What does "God-Given Rights" mean?

[Quantum Windbag]

Maybe you aren't making your point well enough for me to understand, but I can't see how we have a right to commit murder. We don't have a right to do anything that harms another but other than that we should have any other right protected by the government.

Yeah. I'm probably not being as clear as I could be. It's tricky because we use the word "right" in so many different ways.

When you're saying we "have a right to" do something, what you mean (I think) is "government protects our freedom to" do that something. But "unalienable rights" refers to something different, something more like there4eyeM's "capacity" or L4A's "free will". The Declaration is saying something like "We all have the ability to think for ourselves, the innate freedom to make decisions and act on them - and we create governments to protect that freedom". That's my take on it at least.

If it's not entirely obvious, this is my opinion on the meaning of unalienable rights as referenced in the DoI. I'm pretty sure most references, and certainly the popular interpretation, won't agree with the view I'm presenting. I'm just arrogant enough to think that I'm right and they're wrong.

I don't mean that the government protects our freedom to not be murdered. I just don't see being able to commit murder as a right, no matter where rights come from.

And in that you are 100% correct.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why the insult? Ravi makes a keen observation here. It gets right to the heart of the matter.

there is a difference between rights and power. I have a right to life, I have the power to kill. I cannot take my life and give it to another person, neither can the government. That is what makes it an unalienable right. The fact that I can kill does not mean I have an unalienable right to kill, even if I have the right to think about it.

You both missed the heart of the matter because you are misunderstanding the concept of a right.

Oddly enough, you seem to agree with me. Are you opposed to capital punishment?

The state should not be able to kill people. Yes, I oppose capital punishment.

 

[Ravi]

there is a difference between rights and power. I have a right to life, I have the power to kill. I cannot take my life and give it to another person, neither can the government. That is what makes it an unalienable right. The fact that I can kill does not mean I have an unalienable right to kill, even if I have the right to think about it.

You both missed the heart of the matter because you are misunderstanding the concept of a right.

Oddly enough, you seem to agree with me. Are you opposed to capital punishment?

The state should not be able to kill people. Yes, I oppose capital punishment.

I'm glad you aren't a total fucktard.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oddly enough, you seem to agree with me. Are you opposed to capital punishment?

The state should not be able to kill people. Yes, I oppose capital punishment.

I'm glad you aren't a total fucktard.

Gee, thanks.

 

[antagon]

Yeah. I'm probably not being as clear as I could be. It's tricky because we use the word "right" in so many different ways.

When you're saying we "have a right to" do something, what you mean (I think) is "government protects our freedom to" do that something. But "unalienable rights" refers to something different, something more like there4eyeM's "capacity" or L4A's "free will". The Declaration is saying something like "We all have the ability to think for ourselves, the innate freedom to make decisions and act on them - and we create governments to protect that freedom". That's my take on it at least.

If it's not entirely obvious, this is my opinion on the meaning of unalienable rights as referenced in the DoI. I'm pretty sure most references, and certainly the popular interpretation, won't agree with the view I'm presenting. I'm just arrogant enough to think that I'm right and they're wrong.

I don't mean that the government protects our freedom to not be murdered. I just don't see being able to commit murder as a right, no matter where rights come from.

And in that you are 100% correct.

A lot of scholars on the matter (certainly Locke) hold that rights are limited to morally righteous activities, however, the purpose of underscoring the implications of our free iwill is to warn of their liabilities.. like murder.

When Jefferson alludes to folks organizing governments to attend to their rights, I think such folks were concerned with getting their liberty - even their life - undermined at the hands of another's pursuit of happiness.

 

[LibertyForAll]

I'm sure we have all heard the saying: "No man is an Island." This is true in the sense that what we do has an effect on those around us. We should be treated as sovreign entities when it comes to our person the things we own. It is only at the intersection of our wills that we need government intervention to ensure harmony. Government is nothing more than a set of rules we agree to that serves to facilitate our coexistence. It is the grease between the cogs so to speak. I should never have the right to impose my will upon another without their consent. This is my take on the non-aggression principle which is the foundation of libertarianism.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't mean that the government protects our freedom to not be murdered. I just don't see being able to commit murder as a right, no matter where rights come from.

And in that you are 100% correct.

A lot of scholars on the matter (certainly Locke) hold that rights are limited to morally righteous activities, however, the purpose of underscoring the implications of our free iwill is to warn of their liabilities.. like murder.

When Jefferson alludes to folks organizing governments to attend to their rights, I think such folks were concerned with getting their liberty - even their life - undermined at the hands of another's pursuit of happiness.

Just because we can think about things does not mean we have a right to do them. The right is free will, not free action.

