Are our rights Innate, or priveledges from the State?

[The T]

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?

YOU bow to the evil now don't you? AFRAID to live without it, aren't YOU?

There is a difference between a State and a Tyranny.

When a State transforms into a Tyranny, it is the Duty of the People to overthrow it.

However, if a State has not yet transformed into a Tyranny, then to remove the State will result into a new and unrestrained tyranny (notice that I didn't capitalize tyranny at the end).

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.

Who will enforce contracts when the State is removed? A party cannot be a judge of its own cause.

Problem is? We are living in a Soft Tyranny now.

 

[The T]

Innate
Nor are they protected by the state, instead they require protection from the state.

Indeed. Seems like today, it is the "state" that is determined to relieve us of our God-given rights. And idiots, like those on this forum who seems giddy with excitement that they are attempting to do just that.

And have no clue what they are losing. Yeah, they're that stupid...indoctrinated.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Problem is? We are living in a Soft Tyranny now.

This is not a "Soft Tyranny."

Look at Adam Kokesh, all he did was load a blank shell into a shotgun.

How about the Military Occupation of Boston last year too?

At best, we're in the transit stage from Soft to Hard. The next President, after Obama, be it a Despotcrat or Repugnantcan, will be the last President, since that President will go Emperor Palpatine on us.

 

[auditor0007]

I find it pretty funny that so many people believe their rights are innate. Seriously? People living under democracy may believe that, but not everyone lives under democratic rule. Even in a democracy, society determines what are rights and what are not. Now it could be argued that you have a couple of innate rights, and those would be to pay your taxes and to die. Everything else is negotiable.

 

[The T]

Problem is? We are living in a Soft Tyranny now.

This is not a "Soft Tyranny."

Look at Adam Kokesh, all he did was load a blank shell into a shotgun.

How about the Military Occupation of Boston last year too?

At best, we're in the transit stage from Soft to Hard. The next President, after Obama, be it a Despotcrat or Repugnantcan, will be the last President, since that President will go Emperor Palpatine on us.

You may be correct. Thanks.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I find it pretty funny that so many people believe their rights are innate. Seriously? People living under democracy may believe that, but not everyone lives under democratic rule. Even in a democracy, society determines what are rights and what are not. Now it could be argued that you have a couple of innate rights, and those would be to pay your taxes and to die. Everything else is negotiable.

You need to learn the difference between rights and privileges.

If someone else controls the "rights" and only doles them out as they see fit, then there are no rights. There are only privileges that can be bestowed or removed by the caprice of the biggest horde.

All the individual is in your scenario is a tool of and subservient subject to the biggest mob. That's not the basis upon which the American republic was set in motion. In fact, that's the exact tyranny the overthrew, with a King as ruler rather than the mob.

 

[Bombur]

I find it pretty funny that so many people believe their rights are innate. Seriously? People living under democracy may believe that, but not everyone lives under democratic rule. Even in a democracy, society determines what are rights and what are not. Now it could be argued that you have a couple of innate rights, and those would be to pay your taxes and to die. Everything else is negotiable.

You need to learn the difference between rights and privileges.

If someone else controls the "rights" and only doles them out as they see fit, then there are no rights. There are only privileges that can be bestowed or removed by the caprice of the biggest horde.

All the individual is in your scenario is a tool of and subservient subject to the biggest mob. That's not the basis upon which the American republic was set in motion. In fact, that's the exact tyranny the overthrew, with a King as ruler rather than the mob.

Yeah rights are established through force.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Yeah rights are established through force.

???

If I am speaking my mind, and no one uses force to stop me, then how is the freedom of speech being established through force?

 

[Bombur]

Yeah rights are established through force.

???

If I am speaking my mind, and no one uses force to stop me, then how is the freedom of speech being established through force?

My point is that the right was established when armies fought and won you that right.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Yeah rights are established through force.

???

If I am speaking my mind, and no one uses force to stop me, then how is the freedom of speech being established through force?

My point is that the right was established when armies fought and won you that right.

Did these armies fight to DEFEND their right? If so, it is perfectly acceptable and within the moral and natural bounds of the Non-Aggression Principle.

 

[SwimExpert]

After five pages, still everyone seems to be operating on the belief that all rights are created equal. Is there nobody who can envision it differently?

 

[Contumacious]

No comment here. Just taking the poll.

The cap is 10 choices, so I couldn't' add more.

De jure INNATE

de facto from Bill de Blasio and his ilk

.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

After five pages, still everyone seems to be operating on the belief that all rights are created equal. Is there nobody who can envision it differently?

All rights, as set forth by the baseline presumptions of the original republic, stem from the precept of self-ownership.

In what way are there any shades of gray concerning your ownership of your person?

 

[SwimExpert]

All rights, as set forth by the baseline presumptions of the original republic, stem from the precept of self-ownership.

That is.....debatable. It is also narrow. What about rights not "set forth by the baseline presumptions of the original republic"? Such a notion implies that rights don't exist except by being granted by the government.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

All rights, as set forth by the baseline presumptions of the original republic, stem from the precept of self-ownership.

That is.....debatable. It is also narrow. What about rights not "set forth by the baseline presumptions of the original republic"? Such a notion implies that rights don't exist except by being granted by the government.

Not debatable at all.

Let's start from the stem right: Life.

It takes no action from any government to give anyone their life. By extension, the cognitive ability of that person is their property, and theirs alone.

Unless, of course, you want to argue that my mind is yours.

 

[dblack]

As usual, this argument just breaks down to dumb equivocation.

 

[SwimExpert]

Let's start from the stem right: Life.

It takes no action from any government to give anyone their life. By extension, the cognitive ability of that person is their property, and theirs alone.

The first problem is that whether life or one's cognitive ability can truly be considered any kind of property one might own. I would argue that such merely characteristics of one's existence. Not really any different than your hair color, or your gender.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Let's start from the stem right: Life.

It takes no action from any government to give anyone their life. By extension, the cognitive ability of that person is their property, and theirs alone.

The first problem is that whether life or one's cognitive ability can truly be considered any kind of property one might own. I would argue that such merely characteristics of one's existence. Not really any different than your hair color, or your gender.

If your cognitive faculties aren't your own, whose are they?

Who owns your hair?

Who owns your genitalia?

Who owns your mind?

Those questions are not a problem, unless you want to argue that your very being belongs to someone else.

 

[SwimExpert]

Let's start from the stem right: Life.

It takes no action from any government to give anyone their life. By extension, the cognitive ability of that person is their property, and theirs alone.

The first problem is that whether life or one's cognitive ability can truly be considered any kind of property one might own. I would argue that such merely characteristics of one's existence. Not really any different than your hair color, or your gender.

If your cognitive faculties aren't your own, whose are they?

Who owns your hair?

Who owns your genitalia?

Who owns your mind?

Those questions are not a problem, unless you want to argue that your very being belongs to someone else.

Complex question fallacy.

 

[Silhouette]

The poll is missing the answer: "the state, when it comes to compulsive behaviors that feel innate but aren't".