"Rights are special privileges the government gives you."

[Spare_change]

SPARE_CHANGE SAID:

“The problem is actually very simple ... by calling them 'inalienable rights', the founding fathers recognize the existence of a greater being. This is anathema to leftists who believe in relativism, recognition of human as the highest order of life, and the concordant belief that government is the ultimate mechanism of control of lesser humanity by the elites who constitute the highest of the highest.”

Nonsense.

The problem is this sort of ignorance and arrogance common to most on the right.

The vast majority of 'leftists' are Christian, and an even larger number are persons of faith. What you mistake as “relativism” is in fact respect for other faiths and those free from faith, and respect for the rule of law, as there are no greater defenders of citizens' inalienable rights than those on 'the left,' because liberals correctly recognize the rule of law is the ultimate authority, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

Liberals also correctly understand that inalienable right manifest as a consequence of one's humanity, independent of religious doctrine and dogma, dependent upon no 'deities,' where respect for human dignity and the right of individuals to exist and express themselves as individuals absent unwarranted interference by the state is paramount.

Once again, we come to the crux of the problem ... is man the ultimate arbiter?

The problem I have with claims that man decides what is right and wrong is very simple ... the answers are relative. There are no absolutes. Once the government thinks they grant you a right, they also believe they can take it away. Today, murder is forbidden by the government. Tomorrow, murder is ok in certain cases ... abortions, for example. Without an absolute moral base, the target is always moving, dependent on the whims of the controlling entity. Without a consistent moral base, the rules are manipulated, based on the needs of the ruling class.

While the poster 'claims' that liberals understand that inalienable rights allow a citizen to "express themselves as individuals absent unwarranted interference by the state", reality demonstrates a completely different dogma. The interference of the liberal government in the lives of the citizenry give the lie to the professed liberal support for individual freedom. When our liberal government decides to whom laws will apply, or not apply, we have an arbitrary cabal not concerned with the freedom of citizens, but rather the control and management of the people. The liberal government espouses governmental control of the people, rather than the people controlling the government.

We don't need relativism ... we need absolutism. We don't need people deciding what's good for us, we need people constrained by a inviolate moral structure.

Man has always decided what is right and what is wrong, just as man has always created his own higher power to fear, bow down to, and use as a weapon against other men and their gods.

Yet given the nature of what society one lives in, what is right in one may not be right in another -- and here is where people's 'god' comes in --

Some people want a higher power that no one can question. An ultimate super daddy with powers to strike fear in the hearts of weak men, or make weak men feel brave and 'right'.

NO ONE in the United States government says (as we cannot really know what other men think, can we?), they believe the government grants US citizen's rights.

and here we go with the 'abortion is murder' crap

I should have never taken you seriously Spare_change but I am replying as I read along

I apologize for thinking you could be serious and not load comments with bait so divisive

"Man has always decided what is right and what is wrong" ... false. They have relied on their religion, or lack of, to give them a moral structure by which to operate.

This thread is replete with those who claim that the government 'grants' rights -

God forbid there might be comments by others that you consider 'divisive' ... I suppose you don't see THAT is the exact problem. Who are you to be the final authority on what is divisive or not? Who are you to force your beliefs on others? You, and the other relativists, are the very definition of tyrants.

OK.

People here claiming the government grants rights cannot in any way be conflated or construed to say 'the government thinks it grants rights" or that anyone in government holds that ridiculous view. I imagine what others might be saying is more nuanced than you'd care to admit. After all admitting nuance kills most all of your world view.

If you don't think "abortion is murder" is divisive than you live in another reality than even the most anti abortion protesters who state openly they intend to be divisive.

Huh????

 

[dblack]

SPARE_CHANGE SAID:

“The problem is actually very simple ... by calling them 'inalienable rights', the founding fathers recognize the existence of a greater being. This is anathema to leftists who believe in relativism, recognition of human as the highest order of life, and the concordant belief that government is the ultimate mechanism of control of lesser humanity by the elites who constitute the highest of the highest.”

Nonsense.

The problem is this sort of ignorance and arrogance common to most on the right.

The vast majority of 'leftists' are Christian, and an even larger number are persons of faith. What you mistake as “relativism” is in fact respect for other faiths and those free from faith, and respect for the rule of law, as there are no greater defenders of citizens' inalienable rights than those on 'the left,' because liberals correctly recognize the rule of law is the ultimate authority, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

Liberals also correctly understand that inalienable right manifest as a consequence of one's humanity, independent of religious doctrine and dogma, dependent upon no 'deities,' where respect for human dignity and the right of individuals to exist and express themselves as individuals absent unwarranted interference by the state is paramount.

