What are your rights?

[bripat9643]

You never really own your property if it can be taken away for not paying taxes....

And that proves exactly what?

That you really never own your property.

Reference is to real estate..

And that proves exactly what?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Your stupidity doesn't change reality. You clearly have no capacity to discuss philosophical concepts. Perhaps you shouldn't interject in adult conversations.

Perhaps you shouldn't live in Fantasyland? Reality is on my side little one, not yours.

Uh fuck you? You're a gadfly and an idiot with no substantial viewpoints or opinions. It's hard to really take your comments seriously because you don't offer any viewpoint other than reactionary nonsense.

I see that you are tired? It has been a long day little one. Sleep well...

 

[bripat9643]

An important question with an easy answer. Your Rights, regardless of what is written down on paper, are what you can get enforced, period. Nothing more, and nothing less.

In other words, rights are indistinguishable from the law. In other words, prior to 1860 negro slaves had no rights. No injustice was committed by buying and selling them and treating them like property.

Not even a liberal would subscribe to that notion.

I don't give a damn who subscribes. Neither does reality.

Which proves exactly nothing.

Either an injustice is done to you when you are compelled to follow the arbitrary dictates of another, or they aren't.

Which is it?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

In other words, rights are indistinguishable from the law. In other words, prior to 1860 negro slaves had no rights. No injustice was committed by buying and selling them and treating them like property.

Not even a liberal would subscribe to that notion.

I don't give a damn who subscribes. Neither does reality.

Which proves exactly nothing.

Either an injustice is done to you when you are compelled to follow the arbitrary dictates of another, or they aren't.

Which is it?

Justice is a human concept which reality does not acknowledge There is no such thing. It exists only in the human mind. Those who seek it will find it serves them poorly.

 

[DriftingSand]

An important question with an easy answer. Your Rights, regardless of what is written down on paper, are what you can get enforced, period. Nothing more, and nothing less.

^^^^

that.


also, individual rights end at the nose of the next person.

Are you saying that if government says I can't drink from the only pond in a 100 square mile area and I don't have any water that I don't have a right to that water unless I'm able to change the law? If that's what you're saying then you're wrong. Water transcends "ownership." It evaporates into the sky regardless of who thinks they own it. It collects in the sky then falls where it may. If it falls into my cup then it's mine. In other words, it belongs to all humans because all humans need it for life and sustenance.

 

[dblack]

Perhaps you shouldn't live in Fantasyland? Reality is on my side little one, not yours.

Uh fuck you? You're a gadfly and an idiot with no substantial viewpoints or opinions. It's hard to really take your comments seriously because you don't offer any viewpoint other than reactionary nonsense.

I see that you are tired? It has been a long day little one. Sleep well...

Not sleepy. Just tired of your idiocy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Uh fuck you? You're a gadfly and an idiot with no substantial viewpoints or opinions. It's hard to really take your comments seriously because you don't offer any viewpoint other than reactionary nonsense.

I see that you are tired? It has been a long day little one. Sleep well...

Not sleepy. Just tired of your idiocy.

Sleepy or young it matters not. It's beyond you....

 

[Moonglow]

And that proves exactly what?

That you really never own your property.

Reference is to real estate..

And that proves exactly what?

That you really never own your property.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You never really own your property if it can be taken away for not paying taxes....

You don't really own your own life either, that can be taken away too....

 

[Plasmaball]

Rights be it man law or natural law are all products of the human mind and nothing else. The reality of the matter is you dont matter. You never will matter, and people tend to have a problem with that. These wars, these political fights over gay marriage and abortion dont matter.

sadly our priorities are very short sighted and mostly selfish. This whole concept that god loves one country over another is one the biggest petty, self jerk offs ive ever seen. Trust me if there is a god, it doesnt favor one or the other.

 

[dblack]

Rights be it man law or natural law are all products of the human mind and nothing else. The reality of the matter is you dont matter. You never will matter, and people tend to have a problem with that. These wars, these political fights over gay marriage and abortion dont matter.

sadly our priorities are very short sighted and mostly selfish. This whole concept that god loves one country over another is one the biggest petty, self jerk offs ive ever seen. Trust me if there is a god, it doesnt favor one or the other.

