Listening to Paul Ryan

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Do you know what tautology means? Do you think that your use of tautology somehow proves you are above it? Natural rights are a philosophical position, not a legal one, demanding legal proof of the existence of philosophy is a bit like demanding that someone prove that reality is real.

Law, believe it or not, is not the definitive work of man.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Ryan is only half correct.

Some rights are unalienable. And they come from our Creator. This is expressed in the Declaration of Independence when its listed as "amoung these" are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

But like I said, Ryan is only half right. Some rights do in fact come from the State and not God. FOr example, the right to a fair and speedy trial comes from Government, NOT God.


This is one of Ryans fundamental flaws. He does not make the distinction between God or Creator given unalienable rights, and those that are given to us as citizens of this country through the power of the Constitution.

Do you have evidence that he doesn't understand the difference between natural and civil rights?

 

[Valerie]

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?

Do you know what tautology means? Do you think that your use of tautology somehow proves you are above it? Natural rights are a philosophical position, not a legal one, demanding legal proof of the existence of philosophy is a bit like demanding that someone prove that reality is real.

Law, believe it or not, is not the definitive work of man.

Yes, we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights which, if we are lucky enough, will be protected by the institution of a Government by the people for the people... As such, these inalienable rights, that is, the ones which our founders deemed self-evident, do not come FROM the government but are preserved by it.

 

[Vidi]

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.

Ryan is only half correct.

Some rights are unalienable. And they come from our Creator. This is expressed in the Declaration of Independence when its listed as "amoung these" are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

But like I said, Ryan is only half right. Some rights do in fact come from the State and not God. FOr example, the right to a fair and speedy trial comes from Government, NOT God.


This is one of Ryans fundamental flaws. He does not make the distinction between God or Creator given unalienable rights, and those that are given to us as citizens of this country through the power of the Constitution.

Do you have evidence that he doesn't understand the difference between natural and civil rights?

Just the statements that our rights come from God and Nature and not from Government. Im giving him half credit for a half correct answer.

Our rights come from nature and God, not government. - Paul Ryan

http://nation.foxnews.com/paul-ryan...our-rights-come-nature-and-god-not-government

Interestingly enough, he said the very same thing on Glenn Becks radio show just a couple of years ago, so this wasnt him misspeaking. This is fundamental to his belief system. And he is only half right.

 

[Valerie]

Ryan is only half correct.

Some rights are unalienable. And they come from our Creator. This is expressed in the Declaration of Independence when its listed as "amoung these" are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

But like I said, Ryan is only half right. Some rights do in fact come from the State and not God. FOr example, the right to a fair and speedy trial comes from Government, NOT God.


This is one of Ryans fundamental flaws. He does not make the distinction between God or Creator given unalienable rights, and those that are given to us as citizens of this country through the power of the Constitution.

Do you have evidence that he doesn't understand the difference between natural and civil rights?

Just the statements that our rights come from God and Nature and not from Government. Im giving him half credit for a half correct answer.

That's really all that Paul Ryan said yet the OP wants to make it as if he completely "rules out" our need for Government...

 

[Vidi]

Do you have evidence that he doesn't understand the difference between natural and civil rights?

Just the statements that our rights come from God and Nature and not from Government. Im giving him half credit for a half correct answer.

That's really all that Paul Ryan said yet the OP wants to make it as if he completely "rules out" our need for Government...

But it speaks to a larger issue on Ryan. Paul Ryan has said that he wants to completely destroy the Progressive Ideal. That means no Social Security and No medicare.

Lets REALLY look at Ryan. He proudly states that he lives on the same street he grew up on. His brother just a block away. He's living the American Dream...right?

Well, what does that REALLY say about the man?

Hes never branched out. Never left his comfort zone. never been really challenged by life.

He went straight from college into political life, never held down a private sector job ( which is what the Right wants to bash Obama for ).

He like Romney, has led a very sheltered life. He has learned about the American Experience from books, not experince. As such, his misconceptions are very understandable, though very very sad. In that, Ruan is no better than Obama. Worse even because his voting record shows he has little to no compassion for those who are in crisis.

That being said, Ryan is an articulate, intelligent man. I predict he will win the VP debate and may even someday be President. But I suspect he is running with a loser this time around.

 

[Valerie]

“Thank you Governor Romney, Ann. I am deeply honored and excited to join you as your running mate.

Mitt Romney is a leader with the skills, the background and the character that our country needs at a crucial time in its history. Following four years of failed leadership, the hopes of our country, which have inspired the world, are growing dim; and they need someone to revive them. Governor Romney is the man for this moment; and he and I share one commitment: we will restore the dreams and greatness of this country.