Once again, we come to the crux of the problem ... is man the ultimate arbiter?

The problem I have with claims that man decides what is right and wrong is very simple ... the answers are relative. There are no absolutes. Once the government thinks they grant you a right, they also believe they can take it away. Today, murder is forbidden by the government. Tomorrow, murder is ok in certain cases ... abortions, for example. Without an absolute moral base, the target is always moving, dependent on the whims of the controlling entity. Without a consistent moral base, the rules are manipulated, based on the needs of the ruling class.

While the poster 'claims' that liberals understand that inalienable rights allow a citizen to "express themselves as individuals absent unwarranted interference by the state", reality demonstrates a completely different dogma. The interference of the liberal government in the lives of the citizenry give the lie to the professed liberal support for individual freedom. When our liberal government decides to whom laws will apply, or not apply, we have an arbitrary cabal not concerned with the freedom of citizens, but rather the control and management of the people. The liberal government espouses governmental control of the people, rather than the people controlling the government.

We don't need relativism ... we need absolutism. We don't need people deciding what's good for us, we need people constrained by a inviolate moral structure.

Man has always decided what is right and what is wrong, just as man has always created his own higher power to fear, bow down to, and use as a weapon against other men and their gods.

Yet given the nature of what society one lives in, what is right in one may not be right in another -- and here is where people's 'god' comes in --

Some people want a higher power that no one can question. An ultimate super daddy with powers to strike fear in the hearts of weak men, or make weak men feel brave and 'right'.

NO ONE in the United States government says (as we cannot really know what other men think, can we?), they believe the government grants US citizen's rights.

and here we go with the 'abortion is murder' crap

I should have never taken you seriously Spare_change but I am replying as I read along

I apologize for thinking you could be serious and not load comments with bait so divisive

"Man has always decided what is right and what is wrong" ... false. They have relied on their religion, or lack of, to give them a moral structure by which to operate.

This thread is replete with those who claim that the government 'grants' rights -

God forbid there might be comments by others that you consider 'divisive' ... I suppose you don't see THAT is the exact problem. Who are you to be the final authority on what is divisive or not? Who are you to force your beliefs on others? You, and the other relativists, are the very definition of tyrants.

OK.

People here claiming the government grants rights cannot in any way be conflated or construed to say 'the government thinks it grants rights" or that anyone in government holds that ridiculous view. I imagine what others might be saying is more nuanced than you'd care to admit. After all admitting nuance kills most all of your world view.

If you don't think "abortion is murder" is divisive than you live in another reality than even the most anti abortion protesters who state openly they intend to be divisive.

Huh????

Dante gets liquored up late at night and makes even less sense than usual. Just nod and smile.

 

[Spare_change]

Once again, we come to the crux of the problem ... is man the ultimate arbiter?

The problem I have with claims that man decides what is right and wrong is very simple ... the answers are relative. There are no absolutes. Once the government thinks they grant you a right, they also believe they can take it away. Today, murder is forbidden by the government. Tomorrow, murder is ok in certain cases ... abortions, for example. Without an absolute moral base, the target is always moving, dependent on the whims of the controlling entity. Without a consistent moral base, the rules are manipulated, based on the needs of the ruling class.

While the poster 'claims' that liberals understand that inalienable rights allow a citizen to "express themselves as individuals absent unwarranted interference by the state", reality demonstrates a completely different dogma. The interference of the liberal government in the lives of the citizenry give the lie to the professed liberal support for individual freedom. When our liberal government decides to whom laws will apply, or not apply, we have an arbitrary cabal not concerned with the freedom of citizens, but rather the control and management of the people. The liberal government espouses governmental control of the people, rather than the people controlling the government.

We don't need relativism ... we need absolutism. We don't need people deciding what's good for us, we need people constrained by a inviolate moral structure.

Man has always decided what is right and what is wrong, just as man has always created his own higher power to fear, bow down to, and use as a weapon against other men and their gods.

Yet given the nature of what society one lives in, what is right in one may not be right in another -- and here is where people's 'god' comes in --

Some people want a higher power that no one can question. An ultimate super daddy with powers to strike fear in the hearts of weak men, or make weak men feel brave and 'right'.

