was foisted on America by progressives in 1913.

As for your assertion in the above. . . .

Are you alluding to some distinction stipulated in the state constitution of South Carolina? If so, I cannot speak to that without more information. I couldn't find anything about it on the internet.

In general, however, contemporary leftists obscure the academic and historic distinction between civil rights (positive rights) and civil liberties (negative rights), often using the terms interchangeably. Civil rights proper go to political privileges and immunities. Civil liberties proper go to the inherent rights of natural law.

 

[james bond]

Determinism sounds like KCA in that every event has a cause and that everything in the universe is absolutely dependent on and governed by causal laws.

However, determinists believe that all events, including human actions, are caused by something else so there is no free will. Bzzz. Wrong.

Human actions can be caused by free will.

 

[Gdjjr]

The matter is significantly more complex than your post would suggest.

You're making it more complex than necessary- it ain't rocket science-

The SC ruled that inalienable rights are privileges and immunities afforded citizens- privileges and immunities are granted and can be taken- unalienable rights can only be restricted or ignored.

To interchange the words interchanges the meaning(s)- words mean things, or they don't.

 

[Ringtone]

The matter is significantly more complex than your post would suggest.

You're making it more complex than necessary- it ain't rocket science-

The SC ruled that inalienable rights are privileges and immunities afforded citizens- privileges and immunities are granted and can be taken- unalienable rights can only be restricted or ignored.

To interchange the words interchanges the meaning(s)- words mean things, or they don't.

Well, actually, you initially wrote that "the SC made clear. . . ." I wasn't sure what you were alluding to exactly. I thought perhaps your expression entailed an unwitting typo, and, afterall, there are 50 other supreme courts in the US. SCOTUS is the proper abbreviation. While there is in fact a distinction between secondary privileges and immunities, and the fundamental rights of natural and constitutional law, I've never heard of such a distinction in terms of inalienable vs unalienable. In any event, if SCOTUS made such a distinction in case law, it would entail a specific context other than the historic etymology of the terms.

You're being silly and argumentative when you write that "[t]o interchange the words interchanges the meaning(s)- words mean things, or they don't."

Of course words have meanings! They also have contexts. The terms are historically, contextually and politically synonymous and interchangeable as I have incontrovertibly shown, as anyone can objectively verify from even the most cursory investigation, this alternate context you're alleging, real or imagine, notwithstanding!

Hence, there's clearly something going on here that you've yet to account for. It's abundantly manifest that you're in error when you argue that Jefferson came down on the term unalienable, when, of course, it was not he, but the whole Congress that revised his verbiage and adopted the final draft . . . before SCOTUS existed. LOL!

The are a number of glaring inconsistencies in your account.

What case are you talking about? Let's have the link, the specifics.

 

[Gdjjr]

What case are you talking about? Let's have the link, the specifics.

I can't find it- it was posted here, several times, by another poster who is no longer here- the words were quite clear- inalienable rights of privileges and immunities- privileges and immunities can be given, therefore taken- that makes them tangible- unalienable rights are inherent, therefore not tangible and can only be restricted or ignored- I've read all the arguments which don't clarify or change my mind, but do excuse, so, what possible intent do you feel I could have defending unalienable rights? Like I said, you're making the simple complicated- it ain't.

 

[ding]

What case are you talking about? Let's have the link, the specifics.

I can't find it- it was posted here, several times, by another poster who is no longer here- the words were quite clear- inalienable rights of privileges and immunities- privileges and immunities can be given, therefore taken- that makes them tangible- unalienable rights are inherent, therefore not tangible and can only be restricted or ignored- I've read all the arguments which don't clarify or change my mind, but do excuse, so, what possible intent do you feel I could have defending unalienable rights? Like I said, you're making the simple complicated- it ain't.

I'm with RT on this. They are interchangeable. The Founding Fathers believed our rights were conditional as long as we met our duties and obligations to the Creator. So did Locke.

 

[Ringtone]

What case are you talking about? Let's have the link, the specifics.

I can't find it- it was posted here, several times, by another poster who is no longer here- the words were quite clear- inalienable rights of privileges and immunities- privileges and immunities can be given, therefore taken- that makes them tangible- unalienable rights are inherent, therefore not tangible and can only be restricted or ignored- I've read all the arguments which don't clarify or change my mind, but do excuse, so, what possible intent do you feel I could have defending unalienable rights? Like I said, you're making the simple complicated- it ain't.

Nonsense! I made your logical and historical errors manifest. I debunked your tangled weave of logical and historical inconsistencies, and set you straight. You're still being silly and argumentative, trying to make the simple, indeed, the obvious, obscure. It's manifest to all that you're dissembling, moreover, that you have failed to provide any coherent account, let alone any substantive grounds, for your claims. The historic, etymological and political context of their interchangeability stands and stays. That is incontrovertible. If the distinction you're alleging exists in case law, it obviously exists in an alternate context. End of discussion.