Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
the idea that a citizen has no rights. None- except for whatever scraps the elites believe they can have.
Are you forgetting about something? Like democracy, which let the people -- not elites -- to decide on the rights issues?
the idea that a citizen has no rights. None- except for whatever scraps the elites believe they can have.
Are you forgetting about something? Like democracy, which let the people -- not elites -- to decide on the rights issues?
Our rights (the inalienable ones, not the social entitlements which are not in fact "rights") are not decided upon democratically OR by the elites. That would subject them to alienability.
A woman says,
I'm going to have an abortion because it's my God given right.
But, this woman lives in a conservative governed America where the Constitution has been amended to make all abortion illegal.
What happens then?
Introducing the most complicated moral dilemma of all time has a bit of an obfuscating effect on the discussion, wouldn't you say?
It makes good sense to differentiate, say, my "right" to "my" Medicare and social security from my right to not be literally enslaved to another person, my right not to be robbed, my right not to be killed (unless by due process). The latter are rights. The former are little promises/entitlements conjured up to address a perceived social issue. One is more fundamental than another. You're just trying to poke holes in that discussion.
For real: are you saying we only have rights when a government is in place that confirms it?
There are no such thing as God given rights.
That's fine, please just answer my question. Do we have any rights to our lives, to protect ourselves and our families and our properties, etc. as a natural state of being human, or do we only have them when a government establishes a law acknowledging and protecting them?
I think people living in a state of anarchy do have rights and that those rights can be violated even though there's no government or justice system to declare it a violation.
the idea that a citizen has no rights. None- except for whatever scraps the elites believe they can have.
Are you forgetting about something? Like democracy, which let the people -- not elites -- to decide on the rights issues?
Our rights (the inalienable ones, not the social entitlements which are not in fact "rights") are not decided upon democratically OR by the elites. That would subject them to alienability.
When you peel back the onion, all they really care about is the free gubmint stuff.
once again for you lying loons...
red states take more money from the feds than they put in
blue states put in more money than they take...
tell ya what.. stop living off of OUR dime.
thanks for playing.
now please go back to collecting your government check and using our government medical services.... while you drive on government roads and use government-subsidized gasoline... and eat government subsidized farm products...
You know you only confuse them with FACTS.
It makes good sense to differentiate, say, my "right" to "my" Medicare and social security from my right to not be literally enslaved to another person, my right not to be robbed, my right not to be killed (unless by due process). The latter are rights. The former are little promises/entitlements conjured up to address a perceived social issue. One is more fundamental than another. You're just trying to poke holes in that discussion.
For real: are you saying we only have rights when a government is in place that confirms it?
If there's no government, what are rights? They're just something you'd like to have,
Not just me, but people universally. No one disputes one's right not to be murdered, assaulted, etc. It's so widely recognized that we feel them as inherent to being alive. We ask a government to help us uphold/protect/defend/enforce laws about them because we recognize them as rights already, as natural, psychological and undeniable, not just legal/administrative. There is no government needed for us to sense and KNOW we have these rights. They're THAT fundamental and universal.
Maybe you're having a hard time grasping it because you're lumping too many entitlements/positive rights in with the fundamental/natural/negative ones?
Abortion is a violation of human rights.
As NYC knows. That's why progressives pretend killing is a human right, while at the same time maintaining human rights are meaningless.
Abortion is a violation of human rights.
As NYC knows. That's why progressives pretend killing is a human right, while at the same time maintaining human rights are meaningless.
When I added the OP, [http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/267192-liberals-where-you-went-wrong.html ] I noted what I believed would be the most antagonistic aspect of Progressive doctrine the idea that a citizen has no rights.
Once again you're misinterpreting what was said. There are no such thing as "natural rights". In the natural world the only rights you have are those you're able to fight for. In our world we create associations, usually called governments, to fight for those rights. The problem you seem to be having is that you regard all such associations as "the other", there to either hand you something or take something away. I prefer to see our democratic institutions as "us", not perfect of course, but not "the other". If you see them that way, who's doing the fighting to make sure your rights are observed?