NO ONE in the United States government says (as we cannot really know what other men think, can we?), they believe the government grants US citizen's rights.

and here we go with the 'abortion is murder' crap

I should have never taken you seriously Spare_change but I am replying as I read along

I apologize for thinking you could be serious and not load comments with bait so divisive

"Man has always decided what is right and what is wrong" ... false. They have relied on their religion, or lack of, to give them a moral structure by which to operate.

This thread is replete with those who claim that the government 'grants' rights -

God forbid there might be comments by others that you consider 'divisive' ... I suppose you don't see THAT is the exact problem. Who are you to be the final authority on what is divisive or not? Who are you to force your beliefs on others? You, and the other relativists, are the very definition of tyrants.

OK.

People here claiming the government grants rights cannot in any way be conflated or construed to say 'the government thinks it grants rights" or that anyone in government holds that ridiculous view. I imagine what others might be saying is more nuanced than you'd care to admit. After all admitting nuance kills most all of your world view.

If you don't think "abortion is murder" is divisive than you live in another reality than even the most anti abortion protesters who state openly they intend to be divisive.

Huh????

Dante gets liquored up late at night and makes even less sense than usual. Just nod and smile.

I want some of THAT !!

 

[paulitician]

Sadly, too many Americans have adopted that deeply flawed mentality. They've been indoctrinated on Big Brother-Worship. But i actually still have hope. The Liberty Movement gains more members everyday. I'm optimistic.

 

[boedicca]

Sadly, too many Americans have adopted that deeply flawed mentality. They've been indoctrinated on Big Brother-Worship. But i actually still have hope. The Liberty Movement gains more members everyday. I'm optimistic.

I agree. The Obama-Grubers just may have jumped the Progressive Shark!

 

[HenryBHough]

Liberals have been so long enslaved by their party bosses that they feel naked without the collar.

Not a pretty sight.....

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you only have the rights the government gives you, how could any of the Germans/Nazis stand trial for "Crimes against Humanity"?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you only have the rights the government gives you, how could any of the Germans/Nazis stand trial for "Crimes against Humanity"?

Because they were tried by governments.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives can't cope with the idea that Government is a good thing.

 

[Spare_change]

Conservatives can't cope with the idea that Government is a good thing.

That's easy ... because it isn't. It is a necessary evil, rife with pollution, and a penchant for abuse and misuse.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives can't cope with the idea that Government is a good thing.

That's easy ... because it isn't. It is a necessary evil, rife with pollution, and a penchant for abuse and misuse.

Which doesn't distinguish it from the private sector.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Conservatives can't cope with the idea that Government is a good thing.

That's easy ... because it isn't. It is a necessary evil, rife with pollution, and a penchant for abuse and misuse.

Which doesn't distinguish it from the private sector.

Stupid Leftist.

The private sector lacks the power to make laws, imprison people, marshal armies and oppress people, and kill them. It doesn't set regulation, it doesn't levy taxes, it doesn't force anyone to use it's service or product, it lacks all coercive power and is itself subject to government.

Only a duncical Leftist imbecile would think there's any comparison.

 

[dcraelin]

Conservatives can't cope with the idea that Government is a good thing.

That's easy ... because it isn't. It is a necessary evil, rife with pollution, and a penchant for abuse and misuse.

Which doesn't distinguish it from the

The private sector lacks the power to make laws, imprison people, marshal armies and oppress people, and kill them. It doesn't set regulation, it doesn't levy taxes, it doesn't force anyone to use it's service or product, it lacks all coercive power and is itself subject to government.
Only a duncical Leftist imbecile would think there's any comparison.

Have you ever heard of monopoly? Ma-Bell, Standard oil? What about some of the violence against the early labor movement by companies...where a stand-off government sat and watched or even helped?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Conservatives can't cope with the idea that Government is a good thing.

That's easy ... because it isn't. It is a necessary evil, rife with pollution, and a penchant for abuse and misuse.

Which doesn't distinguish it from the

The private sector lacks the power to make laws, imprison people, marshal armies and oppress people, and kill them. It doesn't set regulation, it doesn't levy taxes, it doesn't force anyone to use it's service or product, it lacks all coercive power and is itself subject to government.
Only a duncical Leftist imbecile would think there's any comparison.

