Are our inalienable rights conditional?

[ding]

The founding fathers believed that we are given inalienable rights for no other reason than we are God’s creatures, but is that conditional?

Solzhenitsyn believed that these rights are conditional.

“...That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility. Such was the heritage of the preceding thousand years...”

He goes on to say that what has occurred since the founding would have been unthinkable by our founders.

“...Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual could be granted boundless freedom simply for the satisfaction of his instincts or whims. Subsequently, however, all such limitations were discarded everywhere in the West; a total liberation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice. State systems were -- State systems were becoming increasingly and totally materialistic. The West ended up by truly enforcing human rights, sometimes even excessively, but man's sense of responsibility to God and society grew dimmer and dimmer. In the past decades, the legalistically selfish aspect of Western approach and thinking has reached its final dimension and the world wound up in a harsh spiritual crisis and a political impasse. All the glorified technological achievements of Progress, including the conquest of outer space, do not redeem the 20th century's moral poverty which no one could imagine even as late as in the 19th Century...”

 

[Rigby5]

Of course all rights are conditional, but not by government conditions.
What makes them conditional is when they would violate, infringe upon, or harm the rights of others.
Rights are not conditional to government fiat, but when necessary in order to compromise with the rights of others.
Government has no authority at all to set any conditions or compromises on its own at all, but can merely act as an agent in the defense of others only.

 

[martybegan]

Of course all rights are conditional, but not by government conditions.
What makes them conditional is when they would violate, infringe upon, or harm the rights of others.
Rights are not conditional to government fiat, but when necessary in order to compromise with the rights of others.
Government has no authority at all to set any conditions or compromises on its own at all, but can merely act as an agent in the defense of others only.

That all depends on if you are a believer in collective vs. individual rights. When one is a advocate of collective rights the body of people take on the mantle of the individual, and defense of "others" becomes defense of "the whole"

 

[Rigby5]

{...
Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.
...}

That is not at all true.
Socialism is absolutely rational, easy to examine, and completely natural.
The whole point of government is to pool resources for collective good, beyond what individuals could do alone.
And it has to be done with the coercion of government, otherwise you get the "Tragedy of the Commons", where some individuals will take advantage of improvements by others without contributing towards them, if they are not forced to.
Obviously transportation, education, defense, disaster recovery, etc. are necessary group infrastructure that we appreciate from socialism.
But what about things like utilities and energy, where there is profit to be made?
Then people start complaining about collective socialist enterprise, but they are wrong.
Utilities are better as socialism because they are inherently monopolies and too easily abused by private enterprise. Energy is also just too easily abuse by private enterprise. All other nations in the world have public oil, coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc., enterprise. That is not only because these require the advantages of public investment, but because they also tend to be easily abused by things like monopolies. Other countries use their energy resources much better than we do and get much more out of them.
Health care is an even better example, where almost all other countries spend less than half as much and get much better health care. Clearly private health care is abusive, monoplistic, over prices, and unaccountable for its poor quality.
Humans are socialist by nature.
Do any families operate on the profit motivation?
Not a one. And if they did, no infant would survive.

 

[anynameyouwish]

{...
Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.
...}

That is not at all true.
Socialism is absolutely rational, easy to examine, and completely natural.
The whole point of government is to pool resources for collective good, beyond what individuals could do alone.
And it has to be done with the coercion of government, otherwise you get the "Tragedy of the Commons", where some individuals will take advantage of improvements by others without contributing towards them, if they are not forced to.
Obviously transportation, education, defense, disaster recovery, etc. are necessary group infrastructure that we appreciate from socialism.
But what about things like utilities and energy, where there is profit to be made?
Then people start complaining about collective socialist enterprise, but they are wrong.
Utilities are better as socialism because they are inherently monopolies and too easily abused by private enterprise. Energy is also just too easily abuse by private enterprise. All other nations in the world have public oil, coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc., enterprise. That is not only because these require the advantages of public investment, but because they also tend to be easily abused by things like monopolies. Other countries use their energy resources much better than we do and get much more out of them.
Health care is an even better example, where almost all other countries spend less than half as much and get much better health care. Clearly private health care is abusive, monoplistic, over prices, and unaccountable for its poor quality.
Humans are socialist by nature.
Do any families operate on the profit motivation?
Not a one. And if they did, no infant would survive.

"
Humans are socialist by nature.
Do any families operate on the profit motivation?"