So what?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Something I wrote years ago. As valid today as it was then.... if not more.

What Are Our "Rights"?

You hear an awful lot about our "rights" these days. And justly so-- our rights, in this country, are our most valuable possession, outside of life itself. And some people say that our basic rights, are even more important than life. When Patrick Henry defiantly told the British government during colonial times, "Give me liberty or give me death!", he was stating that he considered a life without liberty, to be worse than no life at all (death).

So, what are our rights?

The Declaration of Independence mentions a few, and implies that there are others. So does the Constitution-- in fact, it names many, and categorically states that those aren't the only rights people have.

The Declaration says that among our rights, are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". It also says that these were given to us "by [our] Creator". Take that as you will, depending on whatever religious outlook you hold. But one of the implications is that, wherever our rights came from, they were NOT granted us by government, or by our fellow men at all. We had them long before government existed. And these various government documents simply say that government cannot take them away or interfere with them.

Here we refer, of course, only to normal law-abiding citizens. The Constitution contains the phrase "except by due course of law" in many places. If you rob someone, assault him, destroy his property, murder him etc., then you can legitimately be deprived of liberty (you go to jail), property (you get fined), or even life in some extreme cases (Death Penalty). Outside of such lawbreaking, your rights are held inviolate.

But today, our "rights" seem to be multiplying without end. This is not necessarily bad-- as we said, rights are extremely valuable. But, are we getting ahead of ourselves, granting to ourselves so many things under the name of "rights"?

"Old Rights"

Some are pretty indisputable, such as the ones mentioned in the Declaration. The ones mentioned in the Constitution, especially in the first ten Amendments (which was even called the "Bill of Rights" by its authors), are similarly vital... though they seem to be undergoing a methodical erosion. Freedom of religion, right to peaceably assemble, freedom of speech and of the press, the right to keep and bear arms, etc. all are very basic, and it is scary to think of trying to exist in a country in which any of these do not exist.

New "rights"

But lately we have heard about other "rights", such as the right to work, the right to decent medical treatment, the right to a decent standard of living. These all sound salutary-- what kind of society would we have, if working for a living were forbidden, decent health care were forbidden, etc.?

But there is a big gap between "forbidden" and "compulsory". The rights found in the country's founding documents, are compulsory, to the extent that we all have them whether we want them or not (who wouldn't want them?), and no one can take them away.

What about, say, the right to decent medical treatment? Those who favor this "right", point out that they don't necessarily mean the rare, exotic, super-expensive treatments; nor "elective" procedures such as cosmetic liposuction or a luxury suite in the hospital. They usually mean that, if you get sick or injured, you have the "right" to have a doctor look at you, make sure the problem isn't unusually dangerous, and administer the routine treatments needed to help you on the way back to good health. An absence of such routine treatment, could occasionally put your life in peril, obviously-- a simple broken bone could lead to infection if untreated, and possibly far more. But there are differences between the "Old Rights", as we've called the ones in the founding documents, and these "New 'Rights'".

Your "right to life" protects something that no man gave you-- you simply had it, from the day you were born. Nobody had to go to extraordinary effort to create it for you, outside of natural processes that move forward on their own without deliberate effort or guidance by humans, government, etc.

Same with the "right to liberty". You were your own man, as it were, the day you were born. Nobody had to go to special effort to create that status for you. In fact, they would have had to go to considerable effort to take those things away, by deliberately coming to you and killing you; or by building a jail and imprisoning you etc. If they leave you alone, you have life and liberty, and can pursue happiness. They have to work at it to deprive you of those things.

The Difference in the "New 'Rights'"

But this isn't the case with what we've called "New 'Rights'". In order for you to get the kind of routine medical treatment its advocates describe, somebody has to stop what he is doing and perform work for you-- the doctor who examines you, the clerk who sets up your appointment, the people who built the office or hospital where you get treatment.

If this routine medical treatment is to be called a "right" on par with our "Old Rights", doesn't that mean that you must be given it when needed? And doesn't it follow, then, that others must be compelled to do the normal things needed to treat you?

Uh-oh.