Have you ever heard of monopoly? Ma-Bell, Standard oil? What about some of the violence against the early labor movement by companies...where a stand-off government sat and watched or even helped?

Even that is the power of government, isn't it? ....to allow monopolies and other acts of corporate cronyism. Right now nearly all of Wall Street is corrupt by incestuous congress with government, and Obama, far from keeping his promise of making D.C. inaccessible to lobbyists, has thrown open the floodgates and made government more for sale than it's ever been in history. This isn't capitalism, it's crony corporatism. If you can't tell the difference, go back to school.

 

[dblack]

I was going to respond likewise, but I re-read the original exchange:

Conservatives can't cope with the idea that Government is a good thing.

That's easy ... because it isn't. It is a necessary evil, rife with pollution, and a penchant for abuse and misuse.

Which doesn't distinguish it from the private sector.

And NY's statement is valid.

But what DOES distinguish government from the private sector is that its use of violence is authorized and rarely checked. Private violence, on the other hand, is not authorized and is the exception. We condemn it when it happens and expect those who cross the line to be held accountable. Government backs everything it does with violence, which is why we should ask it to do only what truly justifies that violence.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I was going to respond likewise, but I re-read the original exchange:

Conservatives can't cope with the idea that Government is a good thing.

That's easy ... because it isn't. It is a necessary evil, rife with pollution, and a penchant for abuse and misuse.

Which doesn't distinguish it from the private sector.

And NY's statement is valid.

But what DOES distinguish government from the private sector is that its use of violence is authorized and rarely checked. Private violence, on the other hand, is not authorized and is the exception. We condemn it when it happens and expect those who cross the line to be held accountable. Government backs everything it does with violence, which is why we should ask it to do only what truly justifies that violence.

When government screws up, there is no SWAT entry team, grand jury indictments, massive fines, and imprisonment. Comparing the private sector to government is just foolish. It isn't even close, I agree.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives can't cope with the idea that Government is a good thing.

That's easy ... because it isn't. It is a necessary evil, rife with pollution, and a penchant for abuse and misuse.

Which doesn't distinguish it from the

The private sector lacks the power to make laws, imprison people, marshal armies and oppress people, and kill them. It doesn't set regulation, it doesn't levy taxes, it doesn't force anyone to use it's service or product, it lacks all coercive power and is itself subject to government.
Only a duncical Leftist imbecile would think there's any comparison.

Have you ever heard of monopoly? Ma-Bell, Standard oil? What about some of the violence against the early labor movement by companies...where a stand-off government sat and watched or even helped?

That is not my quote.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Conservatives can't cope with the idea that Government is a good thing.

That's easy ... because it isn't. It is a necessary evil, rife with pollution, and a penchant for abuse and misuse.

Which doesn't distinguish it from the

The private sector lacks the power to make laws, imprison people, marshal armies and oppress people, and kill them. It doesn't set regulation, it doesn't levy taxes, it doesn't force anyone to use it's service or product, it lacks all coercive power and is itself subject to government.
Only a duncical Leftist imbecile would think there's any comparison.

Have you ever heard of monopoly? Ma-Bell, Standard oil? What about some of the violence against the early labor movement by companies...where a stand-off government sat and watched or even helped?

That is not my quote.

That's why I answered it, not you.

 

[dcraelin]

Conservatives can't cope with the idea that Government is a good thing.

That's easy ... because it isn't. It is a necessary evil, rife with pollution, and a penchant for abuse and misuse.

Which doesn't distinguish it from the

The private sector lacks the power to make laws, imprison people, marshal armies and oppress people, and kill them. It doesn't set regulation, it doesn't levy taxes, it doesn't force anyone to use it's service or product, it lacks all coercive power and is itself subject to government.
Only a duncical Leftist imbecile would think there's any comparison.

Have you ever heard of monopoly? Ma-Bell, Standard oil? What about some of the violence against the early labor movement by companies...where a stand-off government sat and watched or even helped?

Even that is the power of government, isn't it? ....to allow monopolies and other acts of corporate cronyism. Right now nearly all of Wall Street is corrupt by incestuous congress with government, and Obama, far from keeping his promise of making D.C. inaccessible to lobbyists, has thrown open the floodgates and made government more for sale than it's ever been in history. This isn't capitalism, it's crony corporatism. If you can't tell the difference, go back to school.

I think is is permitted by a hands-off smaller government attitude. Who enforces the rules of Capitalism?