I believe the following still happens;

some groups of people (jews? mormons?) practice a form of socialism whereby they use community or family money to ensure that all members of the family/community have a good opportunity for success.

ex: money is put into a pool for every child to use for education

I KNOW of at least 1 group doing this.

 

[Rigby5]

Of course all rights are conditional, but not by government conditions.
What makes them conditional is when they would violate, infringe upon, or harm the rights of others.
Rights are not conditional to government fiat, but when necessary in order to compromise with the rights of others.
Government has no authority at all to set any conditions or compromises on its own at all, but can merely act as an agent in the defense of others only.

That all depends on if you are a believer in collective vs. individual rights. When one is a advocate of collective rights the body of people take on the mantle of the individual, and defense of "others" becomes defense of "the whole"

There can be no such thing as collective rights in my opinion.
While it is true that it is in the interest of individuals to invest in the collective good and defense of the whole, the whole point of defense of the whole is that individuals want that.
If individuals did not want the defense of the whole, then defense of the whole would be bad.
So it is not collective rights that make defense of the whole good.
It is only individual rights that make the defense of the whole good.
Nations, states, cities, tribes, families, etc. exist because we as individuals want them to, and they help us as individuals.

Collective rights are inherently corrupt as a concept, because that requires a group of people to decide what others should want even if they resist. And that can never work. Humans are either inherently social or not. You can't try to make them into something they are not.

 

[Rigby5]

{...
Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.
...}

That is not at all true.
Socialism is absolutely rational, easy to examine, and completely natural.
The whole point of government is to pool resources for collective good, beyond what individuals could do alone.
And it has to be done with the coercion of government, otherwise you get the "Tragedy of the Commons", where some individuals will take advantage of improvements by others without contributing towards them, if they are not forced to.
Obviously transportation, education, defense, disaster recovery, etc. are necessary group infrastructure that we appreciate from socialism.
But what about things like utilities and energy, where there is profit to be made?
Then people start complaining about collective socialist enterprise, but they are wrong.
Utilities are better as socialism because they are inherently monopolies and too easily abused by private enterprise. Energy is also just too easily abuse by private enterprise. All other nations in the world have public oil, coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc., enterprise. That is not only because these require the advantages of public investment, but because they also tend to be easily abused by things like monopolies. Other countries use their energy resources much better than we do and get much more out of them.
Health care is an even better example, where almost all other countries spend less than half as much and get much better health care. Clearly private health care is abusive, monoplistic, over prices, and unaccountable for its poor quality.
Humans are socialist by nature.
Do any families operate on the profit motivation?
Not a one. And if they did, no infant would survive.

"
Humans are socialist by nature.
Do any families operate on the profit motivation?"


I believe the following still happens;

some groups of people (jews? mormons?) practice a form of socialism whereby they use community or family money to ensure that all members of the family/community have a good opportunity for success.

ex: money is put into a pool for every child to use for education

I KNOW of at least 1 group doing this.

I believe ALL people do this.
Anyone who have successfully raised an infant has done this.

The only problem is that out natural social instincts may not scale up well to the size of states or nations.
When we have people deliberately harming others in order to gain more profit, something has gone wrong.
That includes crime as well as capitalism when it becomes abusive.

 

[martybegan]

Of course all rights are conditional, but not by government conditions.
What makes them conditional is when they would violate, infringe upon, or harm the rights of others.
Rights are not conditional to government fiat, but when necessary in order to compromise with the rights of others.
Government has no authority at all to set any conditions or compromises on its own at all, but can merely act as an agent in the defense of others only.

That all depends on if you are a believer in collective vs. individual rights. When one is a advocate of collective rights the body of people take on the mantle of the individual, and defense of "others" becomes defense of "the whole"

There can be no such thing as collective rights in my opinion.
While it is true that it is in the interest of individuals to invest in the collective good and defense of the whole, the whole point of defense of the whole is that individuals want that.
If individuals did not want the defense of the whole, then defense of the whole would be bad.
So it is not collective rights that make defense of the whole good.
It is only individual rights that make the defense of the whole good.
Nations, states, cities, tribes, families, etc. exist because we as individuals want them to, and they help us as individuals.

Collective rights are inherently corrupt as a concept, because that requires a group of people to decide what others should want even if they resist. And that can never work. Humans are either inherently social or not. You can't try to make them into something they are not.

There is such a thing, the question is would it work in the long run.