I want you to meet my family. My wife Janna, our daughter Liza, and our sons, Charlie and Sam.

I am surrounded by the people I love, and I have been asked by Governor Romney to serve the country I love.

Janesville, Wisconsin is where I was born and raised, and I never really left it. It’s our home now.

For the last 14 years, I have proudly represented Wisconsin in Congress. There, I have focused on solving the problems that confront our country, and turning ideas into action; and action into solutions.

I am committed, in heart and mind, to putting that experience to work in a Romney Administration. This is a crucial moment in the life of our nation; and it is absolutely vital that we select the right man to lead America back to prosperity and greatness.

That man is standing next to me. His name is Mitt Romney. And he will be the next president of the United States.

My dad died when I was young. He was a good and decent man. I still remember a couple of things he would say that have really stuck with me. “Son you are either part of the problem or part of the solution.”

Regrettably, President Obama has become part of the problem,...and Mitt Romney is the solution.

The other thing my dad would say is that every generation of Americans leaves their children better off. That’s the American legacy.

Sadly, for the first time in our history, we are on a path which will undo that legacy. That is why we need new leadership to become part of the solution – new leadership to restore prosperity, economic growth, and jobs.

It is our duty to save the American Dream for our children, and theirs.

And I believe there is no person in America who is better prepared – because of his experience; because of the principles he holds; and because of his achievements and excellence in so many different arenas – to lead America at this point in its history.

Let me say a word about the man Mitt Romney will replace. No one disputes President Obama inherited a difficult situation. And, in his first 2 years, with his party in complete control of Washington, he passed nearly every item on his agenda. But that didn’t make things better.

In fact, we find ourselves in a nation facing debt, doubt and despair.

This is the worst economic recovery in 70 years. Unemployment has been above 8 percent for more than three years, the longest run since the Great Depression. Families are hurting.

We have the largest deficits and the biggest federal government since WWII.

Nearly 1 out of 6 Americans are in poverty--the worst rate in a generation. Moms and dads are struggling to make ends meet.

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.


President Obama, and too many like him in Washington, have refused to make difficult decisions because they are more worried about their next election than they are about the next generation. We might have been able to get away with that before, but not now. We’re in a different, and dangerous, moment. We’re running out of time -- and we can’t afford 4 more years of this.

Politicians from both parties have made empty promises which will soon become broken promises--with painful consequences--if we fail to act now.

I represent a part of America that includes inner cities, rural areas, suburbs and factory towns. Over the years I have seen and heard from a lot from families, from those running small businesses, and from people who are in need. But what I have heard lately troubles me the most. There is something different in their voice and in their words. What I hear from them are diminished dreams, lowered expectations, uncertain futures.

I hear some people say that this is just “the new normal.” High unemployment, declining incomes and crushing debt is not a new normal. It’s the result of misguided policies. And next January, our economy will begin a comeback with the Romney Plan for a Stronger Middle Class that will lead to more jobs and more take home pay for working Americans.

America is on the wrong track; but Mitt Romney and I will take the right steps, in the right time, to get us back on the right track!

I believe my record of getting things done in Congress will be a very helpful complement to Governor Romney’s executive and private sector success outside Washington. I have worked closely with Republicans as well as Democrats to advance an agenda of economic growth, fiscal discipline, and job creation.

I’m proud to stand with a man who understands what it takes to foster job creation in our economy, someone who knows from experience, that if you have a small business—you did build that.

At Bain Capital, he launched new businesses and he turned around failing ones – companies like Staples, Bright Horizons and Sports Authority, just to name a few. Mitt Romney created jobs and showed he knows how a free economy works.

At the Olympics, he took a failing enterprise and made it the pride of our entire nation.

As governor of Massachusetts, he worked with Democrats and Republicans to balance budgets with no tax increases, lower unemployment, increase income and improve people’s lives.

In all of these things, Mitt Romney has shown himself to be a man of achievement, excellence and integrity.

Janna and I tell Liza, Charlie and Sam that America is a place where, if you work hard and play by the rules, you can get ahead.

We Americans look at one another’s success with pride, not resentment, because we know, as more Americans work hard, take risks, and succeed, more people will prosper, our communities will benefit, and individual lives will be improved and uplifted.

But America is more than just a place...it’s an idea. It’s the only country founded on an idea. Our rights come from nature and God, not government. We promise equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.

This idea is founded on the principles of liberty, freedom, free enterprise, self-determination and government by consent of the governed.

This idea is under assault. So, we have a critical decision to make as a nation.