 

[antagon]

And in that you are 100% correct.

A lot of scholars on the matter (certainly Locke) hold that rights are limited to morally righteous activities, however, the purpose of underscoring the implications of our free iwill is to warn of their liabilities.. like murder.

When Jefferson alludes to folks organizing governments to attend to their rights, I think such folks were concerned with getting their liberty - even their life - undermined at the hands of another's pursuit of happiness.

Just because we can think about things does not mean we have a right to do them. The right is free will, not free action.

Fundamental disagreement.

Natural rights must precede or be above justifiability for there to be value in the concept. Actions are limited to ability, opportunity, etc, but not to morality...That is a change in will.

When you're in that dark alley and a mugger is thinking whether to kill or take the wallet and go.. don't wait for rights-cops to plead your case. Better make your plea on your own... and appeal to the robber's free will.

(That is if you cant take ability or opportunity to act of his free will out of the picture)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A lot of scholars on the matter (certainly Locke) hold that rights are limited to morally righteous activities, however, the purpose of underscoring the implications of our free iwill is to warn of their liabilities.. like murder.

When Jefferson alludes to folks organizing governments to attend to their rights, I think such folks were concerned with getting their liberty - even their life - undermined at the hands of another's pursuit of happiness.

Just because we can think about things does not mean we have a right to do them. The right is free will, not free action.

Fundamental disagreement.

Natural rights must precede or be above justifiability for there to be value in the concept. Actions are limited to ability, opportunity, etc, but not to morality...That is a change in will.

When you're in that dark alley and a mugger is thinking whether to kill or take the wallet and go.. don't wait for rights-cops to plead your case. Better make your plea on your own... and appeal to the robber's free will.

(That is if you cant take ability or opportunity to act of his free will out of the picture)

I am not the one trying to make morality an issue here. Natural rights are something that cannot be transferred to another. I cannot transfer my ability to think to anyone. I can, however, legally transfer my ability to act to another, and I would even be legally liable for any action he undertakes in my name.

 

[antagon]

Just because we can think about things does not mean we have a right to do them. The right is free will, not free action.

Fundamental disagreement.

Natural rights must precede or be above justifiability for there to be value in the concept. Actions are limited to ability, opportunity, etc, but not to morality...That is a change in will.

When you're in that dark alley and a mugger is thinking whether to kill or take the wallet and go.. don't wait for rights-cops to plead your case. Better make your plea on your own... and appeal to the robber's free will.

(That is if you cant take ability or opportunity to act of his free will out of the picture)

I am not the one trying to make morality an issue here. Natural rights are something that cannot be transferred to another. I cannot transfer my ability to think to anyone. I can, however, legally transfer my ability to act to another.

That's still you or them acting. There's an agreement but no transfer.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Fundamental disagreement.

Natural rights must precede or be above justifiability for there to be value in the concept. Actions are limited to ability, opportunity, etc, but not to morality...That is a change in will.

When you're in that dark alley and a mugger is thinking whether to kill or take the wallet and go.. don't wait for rights-cops to plead your case. Better make your plea on your own... and appeal to the robber's free will.

(That is if you cant take ability or opportunity to act of his free will out of the picture)

I am not the one trying to make morality an issue here. Natural rights are something that cannot be transferred to another. I cannot transfer my ability to think to anyone. I can, however, legally transfer my ability to act to another.

That's still you or them acting. There's an agreement but no transfer.

The whole point it that, legally, it is a transfer.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Human Events contributor John Hayward has written an article that addresses this topic after it was addressed in Paul Ryan's speech, and utterly misunderstood by race-card Democrats.

The Declaration of Independence says: “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.”

This is a very important concept. The signatories of the Declaration were saying that certain rights are built directly into each human being. You don’t actually have to believe in God to understand the concept. You enter this world with unalienable rights that are not granted by the government… and cannot be withdrawn at the pleasure of government. No one can pass legislation to take these rights away. Even if every single one of your fellow citizens votes to strip one of your unalienable rights from you, the government cannot do so, without sacrificing its legitimacy.

From this concept we draw one of humanity’s greatest moral and intellectual achievements: laws that restrain the government. That’s where the Constitution comes in, particularly the Bill of Rights. In essence, it’s a list of things the government cannot do, even with the overwhelming democratic support of its citizens. The Constitution itself can be amended, but that’s very difficult to do, and no such amendment would be legitimate if it were an offense against the very narrow set of rights endowed by our Creator. This is a key component in the transition from away from raw “democracy” and mob rule, toward the vastly superior governance of a lawful republic.

