What Constitutes a "Right?"

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

Our Country was Founded on the Concept of Inalienable Rights which come from Our Creator, and Are Recognized by Our Society and Government. Among these Rights, are Life, Liberty, and Property, or the Pursuit of Happiness. We acknowledge that these Right's being Infringed Upon bring Consequence. Establishing a Government to Promote and Maintain Justice and Protection Among Us by the Consent of The Governed. Mark Levin uses the Term Structured Liberty, to Define what We not surrender, but entrust, for the benefit of the whole. There is that which we let go of voluntarily to be able to live with others. Locke was big on this, Jefferson and Madison were big on Locke. Here is a sample.

John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government John Locke


CHAP. II.

Of the State of Nature.

Sec. 4. TO understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.

A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.

Sec. 5. This equality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in itself, and beyond all question, that he makes it the foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men, on which he builds the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the great maxims of justice and charity. His words are,

"The like natural inducement hath brought men to know that it is no less their duty, to love others than themselves; for seeing those things which are equal, must needs all have one measure; if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire, which is undoubtedly in other men, being of one and the same nature? To have any thing offered them repugnant to this desire, must needs in all respects grieve them as much as me; so that if I do harm, I must look to suffer, there being no reason that others should shew greater measure of love to me, than they have by me shewed unto them: my desire therefore to be loved of my equals in nature as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to them-ward fully the like affection; from which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn, for direction of life, no man is ignorant, Eccl. Pol. Lib. 1."

Sec. 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

Sec. 7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man's hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation: for the law of nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world 'be in vain, if there were no body that in the state of nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders. And if any one in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he has done, every one may do so: for in that state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another, what any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a right to do.

Sec. 8. And thus, in the state of nature, one man comes by a power over another; but yet no absolute or arbitrary power, to use a criminal, when he has got him in his hands, according to the passionate heats, or boundless extravagancy of his own will; but only to retribute to him, so far as calm reason and conscience dictate, what is proportionate to his transgression, which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint: for these two are the only reasons, why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that we call punishment. In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security; and so he becomes dangerous to mankind, the tye, which is to secure them from injury and violence, being slighted and broken by him. Which being a trespass against the whole species, and the peace and safety of it, provided for by the law of nature, every man upon this score, by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on any one, who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and by his example others, from doing the like mischief. And in the case, and upon this ground, EVERY MAN HATH A RIGHT TO PUNISH THE OFFENDER, AND BE EXECUTIONER OF THE LAW OF NATURE.

John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 2
 
Read Locke's "Two Treatise on Government" Natural rights are life, liberty and property. We are born with them. We all are born with them. They are the one common denominator for all humans.

BUT, being born with them does not guarantee we will keep them. Shit happens.

There are no "natural rights." As Carlin said, rights are a cute idea but they're a myth at best. An illusion really, to keep the masses happy. That way, the masses don't rebel and kill those in power.

So while you think we have the "natural" right to life, liberty, and property it just isn't so. Besides then you have to ask, why is it a "natural" right and who provides it?
 
Failure to consummate the marriage and prove of that fact can get the marriage annulled , which means legally it never happened.

Where's the law? Just because you write it on USMB, doesn't make it legally binding.

And proving that would be like proving that I didn't take a shit this morning.
 
A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

Naturally there are no rights to anything other than your thoughts and ideas, and that does not include the expression of those two or the life that gives you the ability to have them. Every "right" we have in society, including your right to life, is created through common social standards within our society, and have to be protected by law, force or whatever mechanism is in place wherever you are. What's called your "god-given right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can theoretically be taken away by a simple change of government if it was to fall to a ruthless dictator. In this very nation, African slaves had no right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness. So I would say yes, you need some kind of social order to establish any kind of right beyond the right to possess your thoughts during your life.

Your other questions are moot. You're not arguing rights, you're clearly arguing legalities between the government-given right to property and taxation.

We succeeded in something never done before in recorded history. We recognized that there was an authority on earth that no human government could compare to. Why do you throw that away so freely?

There is consequence when injustice is done because we recognize it is wrong, just as nature does. If you don't see it, it is your loss, and changes nothing.
 
While I am alive you can not take my faith or my thoughts. While I am armed you can not take much else either, except by killing me. I agree to the norms of society so long as the norms are understood and I personally chose to abide by them. I further understand that if I chose to ignore or break society laws or norms I face consequences but it is my right to make that choice and the consequences do not change that right.