We are on an unsustainable path that is robbing America of our freedom and security. It doesn’t have to be this way.

The commitment Mitt Romney and I make to you is this:

We won’t duck the tough issues...we will lead!

We won’t blame others...we will take responsibility!

We won’t replace our founding principles...we will reapply them!

We will honor you, our fellow citizens, by giving you the right and opportunity to make the choice:

What kind of country do we want to have?

What kind of people do we want to be?

We can turn this thing around. Real solutions can be delivered. But, it will take leadership. And the courage to tell you the truth.

Mitt Romney is this kind of leader. I’m excited for what lies ahead and I’m thrilled to be a part of America’s Comeback Team. And together, we will unite America and get this done.

Thank you.”

Text of Paul Ryan

Notice how in the same breath he mentions "GOVERNMENT by consent of the GOVERNED"...? That is not "ruling out" Government.





But America is more than just a place...it’s an idea. It’s the only country founded on an idea. Our rights come from nature and God, not government. We promise equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.

This idea is founded on the principles of liberty, freedom, free enterprise, self-determination and government by consent of the governed.



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

 

[Vidi]

Notice how I pointed out how Ryan wants to destroy any and all social safety nets?


Look at his voting record. Hes a BIG SPENDER when it comes to helping out the corporations, not the fiscal hawk theyre going to try to paint him as. His "plan" calls for the privatization of Social Security, which will end Social Security for everyone whos paid into it their entire lives. ( You cant take a social program like that and successfully privatize it. Its a square peg in a round hole. Replace it for future generations with a private program ahile setting an expiration date on the current program if you want to get rid of it. Otherwise its just BAD government. )

Hes voted against CHIP, against requiring oil companies to drill current leases before extending new ones to them, against the Dream act, against the repeal of dont ask dont tell, against the Senior protectioon act, against the Credit Card Bill of Rights, against the payroll tax freeze ( in other words he voted to raise taxes on the working class during a recession )

Hes not a man of the people.

I honestly dont care what he SAID on Saturday. Im looking at his voting record. THAT tells us who he is far more than his words.

 

[Wiseacre]

Government has no money or power of it's own, only what is given to it by it's citizens. It does not create or provide rights, but it may at times deny them to certain people. The true source of our rights is our humanity, but they must be fought for and protected lest they be reduced or denied altogether.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

I don't know. How about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". You know, those rights endowed on us by our Creator enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Vidi]

Government has no money or power of it's own, only what is given to it by it's citizens. It does not create or provide rights, but it may at times deny them to certain people. The true source of our rights is our humanity, but they must be fought for and protected lest they be reduced or denied altogether.

To use the example again: the right to a fair and speedy trial is given to us by the Constitution. The Constitution is the document that founds our Goverment and gives it power. It is the Constitution that gives government power.

 

[there4eyeM]

When the person who stole the T.V. sells it to B, B becomes an owner. If A arrives and claims it, what right is to be honored?

You only expose the relativity of rights.

The Lawful Owner's claim is honored.

And, in the absence of witnesses or a sales receipt with serial numbers, the 'lawful owner' is established -
how?

Remember, even 'ownership' is a concept, and relatively silly in the context of existence. What does one own before and after her/his passage through what we call 'life'? Obviously, 'possession' is ephemeral at best.

The stubborn refusal to acknowledge free will, personal responsibility and freedom is incredible, but explains the social condition in all parts of the world where, despite cultural and political differences, humans hand over their lives to 'rules' that they have decided are absolute and beyond them.

 

[there4eyeM]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

An eloquent statement. It clearly states a belief of how things are and should be. It clearly established the essence of the social contract.
Of course rights issue from the people. Of course government issues from the people.
'Rights' and 'government' are words and thoughts created by people! They are totally subject to people.
To place the 'state' over humans is the most absurd of exercises. To think that people exist for the nation is similar to blasphemy.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We don't have this here.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

The opening of the United States Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, states as follows:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;[7]

In 1776 the Second Continental Congress asked Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman to write the Declaration of Independence. The five men voted to have Thomas Jefferson write the document. After Jefferson finished he gave the document to Franklin to proof. Franklin suggested minor changes, but one of them stands out far more than the others. Jefferson had written, "We hold these truths to be sacred and un-deniable..." Franklin changed it to, "We hold these truths to be self-evident."


All men are created equal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An opinion piece of a man or men does not prove where our rights come from.

 

[midcan5]

...The problem is that most people confuse natural and legal obligations. Natural rights are those that are inherent in us as individuals. I think Hobbes was the first to effectively articulate the difference between a right and a obligation. Despite jillian's pointing to the fact that women were denied the right to vote as proof that rights come from the government, voting is not actually a natural right.