Look at it this way: without unalienable rights and unbreakable restraints upon the power of government, the castaways on Gilligan’s Island can form a democracy and vote 5-2 to dispose of Gilligan once and for all, as punishment for his constant bungling of their attempts to escape from the island. (You’re never going to get Mary Ann to vote in favor of executing Gilligan.)

[T]he essential truth of our rights descending from God and nature was not altered by any specific government’s failure to recognize them. The “legislation that happened in relatively recent history in America” that he refers to did not create those rights – it acknowledged them. The rights were there all along.

To say otherwise is to do more than just bicker with Paul Ryan’s, or the Founding Fathers’, choice of words. It is the surrender of a crucial concept that illuminates the American understanding of liberty and order – two powerful forces which are not easily balanced. The notion of unalienable rights is a priceless treasure that has implications far beyond any instance of racial strife. And it was never meant to be an exclusively American treasure. Every captive suffering beneath the heel of despotism has the same unalienable rights as a child born in the United States today. The difference is that their wretched, illegitimate governments fail to recognize those rights.

There are things the government may not do. There are rights no legitimate Congress or Administration may ever strip from us – not even when it means well, or thinks it knows what’s best for us, or enjoys strong support at the polls. The malevolent or benevolent intentions of a prospective despot have absolutely no bearing upon his legitimacy. We cannot be legitimately stripped of our God-given natural rights for the profit of one… or for the good of many. And no bounty granted through subsequent legislation or executive order can share the status of those natural rights, or transgress against them. After all, what the government “gives us” today can be taken away tomorrow.

It should not be necessary to explain all this to any adult American. But, sadly, it is, because there are ongoing efforts to play off racial division and bitterness, to bully many of our citizens into abandoning their Constitutional birthright.

 

[Billo_Really]

What does "God-Given Rights" mean?

It means Catholic's rule and if you piss us off, we fuck up your shit!

 

[Erand7899]

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

Wow.... so the same nitwit gallery is going to rush into this thread and turn it into another idiotic debate on religion???

Unless you have another definition for the "Creator", you are the one attempting to create another debate on religion.

Why do left wingers always seem to feel that they must rewrite plain language in historical documents? Who are you trying to confuse, yourself or others?

 

[Erand7899]

Being an idiot and a jerk at once, is not a good combo. You can generally get away with one or the other. Idiots with good intent aren't so bad, and jerks who can do something useful have their place. But damn, it's really a waste to have nothing but asshattery going on.

So, you know, I can't stop you from staggering into these threads, dropping your drawers and pooping all over the place. But damn, have some self-respect once in a while. It might do you good.

I am mopping the floor with you, if you haven't notice as of yet.


LOLOLOLOLOL

You remind me of this chick I used to work with back when I used to work in the restaurant business. After two years working at that place, the girl comes up to me and says that she needs more coffee made. I tell her to go make it herself, and she says she doesn't know how. Later that same day, I busy her for about ten minutes going next door for ice mix. When she comes back asking for the light bulb repair kit I told her to just sit down before she hurt her head. She then has the insanity to look at me and say "Are you calling me dumb? I'm not dumb, I'm smart!"

Bitch was so stupid she didn't even realize how stupid she was.

If you were just half as smart as you think you are, you would know that there is a big difference between being ignorant and being stupid. However, your use of the term "bitch" leads me to believe that you are not ignorant, you really are quite stupid.

 

[CausingPAIN]

god = none
given = well, thats like answer above.
rights = a concept, with options

 

[Avatar4321]

It means our Heavenly Father is the source of our rights and freedom.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

Wow.... so the same nitwit gallery is going to rush into this thread and turn it into another idiotic debate on religion???

Yeah I love it when TM tried to bring TJ and the founders in and act like they think like modern democrats, except religion was taught in public schools and politicians could have nativity scenes and christmas trees and people could be burried with a cross or star of david in military funerals...you know stuff the left hates and doesnt want nowadays

 

[Quantum Windbag]

god = none
given = well, thats like answer above.
rights = a concept, with options

I would debate you about this, but I don't like getting into a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

 

[Erand7899]

Wow...

just, wow.

Seriously. I challenge you to explain it in any way that does not amount to exactly that. If rights are "inalienable" and "God" given, then how are they anything more than an entitlement you are redeeming from whatever god you believe in?

Rights are unalienable even if God does not exist.

Our founders recognized that virtually all men and women possess an inate sense that they, personally, have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Since it is inate, it had to be put there by our Creator. Notice that liberty is not defined, and various people, even of the time, had different opinions of what liberty entailed. In addition, all men and women did not believe that these rights extended to all. Slaves obviously did not have those rights, and noblemen did not believe that serfs had those rights.