It makes good sense to differentiate, say, my "right" to "my" Medicare and social security from my right to not be literally enslaved to another person, my right not to be robbed, my right not to be killed (unless by due process). The latter are rights. The former are little promises/entitlements conjured up to address a perceived social issue. One is more fundamental than another. You're just trying to poke holes in that discussion.
For real: are you saying we only have rights when a government is in place that confirms it?
There are no such thing as God given rights.
That's fine, please just answer my question. Do we have any rights to our lives, to protect ourselves and our families and our properties, etc. as a natural state of being human, or do we only have them when a government establishes a law acknowledging and protecting them?
I think people living in a state of anarchy do have rights and that those rights can be violated even though there's no government or justice system to declare it a violation.
When I added the OP, [http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/267192-liberals-where-you-went-wrong.html ] I noted what I believed would be the most antagonistic aspect of Progressive doctrine the idea that a citizen has no rights.
Once again you're misinterpreting what was said. There are no such thing as "natural rights". In the natural world the only rights you have are those you're able to fight for. In our world we create associations, usually called governments, to fight for those rights. The problem you seem to be having is that you regard all such associations as "the other", there to either hand you something or take something away. I prefer to see our democratic institutions as "us", not perfect of course, but not "the other". If you see them that way, who's doing the fighting to make sure your rights are observed?
1. Are you a supporter of freedom to speak one's mind?
2. Do you agree with Justice Kagan:
In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Obama's Supreme Court Justice Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government. : "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Do you understand the implication for newspapers, tv, etc,?
If you acquiesce to the above....I contend that you have no self-respect.
If we had any self respect, we would avoid your threads.
They're like cocaine....aren't they.
Got a PC-jones, don't ya'?
Why do you say she's wrong, then repeat exactly what she said?Once again you're misinterpreting what was said. There are no such thing as "natural rights". In the natural world the only rights you have are those you're able to fight for. In our world we create associations, usually called governments, to fight for those rights. The problem you seem to be having is that you regard all such associations as "the other", there to either hand you something or take something away. I prefer to see our democratic institutions as "us", not perfect of course, but not "the other". If you see them that way, who's doing the fighting to make sure your rights are observed?
You believe people have no rights unless they're granted by government.
This is wrong.
There's a difference between thinking you have a right and being able to exercise that right.
it also does not help you one bit if you have a right but cannot enforce it.
Are you forgetting about something? Like democracy, which let the people -- not elites -- to decide on the rights issues?
Our rights (the inalienable ones, not the social entitlements which are not in fact "rights") are not decided upon democratically OR by the elites. That would subject them to alienability.
There are no such rights.
Do you dispute the right of the innocent people of the city of Hiroshima not to be annihilated in 1945?
You're declaring them.
When I added the OP, [http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/267192-liberals-where-you-went-wrong.html ] I noted what I believed would be the most antagonistic aspect of Progressive doctrine the idea that a citizen has no rights. None- except for whatever scraps the elites believe they can have.
Here:
"For over a century the natural rights concept of the Founders, and of Abraham Lincoln, had served as the philosophical foundation for America. But, during the late 19th -early 20th centuries, what we know as progressives repudiated the idea. A leading progressive, John Dewey: Natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythology and social zoology.
Dewey, Liberalism and Social Action, p. 17.
a. Charles Merriam: The individualistic ideas of the natural rights school of political theory, endorsed in the Revolution, are discredited and repudiated.
Merriam, A History of American Political Theories, p. 307.
3. Lets be clear: the central doctrine of progressives is that government can withdraw any right at any time, as opposed to the view that there are permanent rights founded in nature and natures God. Perhaps you recall it this way: that humans are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights.
a. "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523: You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.
b. In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Obama's Supreme Court Justice Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government. : "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
There were a fairly large number of replies .none of those Liberals, or Progressives, or Obama supporters, challenged the idea!
