Listening to Paul Ryan

I have to say I can't really agree with that. Rights appear to be a construct of society.

That was the entire point of America to begin with. That no society would be created that would deprive someone of God given rights. As we forget that and shift the benefit of rights to the government we are losing them.

It might be because you are conflating our horde of created rights with the rights that come from the Creator. Freedom of Speech is a constructed right. Freedom of religion is a constructed right. The right to a trial by jury isn't a natural right. It's a created right.

Natural rights given by the Creator include the right to be let alone. To be able to rise or fall on their own merits. The right to order their own affairs. Drafts of the Declaration of Independence show that originally it said Life, Liberty and Property. It was later changed to pursuit of happiness. It should have stayed the way it was.

There is no such thing as a ‘created right,’ fundamental rights are natural and innate: the right to free expression, the right to privacy, the right of self-determination, to marry, to vote, to have children no not. The Constitution and its case law create a framework balancing the interests of the state and individual.

The 14th Amendment, essentially a codification of the doctrine of inalienable rights, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, is the engine which drives the mechanics of the Constitution ensuring a consistent application of individual liberties among all jurisdictions. That all persons will enjoy due process of the law, both procedural and substantive, and that all persons will enjoy equal protection of the law.

The Constitution both acknowledges the existence of inalienable rights and, just as importantly, ensures the process by which those rights may be expressed freely by the individual.

While there are inalienable rights, the right to free expression, privacy, to marry or have children aren't among those rights. Those are rights found in the Constitution. That doesn't mean they are inalienable. It means they are Constitutional.
 
I have to say I can't really agree with that. Rights appear to be a construct of society.

That was the entire point of America to begin with. That no society would be created that would deprive someone of God given rights. As we forget that and shift the benefit of rights to the government we are losing them.

It might be because you are conflating our horde of created rights with the rights that come from the Creator. Freedom of Speech is a constructed right. Freedom of religion is a constructed right. The right to a trial by jury isn't a natural right. It's a created right.

Natural rights given by the Creator include the right to be let alone. To be able to rise or fall on their own merits. The right to order their own affairs. Drafts of the Declaration of Independence show that originally it said Life, Liberty and Property. It was later changed to pursuit of happiness. It should have stayed the way it was.

There is no such thing as a ‘created right,’ fundamental rights are natural and innate: the right to free expression, the right to privacy, the right of self-determination, to marry, to vote, to have children no not. The Constitution and its case law create a framework balancing the interests of the state and individual.

The 14th Amendment, essentially a codification of the doctrine of inalienable rights, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, is the engine which drives the mechanics of the Constitution ensuring a consistent application of individual liberties among all jurisdictions. That all persons will enjoy due process of the law, both procedural and substantive, and that all persons will enjoy equal protection of the law.

The Constitution both acknowledges the existence of inalienable rights and, just as importantly, ensures the process by which those rights may be expressed freely by the individual.

Utter nonsense. Rights are created by society.
 
Household incomes have dropped by more than $4,000 over the past four years.

Whatever the explanations, whatever the excuses, this is a record of failure.

All the while corporations have record earnings, yet only want to work you part time, lowered pay and increased the workload. I don't think the president controls wages or corporate hiring policy.
Plus, the same thing happened during reagan, not to mention inflation.
 
That was the entire point of America to begin with. That no society would be created that would deprive someone of God given rights. As we forget that and shift the benefit of rights to the government we are losing them.

It might be because you are conflating our horde of created rights with the rights that come from the Creator. Freedom of Speech is a constructed right. Freedom of religion is a constructed right. The right to a trial by jury isn't a natural right. It's a created right.

Natural rights given by the Creator include the right to be let alone. To be able to rise or fall on their own merits. The right to order their own affairs. Drafts of the Declaration of Independence show that originally it said Life, Liberty and Property. It was later changed to pursuit of happiness. It should have stayed the way it was.

There is no such thing as a ‘created right,’ fundamental rights are natural and innate: the right to free expression, the right to privacy, the right of self-determination, to marry, to vote, to have children no not. The Constitution and its case law create a framework balancing the interests of the state and individual.