 

[ding]

{...
Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.
...}

That is not at all true.
Socialism is absolutely rational, easy to examine, and completely natural.
The whole point of government is to pool resources for collective good, beyond what individuals could do alone.
And it has to be done with the coercion of government, otherwise you get the "Tragedy of the Commons", where some individuals will take advantage of improvements by others without contributing towards them, if they are not forced to.
Obviously transportation, education, defense, disaster recovery, etc. are necessary group infrastructure that we appreciate from socialism.
But what about things like utilities and energy, where there is profit to be made?
Then people start complaining about collective socialist enterprise, but they are wrong.
Utilities are better as socialism because they are inherently monopolies and too easily abused by private enterprise. Energy is also just too easily abuse by private enterprise. All other nations in the world have public oil, coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc., enterprise. That is not only because these require the advantages of public investment, but because they also tend to be easily abused by things like monopolies. Other countries use their energy resources much better than we do and get much more out of them.
Health care is an even better example, where almost all other countries spend less than half as much and get much better health care. Clearly private health care is abusive, monoplistic, over prices, and unaccountable for its poor quality.
Humans are socialist by nature.
Do any families operate on the profit motivation?
Not a one. And if they did, no infant would survive.

A comprehensive examination of socialism says otherwise.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

 

[ding]

We can lose our inalienable rights as those rights are conditional rights.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Want a dose of REALITY? Your rights ALL of them are conditional on you or someone else preventing others from violating them.

 

[G.T.]

We can lose our inalienable rights as those rights are conditional rights.

inalienable and conditional are mutually exclusive

if conditions are placed, it removes the characteristic of being inalienable.

 

[ding]

We can lose our inalienable rights as those rights are conditional rights.

inalienable and conditional are mutually exclusive

if conditions are placed, it removes the characteristic of being inalienable.

Not quite.

Freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility.

 

[G.T.]

We can lose our inalienable rights as those rights are conditional rights.

inalienable and conditional are mutually exclusive

if conditions are placed, it removes the characteristic of being inalienable.

Not quite.

Freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility.

The conditional precludes the right from being inalienable, that's simple English. Can you alienate the right? Yes, and one example of that is by not assuming a "constant religious responsibility."

Words have meaning, inalienable precludes alienation

 

[G.T.]

in·al·ien·a·ble
/inˈālēənəb(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective

1. unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

con·di·tion·al
/kənˈdiSH(ə)n(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective

1. 1.
   subject to one or more conditions or requirements being met; made or granted on certain terms.

 

[ding]

in·al·ien·a·ble
/inˈālēənəb(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective

1. unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

con·di·tion·al
/kənˈdiSH(ə)n(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective

1. 1.
   subject to one or more conditions or requirements being met; made or granted on certain terms.

But can be removed by the grantor.

 

[ding]

We can lose our inalienable rights as those rights are conditional rights.

inalienable and conditional are mutually exclusive

if conditions are placed, it removes the characteristic of being inalienable.

Not quite.

Freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility.

The conditional precludes the right from being inalienable, that's simple English. Can you alienate the right? Yes, and one example of that is by not assuming a "constant religious responsibility."

Words have meaning, inalienable precludes alienation

Yes, words have meaning. That’s probably why Solzhenitsyn said them.

 

[G.T.]

in·al·ien·a·ble
/inˈālēənəb(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective

1. unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

con·di·tion·al
/kənˈdiSH(ə)n(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective

1. 1.
   subject to one or more conditions or requirements being met; made or granted on certain terms.

But can be removed by the grantor.

Thus removing the adjective "inalienable."

It's not a hard concept, you're being obtuse.

Inalienable means incapable of being alienated. You're describing a way to alienate those rights. Duh

 

[there4eyeM]

If they were inalienable, the question couldn't be asked.
'inalienable' is a word that expresses a sentiment.

 

[ding]

in·al·ien·a·ble
/inˈālēənəb(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective

1. unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

con·di·tion·al
/kənˈdiSH(ə)n(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective

1. 1.
   subject to one or more conditions or requirements being met; made or granted on certain terms.

But can be removed by the grantor.

Thus removing the adjective "inalienable."

It's not a hard concept, you're being obtuse.

Inalienable means incapable of being alienated. You're describing a way to alienate those rights. Duh

Not being obtuse at all.

I believe our rights come from God. And that no man may take those rights.

But God can.