Is there not ANY contumely Leftists will not recoil from??
No .rather, they accepted the role of a slave, a dog .sitting up and begging, inured to the characterization!! Yes master, please, may I speak? Or even dream?
Among those trained, schooled, conditioned....and, yes, brainwashed....there is no self-respect, no demand that they be acknowledged to be worth something as an individual.
Disheartening.
Disgusting.
The warnings weren't enough:
"As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed on to the screen. There were hisses here and there among the audience. Goldstein was the renegade and backslider who once, long ago (how long ago nobody quite remembered), had been one of the leading figures of the Party, almost on a level with BIG BROTHER himself, and then had engaged in counter-revolutionary activities, had been condemned to death and had mysteriously escaped and disappeared.
The programmes of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party's purity."
Orwell
Ok, so a woman has a natural right to an abortion, BUT,
if she does not have a government to protect her exercise of that right, she could be penalized severely for having an abortion by another government that did not agree with the concept of natural rights.
So how do rights exist, as actions in the real world, without government to protect them?
I define the core of self-respect to be the unwillingness to lie to one's self, I know I do not have all the answers, I know that I may even be wrong on many points as I have been wrong in the past, but one thing I am sure of, I have never been wrong in my refusal to hang on to treasured beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I think for myself, I do not automatically accept the opinions of the often self appointed "liberal" leaders and make them my own and I certainly have grown out of the trap of being a political reactionary because that only makes a person easy to control.
That point leads to another core of self-respect: self-control. Political reactionaries such as yourself lack self control or else they would not be reactionaries. Many here might read some sketchy blog post about some hated opposition leader bent on dastardly deeds and terrible goals and just accept it and then rush here to repost it for all to react mindlessly to, we see it all day here, an entire Internet industry devoted to shoveling likely sounding garbage into the minds people who do not have the self control to not react to things in a knee-jerk fashion.
You ask where is my self-respect? It's there every time to brutally examine and re-examine every single piece of information that goes into what is collectively called my belief system, it's there every time someone wants to me mindlessly react to some piece of shitty propaganda and it's especially there whenever someone wants me to be afraid and controllable rather than courageous and true to myself. Where the hell is your self-respect? I doubt you have ever put as much thought into it as I have writing these three paragraphs, never mind the lifetime I have spent sifting through the garbage looking for what is true and correct in the world.
Better starve free than be a fat slave.
Aesop
Psst. Can I let you in on a little secret PC? It isn't the government taking our rights away. It is your beloved corporations buying legislation and elections, and chipping away at your rights bit by bit. Hell, now they have even bought our electoral process. THEY now decide who the candidates are that us silly peasants "get" to vote for. If you think the sad, embarrasing but obvious butt-kissing of your corporate overlords will somehow grant you *by magic* more, freedoms, then you have another think coming. But I won't give your intelligence the credit it requires to figure this out...
PS. Maybe if you went out and got a job or hobby or something, you wouldn't feel the need to regurgitate hateful, silly, incorrect right-wing "philosophers" (a delicious oxymoron, I know) all day on this message board. Just a suggestion.
Lunch is over. Back to work.
When I added the OP, [http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/267192-liberals-where-you-went-wrong.html ] I noted what I believed would be the most antagonistic aspect of Progressive doctrine the idea that a citizen has no rights.
Once again you're misinterpreting what was said. There are no such thing as "natural rights". In the natural world the only rights you have are those you're able to fight for. In our world we create associations, usually called governments, to fight for those rights. The problem you seem to be having is that you regard all such associations as "the other", there to either hand you something or take something away. I prefer to see our democratic institutions as "us", not perfect of course, but not "the other". If you see them that way, who's doing the fighting to make sure your rights are observed?
1. Are you a supporter of freedom to speak one's mind?
2. Do you agree with Justice Kagan:
In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Obama's Supreme Court Justice Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government. : "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Do you understand the implication for newspapers, tv, etc,?
If you acquiesce to the above....I contend that you have no self-respect.