The 14th Amendment, essentially a codification of the doctrine of inalienable rights, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, is the engine which drives the mechanics of the Constitution ensuring a consistent application of individual liberties among all jurisdictions. That all persons will enjoy due process of the law, both procedural and substantive, and that all persons will enjoy equal protection of the law.

The Constitution both acknowledges the existence of inalienable rights and, just as importantly, ensures the process by which those rights may be expressed freely by the individual.

Utter nonsense. Rights are created by society.

No kidding! It st the people of the nation which determine thier rights. god didn't so it, cause the monarchies have said the same about thier reason to rule.
 
In his book In Search of Self Governance, pollster Scott Rassmussen made an excellent case for the original concept of American government. And his ongoing polling data backs up everything Ryan was saying summarized in this short essay:

Excerpt:
Put it all together, and it's easy to understand why 66 percent believe that the best thing government could do to help the economy is cut spending. Americans have come to view the government as a burden that is weighing down the economy and the nation.

This is not an anti-government attitude, it's simply a desire to have government play its proper role in society. Too many politicians, from both political parties, believe the government's job is to run the country. A healthier view is to recognize that our government was designed to play a support role rather than take the lead.

As I wrote in my book "In Search of Self-Governance," the American people do not want to be governed from the left, the right or the center. They want to govern themselves.
The Heavy Burden of Government - Rasmussen Reports™

While I'm confident that the majority of people from my generation and prior hold this view, I wonder if that sentiment will continue in the younger generations...they've been so coddled and have an expectation of entitlements. The American spirit has been of a fighting and rebellious nature, but there is something appealing to many about just giving in and letting someone else fight the fight on your behalf. I'm afraid a few generations will have to experience some real loss of freedoms before there comes a new bunch to wake up and have that fire in their belly.
 
IF we really have come to a point where people honestly believe that our rights are given or withheld by government, we don't have a country left anymore. We have moved government back to beyond even the Magna Carta, to the point where rights were at the whim of the King.

The government doesn't enforce rights. The government is and always was, to protect the natural, God given rights of the people.

The blame obviously lies with poor quality public school education and indoctrination. It's the comfort zone of the Totalitarian Statist Progressive, to think the Sun rises and sets by their decree. :)...... :lmao: I think we need to find a new Baby Sitter. :)

:lmao:

Right you are. Although, I do not think we need a change in babysitter. We dont need a babysitter at all. We need a solid "referee" system to protect each of our rights equally. Progressives believe much differently.

Hardly, I believe that govt. has over reached it's authority, but not just at the fed level, the sates and local muincpalities are doing it. The police state which is out to protect you from yourself is a joke, a bad joke.
 
If life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights granted by the Creator, a quick question...........

Does that mean that people in places like China, N. Korea, Iran, Syria, etc. were never created by the Creator? I mean, if those rights are granted to all humans, then the people in those places must be something less than human because they don't have the right to life (can be killed by govt troops for no reason like in Syria where they are exterminating Sunnis), liberty (you can't go where you want to in N. Korea or Iran), or the pursuit of happiness?

Are people in those countries less than human, or just lacking a relationship with the Creator? And, if they're lacking a relationship with the Creator, why did He abandon them?
 
It's very simple. If you believe that your rights come from the government you are not a free person. You are a subject or a slave. You will never own property because the right to own that property comes from the government. You will never be able to advance because the right to advance comes from the government. You can't amass wealth because the government has the rights to all that wealth and you can't have any more than the government lets you have.

Rights come from God, the government's proper role is to protect those rights. Protect does not mean create. It is unfortunate that so many individuals prefer to believe that rights come from the government and a person can have no more or less than what the government allows.

I have to say I can't really agree with that. Rights appear to be a construct of society.
I would agree that rights are a construct of society. Does an unborn child have the same rights as a human being? That's a question to be resolved by the standards of the community expressed through the legislative process. The issue of whether or not a diety views an unborn child as a human being is irrelevant, given the separation of church and state.

In the same way that Natural Disasters are Irrelevant to your Social Schedule, I guess. ;)
There is cause and effect, consequence, no matter how well one can hide. No surprise that those whom don't believe in God do not believe in Unalienable Rights though. So, I guess, that for those, that believe in Government being the final word, Slavery, the Class System, is good and fine. For you, there is no Justice outside of the will of Government, no right and wrong, unless the State rules on it, right. Good to know. Morality, Ethics, all through the guidance of the Dictators. That is what they are, right? That is what you make them, your Deity. For the rest of us, you know every inch will have to be conquered by force.Every time you snooze, you will lose ground. You will never conquer reason.
 
