Liberals! Where Is Your Self-Respect??

[NYcarbineer]

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. Let’s 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 nature’s 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?

Let's stick to free speech.


"So how do rights exist, as actions in the real world, without government to protect them?"

By following the only set of rules the people have consented to be governed by, the United States Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A government of the people is still a government. A government charged with protecting free speech can also be a government charged with punishing unprotected speech.

 

[ilia25]

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".

That's what fascinates me about conservatives -- their deep mistrust of democracy. They fear that the majority will take away their rights at the first opportunity.

They don't understand, that democracy -- not Constitutions or Declarations, nor any other pieces of paper -- is the only protection that they ever had, or ever will have.

 

[neomalthusian]

That's what fascinates me about conservatives -- their deep mistrust of democracy. They fear that the majority will take away their rights at the first opportunity.

Do you think the majority should vote the wealthy minority's property away from them? Look around. At least half the country says "hell yeah!"

They don't understand, that democracy -- not Constitutions or Declarations, nor any other pieces of paper -- is the only protection that they ever had, or ever will have.

The rule of law does still supersede what a majority of Americans thinks at any one given time. It changes gradually (the law I mean), but it's not "democracy" which protects people day to day. Get real. Its the law and those the public employs to enforce it.

But the rights of the people are not merely a function of how good of a job the law and its enforcement does guarding them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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".

That's what fascinates me about conservatives -- their deep mistrust of democracy. They fear that the majority will take away their rights at the first opportunity.

They don't understand, that democracy -- not Constitutions or Declarations, nor any other pieces of paper -- is the only protection that they ever had, or ever will have.

You view, of course, is based on your lack of understanding.

Judge Robert Bork, the intellectual godfather of originalism, explains that the “problem for constitutional law has always been the solution of the Madisonian dilemma, that neither the majority nor the minority can be trusted to define the proper spheres of democratic authority and individual liberty.” Bork states that the role of a judge is to solve this dilemma by setting the proper ground rules on when the majority and when the minority should rule, and that following the intentions of the framers and treating the Constitution like law will satisfy the dilemma, and constrain judges.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Let's stick to free speech.


"So how do rights exist, as actions in the real world, without government to protect them?"

By following the only set of rules the people have consented to be governed by, the United States Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A government of the people is still a government. A government charged with protecting free speech can also be a government charged with punishing unprotected speech.

The government is only legitimate so long as it follows the Constitution.

What should be the fate of an illegitimate government?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

That's because you have no sense of what it means to be an American.

 

[ilia25]

That's what fascinates me about conservatives -- their deep mistrust of democracy. They fear that the majority will take away their rights at the first opportunity.

Do you think the majority should vote the wealthy minority's property away from them? Look around. At least half the country says "hell yeah!"

That's the kind of paranoia I was talking about.

They don't understand, that democracy -- not Constitutions or Declarations, nor any other pieces of paper -- is the only protection that they ever had, or ever will have.

The rule of law does still supersede what a majority of Americans thinks at any one given time.

The majority makes the laws. There are procedures in place to filter out the noise (as they should be), but ultimately the majority gets the laws it wants.

 

[neomalthusian]

That's what fascinates me about conservatives -- their deep mistrust of democracy. They fear that the majority will take away their rights at the first opportunity.

Do you think the majority should vote the wealthy minority's property away from them? Look around. At least half the country says "hell yeah!"

That's the kind of paranoia I was talking about.

Paranoia? Where the hell do you live? Liberals are foaming at the mouth over that issue. Take a peek around the forum, even. Jesus, don't go into denial mode over this point.

 

[ilia25]

Do you think the majority should vote the wealthy minority's property away from them? Look around. At least half the country says "hell yeah!"

That's the kind of paranoia I was talking about.

Paranoia? Where the hell do you live? Liberals are foaming at the mouth over that issue. Take a peek around the forum, even. Jesus, don't go into denial mode over this point.

There is a not-so-subtle difference between requiring people to pay taxes and taking away their property.

 

[ilia25]

Let's stick to free speech.


"So how do rights exist, as actions in the real world, without government to protect them?"

By following the only set of rules the people have consented to be governed by, the United States Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A government of the people is still a government. A government charged with protecting free speech can also be a government charged with punishing unprotected speech.

The government is only legitimate so long as it follows the Constitution.

Nope. Being elected by the people gives the legitimacy to the government -- and that legitimacy includes the right to change laws and Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's stick to free speech.


"So how do rights exist, as actions in the real world, without government to protect them?"

By following the only set of rules the people have consented to be governed by, the United States Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A government of the people is still a government. A government charged with protecting free speech can also be a government charged with punishing unprotected speech.

The government is only legitimate so long as it follows the Constitution.

So abortion is a God given right, since abortion is a right established by our Constitution, and our Constitution has its roots, in part and principle, in the Declaration of Independence.

At least that is what a believer in the idea of God given rights would conclude.

 

[koshergrl]

No, unfortunately abortion is a human rights violation.

Sucks to be you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why do you say she's wrong, then repeat exactly what she said?

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.

"How can a people who have struggled long years under oppression throw off their oppressors and establish a free society? The problems are immense, but their solution lies in the education and enlightenment of the people and the emergence of a spirit that will serve as a foundation for independence and self-government."
Thomas Jefferson


What do you suppose he meant by a 'free society'?

"...the emergence of a spirit that will serve as a foundation for independence and self-government."


This election documents the loss of that spirit.

Jefferson was part of the armed rebellion against a government that was based on the belief that its ruler, and his heirs possessed a divine right to rule,

or put another way,

their ruler and his heirs were endowed by their Creator with the inalienable right to rule.

Which humans get to decide which position is God's real position?

...the winners of human wars.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, unfortunately abortion is a human rights violation.

Sucks to be you.

Says who? Which humans get to tell God which rights he endorses?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Yes there are.

Do you dispute the right of the innocent people of the city of Hiroshima not to be annihilated in 1945?

No.

You're declaring them.

I'm acknowledging them as self-evident and universal.

So why did the people of Hiroshima die, if they had a right to life? Did the US commit one of the single biggest human rights violation in history on that day in 1945?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

That's because you have no sense of what it means to be an American.

What does it mean to have an inalienable right to life?

 

[koshergrl]

It means every person has it, and nobody has the right to take it from them.

See, progressives don't like this stuff. They don't like human rights period, and they don't like the idea that people can be born with something they don't have the right to take from them.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

I read the first sentence of the OP, started laughing and then moved on.

 

[AmericanFirst]

in your OPs the evil traitor is always the LIBERAL.

thanks for your 2 min hate.

Maybe because liberals are the evil haters.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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 yoru 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...

This is largely to support their disproportionately large gubmint dependent minority populations, and said earmarks are largely the doing of the Liberals.

You have failed.


LOL

She always fails.