It isn't really your faith or thoughts though. They are all ideas proposed by someone else before you. Besides, have you ever 1984? Eventually, it might be possible to take control of your thoughts and therefore your faith as well.

Currently there is no such method and my faith in things I believe in without proof is not because of someone elses ideas or thoughts. I chose the path and chose through my own thoughts and experiences to believe.
 
Failure to consummate the marriage and prove of that fact can get the marriage annulled , which means legally it never happened.

Where's the law? Just because you write it on USMB, doesn't make it legally binding.

And proving that would be like proving that I didn't take a shit this morning.

Check the varies State laws, MOST have an annulment provision. I won't be doing your work for you. For example, Brittany Spears got an annulment from her first wedding to an old school friend. Now that that is establish YOU need to prove that annulment does not exist.
 
but kevin,
You don't have a right to a fire department and you don't have a right to have roads and you don't have a right to have a military or a post office EITHER...or policemen or even secret service for the president...you don't have a right to wall street regulation or schools etc yet taxes are taken from us and given to another....

When We consent to Give Our Government Jurisdiction, Authority over a Trust, and the Means to Provide, We Do. Enumerated Powers Limit Ability, which is Justified.
 
Failure to consummate the marriage and prove of that fact can get the marriage annulled , which means legally it never happened.

Where's the law? Just because you write it on USMB, doesn't make it legally binding.

And proving that would be like proving that I didn't take a shit this morning.

Check the varies State laws, MOST have an annulment provision. I won't be doing your work for you. For example, Brittany Spears got an annulment from her first wedding to an old school friend. Now that that is establish YOU need to prove that annulment does not exist.

You wouldn't be doing work for me...you would be doing work for PI.
 
Nothing like getting one's life philosophy from a stage comedian.

What's next....Financial advice from jugglers?? :rofl:

Carlin was more than a stage comedian. Besides, if you actually bothered to listen to several of his videos, you'd probably agree with him.

Also, considering what just happened with the economy, taking financial advice from jugglers just might be better. :tongue:
 
A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.


You have no rights.

Rights are something that cannot be taken from you.

You cannot name a single thing that cannot be taken away from you.

Conscience and Soul. Only by Consent can a Legal Government take Anything at All. Tyranny does what it wills, yet that is not Justified but condemned.
 
I'm going to play devil's advocate a little here...

Where does this right to property come from?
Most often, property is the end product of applying your life's energy to available resources.

If you don't freely offer them for sale, in what way does another have claim to the products of your efforts?

Sec. 27. Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.

Sec. 28. He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. No body can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask then, when did they begin to be his? when he digested? or when he eat? or when he boiled? or when he brought them home? or when he picked them up? and it is plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could. That labour put a distinction between them and common: that added something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done; and so they became his private right. And will any one say, he had no right to those acorns or apples, he thus appropriated, because he had not the consent of all mankind to make them his? Was it a robbery thus to assume to himself what belonged to all in common? If such a consent as that was necessary, man had starved, notwithstanding the plenty God had given him. We see in commons, which remain so by compact, that it is the taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state nature leaves it in, which begins the property; without which the common is of no use. And the taking of this or that part, does not depend on the express consent of all the commoners. Thus the grass my horse has bit; the turfs my servant has cut; and the ore I have digged in any place, where I have a right to them in common with others, become my property, without the assignation or consent of any body. The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my property in them.


John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 5
 
Rights are powers and protections set aside for entities outside government to pursue their interests without unreasonable limitation or restriction, whether they are individuals, communities, businesses, religious institutions, or what have you. Different opinions of how to balance various kinds of rights and what constitutes "reasonable" linitations are often in conflict - always have been, always will be. That's the beauty of possessing the individual liberty to have and express an opinion.
The right to be free from taxation does not exist. Rather, the type and level of taxation is one reflection of the balance between different kinds of rights and how the government (which in the US includes the People) splits the difference between competing rights.
An obvious example: Should the right of the community as a whole to fire and police protection (the right to a basic level of security in your person and property) be more important than the individual right to not pay taxes? The answer is almost always "YES". Other questions provoke more heated debate, depending on the individual's view and the balance between the individual and the community.
The OP's error is in equating the desire for minimal taxation with a "right". Tax policy is (or ideally should be) a tool and a reflection of the balance between collective and individual rights, not in itself either a right or an infringement of rights.