The blame obviously lies with poor quality public school education and indoctrination. It's the comfort zone of the Totalitarian Statist Progressive, to think the Sun rises and sets by their decree. :)...... :lmao: I think we need to find a new Baby Sitter. :)

:lmao:

Right you are. Although, I do not think we need a change in babysitter. We dont need a babysitter at all. We need a solid "referee" system to protect each of our rights equally. Progressives believe much differently.

Hardly, I believe that govt. has over reached it's authority, but not just at the fed level, the sates and local muincpalities are doing it. The police state which is out to protect you from yourself is a joke, a bad joke.

I'm referring to the indoctrination of our kids in Statist Progressive Schools. What are you referring to? Network News? The Nanny State? Tamper Proof Prescription containers? Warning Labels? Frivolous Law Suits? Speed Ticket Cameras? :D Be specific. :)
 
If life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights granted by the Creator, a quick question...........

Does that mean that people in places like China, N. Korea, Iran, Syria, etc. were never created by the Creator? I mean, if those rights are granted to all humans, then the people in those places must be something less than human because they don't have the right to life (can be killed by govt troops for no reason like in Syria where they are exterminating Sunnis), liberty (you can't go where you want to in N. Korea or Iran), or the pursuit of happiness?

Are people in those countries less than human, or just lacking a relationship with the Creator? And, if they're lacking a relationship with the Creator, why did He abandon them?

Those are called abuses, obstructions, Criminal Acts, protected by out of control Totalitarian States. You know that though. The result every time we see the claim of the Utopian Society, Governments denying God, while at the same time trying to take His place. Why is it again that you want to become more like them?
 
I'll try to cover all replies that attempt an answer this time around, if I miss one, reply with post number.

Katzndogz, What are those rights from Gawd? (Tautology) The Rabbi disagreed with your second reply, me too. Name a natural right?

Jillian, Agreed.

C_Clayton_Jones, Agreed, but the rights you outline come within the framework of government and its law. Ryan ruled out government. Other replies, we disagree on 'created rights' as law is always changing what was once assumed as fixed.

Peach174, Your entire answer is about government, you just give a different spin on government. (That could get us somewhere though) Your Second reply: You are using our establishment of government as your guide and 'pursuit' as an outcome, where is the 'right' and from whom?

UScitizen, Don't spoil the ending.

Intense, 'We enforce,' you do realize where that would lead?

Foxfyre, Again you give us government as the answer. Ryan ruled that out. What would a state of nature be? Name its rights?

There4eyeM, So Ryan was just using empty words? But interesting, if being alive is a right is the ACA a right? But then you leave us in your second reply with no real grounding?

Bill Angel, Another vote against Ryan's rhetoric?

TakeAStepBack, (replies) You are assuming roles of the government. Seems the more this goes on the less votes Ryan gets. Own yourself? A 'right' of person-hood, since I own myself can I pick my parents? No one told me. Kings are the reason we have government, and unless I'm mistaken, Ryan's livelihood comes solely from government, is he a groveler?

Moonglow, Another nah for Ryan?

Sherry, I sorta agree with you but for a different reason, I see many privileged children, mostly conservative republicans born with a silver spoon who have a real sense of entitlement, I see lots of the less privileged who have no sense of the reality of life. But this is off topic.

ABikerSailor, Bulls-eye.

Intense, So how do you account for much of our history and those theocratic nations who grant rights based on their religious texts? If they are wrong could this tell us something?

From the above comments Paul Ryan said something that cannot be anything more than empty rhetoric, that is always the case with extremists of any flavor.

So can we conclude 'rights' don't exist outside of government and society? Anyone else care to tackle the question?
 
I'll try to cover all replies that attempt an answer this time around, if I miss one, reply with post number.

Katzndogz, What are those rights from Gawd? (Tautology) The Rabbi disagreed with your second reply, me too. Name a natural right?

Jillian, Agreed.

