Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And their perception of it was different so they ended up with different sorts of "rights" than what we consider "rights" today. Hence my point.
And their perception of it was different so they ended up with different sorts of "rights" than what we consider "rights" today. Hence my point.
All rights that exist in harmony with the Non-Agression Principle have never wavered in their perception --- ever.
Any "right" that does not exist in harmony with the Non-Agression Principle is not a right at all, it's abuse of a person, in exchange for the benefit of another. These are the "rights today" that you mentioned.
The idea changes. The rights don't.I don't think I'm being as clear as I want to be here.
The idea of human rights changes over time. The idea of what rights humans have change over time.
They cannot be innate if they change. But they also aren't necessarily state-granted, since people can recognize a right that the state does not recognize. It is all about contemporary social perception.
What's your point? Regardless of whether rights are "God-given", without a State to ensure them they aren't anything but wishful thinking.
The idea of human rights changes over time. The idea of what rights humans have change over time.
They cannot be innate if they change.
Or inasmuch as Elites in Government perceive them and strive for total control.The idea of human rights changes over time. The idea of what rights humans have change over time.
They cannot be innate if they change.
This assumes that rights only exist inasmuch as humans perceive them.
No comment here. Just taking the poll.
The cap is 10 choices, so I couldn't' add more.
Except when case law says so.No comment here. Just taking the poll.
The cap is 10 choices, so I couldn't' add more.
Our rights are in fact inalienable, they manifest as a consequence of our humanity, where they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.
No comment here. Just taking the poll.
The cap is 10 choices, so I couldn't' add more.
Our rights are in fact inalienable, they manifest as a consequence of our humanity, where they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.
The idea of human rights changes over time. The idea of what rights humans have change over time.
They cannot be innate if they change.
This assumes that rights only exist inasmuch as humans perceive them.
Rights, insofar as they are perceived under the republic, are an extension of self-ownership. As such, they depend upon nobody else to perform anything for them to exist.The idea of human rights changes over time. The idea of what rights humans have change over time.
They cannot be innate if they change.
This assumes that rights only exist inasmuch as humans perceive them.
Natural rights derive from the natural law, a term Plato used well before Cicero. The Romans articulated the principle, gave it its own vocabulary, made it a "school," but the Greeks had already become conscious of the principle.Yeah, Cicero was an imaginary phantom.
Oh yeah, forgot about Cicero. Durr.
Even then, besides Cicero, no one really had a concept of natural rights. It's a social idea.
Not to mention that everyone has different ideas on what those supposed "natural rights" are; some people believe in freedom of speech, some don't, some people believe in freedom to bear arms, some don't, some believe in freedom to keep slaves, some don't, etc. etc. etc.
Do you kind of see my point? Rights are really determined by social trends and public opinion at any given time.
The concept, though not always articulated - certainly not committed to parchment - is much older. The Hebrews exercised such principles in their own way, recognizing, for example, the right of people to acquire property and defend it and themselves and their own with weapons.
Much of what has been learned of late about Amerindian political theory has been overshadowed by the multicultural debates surrounding history and education. Opponents of multicultural approaches fear that exploration into systems such as the Great Law of Peace will draw credit for the U.S. Constitution away from European antecedents. While few if any scholars claim sole Amerindian influence for the Constitution, Benjamin Franklins writings on the Albany Plan of Union, Thomas Jeffersons Notes on the State of Virginia, and other framers works make it clear that native American nations did indeed offer some inspiration.[9]
Read more: Liberty in Perfection: Freedom in Native American Thought : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education
What's your point? Regardless of whether rights are "God-given", without a State to ensure them they aren't anything but wishful thinking.
Without a state, there would be no need to "ensure" them.
Without a state, you'd be pretty fucked.
Innate
Nor are they protected by the state, instead they require protection from the state.
Without a STATE we'd have more Liberty, but Government is a necessary EVIL now isn't it?What's your point? Regardless of whether rights are "God-given", without a State to ensure them they aren't anything but wishful thinking.
Without a state, there would be no need to "ensure" them.
Without a state, you'd be pretty fucked.
Without a STATE we'd have more Liberty, but Government is a necessary EVIL now isn't it?Without a state, there would be no need to "ensure" them.
Without a state, you'd be pretty fucked.
YOU bow to the evil now don't you? AFRAID to live without it, aren't YOU?
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