How does this compulsion upon those others (doctors, clerks etc.) fit in with THEIR rights? They "have" to treat you? What if their schedules are full-- do they have to bump another patient to make room for you? What if they were spending precious quality time with their families-- do they have to abandon their own kids, to fulfill your "right" to treatment that only they can give? Doesn't this fit the description of "involuntary servitude"?

This is an important difference between the rights envisioned by the country's founders, and the new "rights" advocated by more modern pundits. In order to secure your "old rights", people merely had to leave you alone... do nothing to bother you. in fact, they were required to. But these new so-called "rights", required that people go out of their way to actively contribute to you.

And that "requirement", in fact violates THEIR rights-- specifically, their right to liberty. They must be left free to live their lives as THEY chose-- free from compulsion to come and help you out. If they want to help you, that's fine-- often it's the decent and moral thing to do. But they cannot be forced to help you, no matter how much you need the help.

These new "rights", are in fact not rights at all. They are obligations upon others, imposed on them without their agreement or consent.

Beware of announcements that you have the "right" to this or that. Ask yourself if this "right", forces someone else to do something for you, that he didn't previously agree to. If it does, it's not a "right" possessed by you. It's an attempt by the announcer, to force others into servitude... an attempt, in fact, to violate the others' rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What are your rights?

In the United States, one’s rights are enshrined in the Constitution and its case law, where although inalienable, they are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government (see, e.g., Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984), placing limits on the right of the people to peaceably assemble).

When government seeks to place restrictions on one’s rights, it faces a very heavy burden of proof – the restrictions sought must be rationally based, they must be supported by objective, documented facts and evidence, and they must pursue a proper legislative end. Absent these elements, measures seeking to restrict one’s rights will be invalidated by the courts (see, e.g., Romer v. Evans (1996), invalidating a Colorado measure designed to deny gay Americans their equal protection rights).

When the people perceive the government to have acted in a manner offensive to the Constitution, where their rights have been violated by the government, they may seek relief in the Federal courts, pursuant their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Federal courts determine whether acts of government comport with the Constitution and its case law, and interpret the meaning of the Constitution as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review (Marbury v. Madison (1803)).

Just as the Constitution authorizes the Federal courts to determine what the Constitution means, so too does the Constitution afford Congress powers both enumerated and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)).

Consequently, the question is not ‘what are your rights,’ but at what point are your rights limited by the authority of the state, at what point does the authority of the state encroach upon your civil liberties, and what is the appropriate recourse for citizens who believe their civil rights have indeed been violated?

 

[CorvusRexus]

An important question with an easy answer. Your Rights, regardless of what is written down on paper, are what you can get enforced, period. Nothing more, and nothing less.

In other words, your rights are whatever the benevolent government of the day believes you can have in order for them to get the most benefit off of you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

An important question with an easy answer. Your Rights, regardless of what is written down on paper, are what you can get enforced, period. Nothing more, and nothing less.

In other words, your rights are whatever the benevolent government of the day believes you can have in order for them to get the most benefit off of you.

In other words, it is what I said.

 

[CorvusRexus]

An important question with an easy answer. Your Rights, regardless of what is written down on paper, are what you can get enforced, period. Nothing more, and nothing less.

In other words, your rights are whatever the benevolent government of the day believes you can have in order for them to get the most benefit off of you.

In other words, it is what I said.

I know. I was restating it in more candid terms.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

In other words, your rights are whatever the benevolent government of the day believes you can have in order for them to get the most benefit off of you.

In other words, it is what I said.

I know. I was restating it in more candid terms.

No, you weren't.

 

[CorvusRexus]

In other words, it is what I said.

I know. I was restating it in more candid terms.

No, you weren't.

Then what was I doing?

 

[Clementine]

You never really own your property if it can be taken away for not paying taxes....

And that is wrong. Taxes threaten us all. Even if you've paid for your home years ago, you can lose it if you are unable to pay taxes. That needs to be changed.

 

[Little-Acorn]

An important question with an easy answer. Your Rights, regardless of what is written down on paper, are what you can get enforced, period. Nothing more, and nothing less.

In other words, your rights are whatever the benevolent government of the day believes you can have in order for them to get the most benefit off of you.

As I pointed out above, that's not even close. Worth a laugh, though... some people actually believe that claptrap.