C_Clayton_Jones, Agreed, but the rights you outline come within the framework of government and its law. Ryan ruled out government. Other replies, we disagree on 'created rights' as law is always changing what was once assumed as fixed.

Peach174, Your entire answer is about government, you just give a different spin on government. (That could get us somewhere though) Your Second reply: You are using our establishment of government as your guide and 'pursuit' as an outcome, where is the 'right' and from whom?

UScitizen, Don't spoil the ending.

Intense, 'We enforce,' you do realize where that would lead?

Foxfyre, Again you give us government as the answer. Ryan ruled that out. What would a state of nature be? Name its rights?

There4eyeM, So Ryan was just using empty words? But interesting, if being alive is a right is the ACA a right? But then you leave us in your second reply with no real grounding?

Bill Angel, Another vote against Ryan's rhetoric?

TakeAStepBack, (replies) You are assuming roles of the government. Seems the more this goes on the less votes Ryan gets. Own yourself? A 'right' of person-hood, since I own myself can I pick my parents? No one told me. Kings are the reason we have government, and unless I'm mistaken, Ryan's livelihood comes solely from government, is he a groveler?

Moonglow, Another nah for Ryan?

Sherry, I sorta agree with you but for a different reason, I see many privileged children, mostly conservative republicans born with a silver spoon who have a real sense of entitlement, I see lots of the less privileged who have no sense of the reality of life. But this is off topic.

ABikerSailor, Bulls-eye.

Intense, So how do you account for much of our history and those theocratic nations who grant rights based on their religious texts? If they are wrong could this tell us something?

From the above comments Paul Ryan said something that cannot be anything more than empty rhetoric, that is always the case with extremists of any flavor.

So can we conclude 'rights' don't exist outside of government and society? Anyone else care to tackle the question?

You are trying to prove your point by refusing to look at differing opinions, then saying that that proves your point.

But you miss the point in the first place:

Ryan was talking about the IDEAL that the founding fathers described as the basis for our constitutional republic. Get it? The ideal is the basis for the form of government that they set up. They then used the ideal to write out the laws of the land, which include the bill of rights. (They also setup a mechanism so that things can be changed, it's called a constitutional amendment. You should look into that as I describe your apparent desire to change things later.)

Just as the progressive ideal is that government knows best.

These are the two opposing ideaologies that are in play in this election. But take a closer look at the above statements about ideals. One describes they way in which our country was set up. The other is something completely different. So you are either for the constitutional republic, or you are not.
 
Paul Ryan said yesterday, that our rights come from Gawd and nature. So then my question is, if rights come from Gawd and nature, what might they be? Can someone describe a right that comes from nature? Can someone define a right that comes from Gawd? I am interested in a defintion of these rights, their foundational source (no tautologies), explanatory reasons, and consequential implications.

it's an interesting concept in terms of political philosophy.

in reality, rights only exist which the government is willing to enforce. i'm sure that 2nd generation japanese-americans would have been pleased to attest to that in 1940....

and women, pre-vote, would have seconded...

which would have been fully agreed with by blacks during slavery, and post slavery through the jim crow era.

and that doesn't even begin to touch on things like the right to marry a person of the color you choose (not enforced until loving v virginia during the 70's) and a myriad of other issues
In reality rights exist even when they are not enforced. Rights are often suppressed or denied fruition by government or some other controller, but the rights still exist.

Slaves had the natural right to liberty even when they were enslaved.
 
Ever listen to Joe Biden? "Obama is a clean well spoken black guy". Brain damaged Biden is even harder to understand than mush mouth Barney Fwank.
 
There is no such thing as a ‘created right,’ fundamental rights are natural and innate: the right to free expression, the right to privacy, the right of self-determination, to marry, to vote, to have children no not. The Constitution and its case law create a framework balancing the interests of the state and individual.

The 14th Amendment, essentially a codification of the doctrine of inalienable rights, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, is the engine which drives the mechanics of the Constitution ensuring a consistent application of individual liberties among all jurisdictions. That all persons will enjoy due process of the law, both procedural and substantive, and that all persons will enjoy equal protection of the law.

The Constitution both acknowledges the existence of inalienable rights and, just as importantly, ensures the process by which those rights may be expressed freely by the individual.