[and later]

Do you know what tautology means? Do you think that your use of tautology somehow proves you are above it? Natural rights are a philosophical position, not a legal one, demanding legal proof of the existence of philosophy is a bit like demanding that someone prove that reality is real.

Law, believe it or not, is not the definitive work of man.

People walk, birds fly, is either a right? Now since you mentioned natural rights, please name one. Detail please, no tautologies: it is because it is, doesn't count.

'Law is not the definitive work of man?' Please prove that. And while we call the absolutes of physics, laws, I think we all understand metaphor too.



"The probability, then, is that the next election will be close. It could also be fateful. Not because it is apt to enable the kind of electoral transformation the country urgently needs. But the Republican Party already has a majority on the Supreme Court, which increasingly attacks the rights of workers and consumers. If it captures the White House and both houses of Congress it will pass Draconian measures and deploy repressive tactics to stifle public dissent. All in the name of freedom. What to do?" William E. Connolly See The Contemporary Condition: The Republican Pincer Machine

 

[Twofox]

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.

The question was about rights and where they come from, it was not about government. I purposely left government out because Ryan clearly said our rights come from Gawd and nature. His next words were they do not come from government. My question stands.

OT - No progressive person who lives in the real world thinks government knows best or that government acts as a single thing. An ideal is not real it is an ideal, you're barking up a tree with no branches nor substance. Ideas are not rights, we may aspire to them but the world is not an idea. is there any need to give examples? Think slavery, civil rights etc.

"Rights are just (tastes) emotions without rational thought.' Bentham

And my reponse stands. Let me put that another way:

The rights in our bill of rights, are based on the IDEALS that our founders wrote of. And that those rights are inate in every human and that no government can give them to you. Notice I said give, nor can they take them away.

You asked what those rights were. They are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the context of the discussion. If you are fishing for more, or some reason to say that government gives those to us, then you still miss the point of the way our constituional republic was set up. Which means that you miss the point of what Ryan was saying, as evidenced by your posts. Which is what I believe to be the case here.

 

[Intense]

When the person who stole the T.V. sells it to B, B becomes an owner. If A arrives and claims it, what right is to be honored?

You only expose the relativity of rights.

The Lawful Owner's claim is honored.

And, in the absence of witnesses or a sales receipt with serial numbers, the 'lawful owner' is established -
how?

Remember, even 'ownership' is a concept, and relatively silly in the context of existence. What does one own before and after her/his passage through what we call 'life'? Obviously, 'possession' is ephemeral at best.

The stubborn refusal to acknowledge free will, personal responsibility and freedom is incredible, but explains the social condition in all parts of the world where, despite cultural and political differences, humans hand over their lives to 'rules' that they have decided are absolute and beyond them.

Now you are applying conditions. If you are caught with property proven to be stolen, it is not yours. Let the buyer beware. There are other ways to prove something is yours, after it has been recovered. Even Photos, Product Registrations. Sounds like your interest is more into giving license to theft, than what is fair and just. Ownership is more than a concept. Best to be existential more towards your own toys, than other peoples.

 

[Foxfyre]

...The problem is that most people confuse natural and legal obligations. Natural rights are those that are inherent in us as individuals. I think Hobbes was the first to effectively articulate the difference between a right and a obligation. Despite jillian's pointing to the fact that women were denied the right to vote as proof that rights come from the government, voting is not actually a natural right.

[and later]

Do you know what tautology means? Do you think that your use of tautology somehow proves you are above it? Natural rights are a philosophical position, not a legal one, demanding legal proof of the existence of philosophy is a bit like demanding that someone prove that reality is real.

Law, believe it or not, is not the definitive work of man.

People walk, birds fly, is either a right? Now since you mentioned natural rights, please name one. Detail please, no tautologies: it is because it is, doesn't count.

A 'natural right' is whatever we choose to do that requires no contribution or participation by another person other than his/her non intereference.

It is to be free of consequence imposed by others for what we think, what we believe, what we aspire to, what we seek, what we want, and how we live our lives short of violating the unalienable rights of another. Short of violating the rights of another, it is to not be denied a chance and ability to achieve, succeed, and accomplish to the best of our ability, and to enjoy the fruits of our efforts. And it is to be free of a king, monarch, dictator, pope, or other authority that assigns us what rights we will be allowed to have.

 

[Intense]

It does amaze me that Some think they have such powers over others without cause or justification, just by reason of the office or badge. Not much concept of right and wrong there, just blind will, and control.