Don't you have the right to not be taxed? Is taxation not simply a form of theft? Is there truly any difference between a government that takes your money for the "good of the people," whether you agree with that supposed "good" or not, and an actual thief who takes your money but promises that it will be put to a good cause? Shouldn't you be able to freely decide where the money you've earned goes without the guns of the state or the guns of the thief deciding for you?

We have a Right as a Whole to decide how much we are taxed and how the money is spent. that is Government By Consent.
 
Conscience and Soul. Only by Consent can a Legal Government take Anything at All. Tyranny does what it wills, yet that is not Justified but condemned.

Again, two things that we made up. If it came down to it, we'd be no different than the animals in the jungle. The only reason we aren't is because we'd like to consider ourselves more civilized and be accepted socially.

Also, the whole idea of a soul can be disputed and is unproven.
 
Rights are powers and protections set aside for entities outside government to pursue their interests without unreasonable limitation or restriction, whether they are individuals, communities, businesses, religious institutions, or what have you. Different opinions of how to balance various kinds of rights and what constitutes "reasonable" linitations are often in conflict - always have been, always will be. That's the beauty of possessing the individual liberty to have and express an opinion.
The right to be free from taxation does not exist. Rather, the type and level of taxation is one reflection of the balance between different kinds of rights and how the government (which in the US includes the People) splits the difference between competing rights.
An obvious example: Should the right of the community as a whole to fire and police protection (the right to a basic level of security in your person and property) be more important than the individual right to not pay taxes? The answer is almost always "YES". Other questions provoke more heated debate, depending on the individual's view and the balance between the individual and the community.
The OP's error is in equating the desire for minimal taxation with a "right". Tax policy is (or ideally should be) a tool and a reflection of the balance between collective and individual rights, not in itself either a right or an infringement of rights.

Don't you have the right to not be taxed? Is taxation not simply a form of theft? Is there truly any difference between a government that takes your money for the "good of the people," whether you agree with that supposed "good" or not, and an actual thief who takes your money but promises that it will be put to a good cause? Shouldn't you be able to freely decide where the money you've earned goes without the guns of the state or the guns of the thief deciding for you?

We have a Right as a Whole to decide how much we are taxed and how the money is spent. that is Government By Consent.

The Social Contract.
 
Ability are the traits and talents you are born with. You never needed a right to have them.

Rights are concoctions of man to tell others what they are allowed and not allowed to do.

Rights are promises made by politicians and governments in order to ease the peoples tension as they seek new methods to oppress them.

Rights are propaganda concepts used to catch wind under an extremists goals.

In pure Anarchy, there are no constitutional endorsed rights nor any government to "protect"(ha ha) them. Only your potentials and abilities and the will to actualize them.

In Pure Anarchy the First Rule is that there are no Rules. You are better than that. Propaganda is other peoples crap filling up your head with shit. Claim what's yours alone. Take no more of it.
 
Conscience and Soul. Only by Consent can a Legal Government take Anything at All. Tyranny does what it wills, yet that is not Justified but condemned.

Again, two things that we made up. If it came down to it, we'd be no different than the animals in the jungle. The only reason we aren't is because we'd like to consider ourselves more civilized and be accepted socially.

Also, the whole idea of a soul can be disputed and is unproven.


What are the three things we want even if we are in a state of nature...we want life, we want the freedom to do as we will, and we want to keep our property. Doesn't matter if there is a government or not...and that boils down to what rights are natural to us...our natural rights.
 
What are the three things we want even if we are in a state of nature...we want life, we want the freedom to do as we will, and we want to keep our property. Doesn't matter if there is a government or not...and that boils down to what rights are natural to us...our natural rights.

If you assume people as a whole are the same. Depressed people who want to kill themselves obviously don't want life. We want freedom to do as we will, however, we don't get it and that is what makes us different from animals. And we want to possess, but again, that doesn't always fly.

They aren't natural rights if only because constantly does our daily lives conflict with such rights. Rights are not rights if they can be taken away.

We can be killed, we can have our freedoms taken from us, and we can have our property taken from us.
 
The argument is lost in the first sentence, "A "right" is something that you have naturally." You do? Explain natural. For that matter explain right? Even your life is not natural as it flows from a whole spectrum of human and societal interactions.

We have had this discussion before Midcan, You're playing again. When something is invisible sometimes all you can do is close your eyes and just feel it. You know the Link.

John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government

Liberty Library of Constitutional Classics
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top