Utter nonsense. Rights are created by society.

No kidding! It st the people of the nation which determine thier rights. god didn't so it, cause the monarchies have said the same about thier reason to rule.

That's why the King was forced to recognize God given rights and sign the Magna Carta or face a civil war to protect those rights.
 
I started a thread on this very topic yesterday morning or Sat. nite and stated that our rights come from "we the people" who are the government. God does not have to endow us with anything. We are able to use free will (I happen to be agnostic so I don't think God did anything). If "we the people" want to change the Constitution, we do so through our representatives, etc. Has it worked perfectly since our country was founded? No and we seem to be getting further and furthe away from "the will of the people" but in general that is the concept and the reality. Nature limits some things we can do like being able to fly (we have no wings) but we overcame that and built planes and other things that allow us to fly. We can't control the weather, but we can predict it much better. So, in a lot of ways, "we the people" are the masters of our own destinies and rights.
 
If life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights granted by the Creator, a quick question...........

Does that mean that people in places like China, N. Korea, Iran, Syria, etc. were never created by the Creator? I mean, if those rights are granted to all humans, then the people in those places must be something less than human because they don't have the right to life (can be killed by govt troops for no reason like in Syria where they are exterminating Sunnis), liberty (you can't go where you want to in N. Korea or Iran), or the pursuit of happiness?

Are people in those countries less than human, or just lacking a relationship with the Creator? And, if they're lacking a relationship with the Creator, why did He abandon them?

God has to allow sin or there is no free will. The Founders believed it "sin", i.e. a great wrong, for governments to trample on or deny the rights that God gives to the people. That was the whole driving principle behind the Declaration, the Revolution, and the Constitution--that government would recognize and secure the rights given by God--unalienable rights--and then leave us alone to live our lives and govern ourselves how we chose to do that.
 
Paul Ryan said yesterday, that our rights come from Gawd and nature. So then my question is, if rights come from Gawd and nature, what might they be? Can someone describe a right that comes from nature? Can someone define a right that comes from Gawd? I am interested in a definition of these rights, their foundational source (no tautologies), explanatory reasons, and consequential implications.
The argument here is that our rights, as humans, are inherent in us being human; in that, they existed before the creation of government and so are not and cannot be granted by same.

The text of our constitution recognizes this in that it does not grant rights, save for those that can only exist within the framework of government.
 
If life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights granted by the Creator, a quick question...........

Does that mean that people in places like China, N. Korea, Iran, Syria, etc. were never created by the Creator? I mean, if those rights are granted to all humans, then the people in those places must be something less than human because they don't have the right to life (can be killed by govt troops for no reason like in Syria where they are exterminating Sunnis), liberty (you can't go where you want to in N. Korea or Iran), or the pursuit of happiness?

Are people in those countries less than human, or just lacking a relationship with the Creator? And, if they're lacking a relationship with the Creator, why did He abandon them?

God has to allow sin or there is no free will. The Founders believed it "sin", i.e. a great wrong, for governments to trample on or deny the rights that God gives to the people. That was the whole driving principle behind the Declaration, the Revolution, and the Constitution--that government would recognize and secure the rights given by God--unalienable rights--and then leave us alone to live our lives and govern ourselves how we chose to do that.
Yes -- that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
 
Paul Ryan said yesterday, that our rights come from Gawd and nature. So then my question is, if rights come from Gawd and nature, what might they be? Can someone describe a right that comes from nature? Can someone define a right that comes from Gawd? I am interested in a defintion of these rights, their foundational source (no tautologies), explanatory reasons, and consequential implications.

it's an interesting concept in terms of political philosophy.

in reality, rights only exist which the government is willing to enforce. i'm sure that 2nd generation japanese-americans would have been pleased to attest to that in 1940....

and women, pre-vote, would have seconded...

which would have been fully agreed with by blacks during slavery, and post slavery through the jim crow era.

and that doesn't even begin to touch on things like the right to marry a person of the color you choose (not enforced until loving v virginia during the 70's) and a myriad of other issues
In reality rights exist even when they are not enforced. Rights are often suppressed or denied fruition by government or some other controller, but the rights still exist.

Slaves had the natural right to liberty even when they were enslaved.

Dumbest post of the thread..................
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top