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.
Right. Ownership is antiquated.Obviously, the whole conversation is way over your head.
Maybe it's you who should move on to a thread where you can fling some poo at other posters.
ownership society
That's why there are certificates of title for automobiles, deeds for real estate, copyright and licensing agreements for things like computer software. But ownership is a throwback to the days of horse and buggy.
As I said, you are clearly in over your head. Move on.
people have always had a form of government after they formed groups and societies.Great question to ask and discuss Dante.
To be fully accurate, I would have had to select three:
Progressive Democrat AND Constitutionalist --> birth not state given
Also of course I would specify that
* natural rights are given by nature or birth
* while additional rights (such as privilege to drive
cars under certain traffic rules and road regulations)
would be given and regulated by the state under manmade conditions
people existed before governments were developed
so of course there are human rights and freedoms that
existed before any government enforced laws of justice
the big issue I run into today is with people who
invoke equal authority as govt by enforcing Constitutional laws directly
vs
those who either don't have faith in this system or don't use it
or invoke it directly, but they rely on politicians, party or govt
to invoke it for them
this creates the disparity we see with some people believing in
govt to represent and protect that
and others believing in God or Life giving inherent
rights and freedoms which govt cannot diminish
without consent or without due process of laws
for some reason people cannot respect each other's views on this
and end up competing to OVERRULE each other by abusing force of law
through the media, legal or legislative power, political party and majority rule
very curious to see at what point will recognize that these
different beliefs constitute the equivalent of "political religions"
and either consensus is required to prevent unfair discrimination with public laws, or separating and funding their own respective agenda and beliefs without imposing on others
if people don't have faith in God controlling everything, that can't be forced by law
so why this threat to exclude people for not having faith in Government controlling things
shouldn't this be proven to work first, where people willingly choose to follow
if atheists consider a cross to be imposing a symbol of faith on them
why aren't the federal mandates considered an imposition of faith by govt?
under penalty of law? isn't that an imposing a tax discriminating on the basis of faith.
), and even then, in the trees, there were hierarchies. 
Only rights everyone has comes from the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights,
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Afaik though the US hasn't enacted these into law (though much of the rest of the member states to the UN have.) We voted for it, but voting for it and actually enacting it are two very different things.
rights come from a document or a governing body?
Only rights everyone has comes from the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights,
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Afaik though the US hasn't enacted these into law (though much of the rest of the member states to the UN have.) We voted for it, but voting for it and actually enacting it are two very different things.
rights come from a document or a governing body?
Of course not.
Again, rights manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.
This is a fact, beyond question or dispute.
The dispute arises from governments that refuse to acknowledge this fact, and seek to violate those rights absent justification.
This, then, is the genius of the American Republic, where citizens are subject only to the rule of law, where the citizen can challenge measures that violate his civil liberties in Federal court, and when those measures are found to be offensive to the Constitution, they are invalidated, preserving the rights of the citizen.
rights come from a document or a governing body?
Of course not.
Again, rights manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.
This is a fact, beyond question or dispute.
The dispute arises from governments that refuse to acknowledge this fact, and seek to violate those rights absent justification.
This, then, is the genius of the American Republic, where citizens are subject only to the rule of law, where the citizen can challenge measures that violate his civil liberties in Federal court, and when those measures are found to be offensive to the Constitution, they are invalidated, preserving the rights of the citizen.
"rights manifest as a consequence of our humanity...this is a fact, beyond question or dispute." - nope. It has always been in dispute.
Beliefs are always in dispute. Rights are a social concept
poor lil squirty yurtywhy does dante need the government to grant him rights that our founders held to inalienable...?
Of course not.
Again, rights manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.
This is a fact, beyond question or dispute.
The dispute arises from governments that refuse to acknowledge this fact, and seek to violate those rights absent justification.
This, then, is the genius of the American Republic, where citizens are subject only to the rule of law, where the citizen can challenge measures that violate his civil liberties in Federal court, and when those measures are found to be offensive to the Constitution, they are invalidated, preserving the rights of the citizen.
"rights manifest as a consequence of our humanity...this is a fact, beyond question or dispute." - nope. It has always been in dispute.
Beliefs are always in dispute. Rights are a social concept
Incorrect.
That our rights are inalienable are beyond dispute, and this fact is not mitigated when government seeks to place unwarranted restrictions on our civil liberties. The fact that the state may not restrict our civil rights absent a rational basis, objective documentation in support, and pursuant to a proper legislative end is proof of the inalienable nature of our rights.
Obviously, the whole conversation is way over your head.Oh?
If you don't own yourself, whose slave are you?
Ownership is a paradigm that belongs back in the 12th century. move-on is more than just a dot org
Slavery?
Maybe it's you who should move on to a thread where you can fling some poo at other posters.
Oh?
If you don't own yourself, whose slave are you?
Again, rights manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.
This is silly, you belong to the state. You're forced to go to school from age 5 or 6 until you're eighteen. If you don't, your parents could ultimately go to jail and you could be put in foster care or some other state institution. If you are a male, you have to register for the draft when you turn eighteen. It's a felony not to, and punishable by prison and or fine. If you're a woman and/or gay, and especially in a red state, you will have freedom loving republicans telling you what you can and can't do with your bodies and sex lives. Even a free white adult male probably couldn't live off the land unless he lived like Euell Gibbons. You can't hunt or fish without a license. You can't even leave the country without a passport anymore. Just telling it like it is.
What's your point? Regardless of whether rights are "God-given", without a State to ensure them they aren't anything but wishful thinking.
That our rights are inalienable are beyond dispute, and this fact is not mitigated when government seeks to place unwarranted restrictions on our civil liberties. The fact that the state may not restrict our civil rights absent a rational basis, objective documentation in support, and pursuant to a proper legislative end is proof of the inalienable nature of our rights.
"rights manifest as a consequence of our humanity...this is a fact, beyond question or dispute." - nope. It has always been in dispute.
Beliefs are always in dispute. Rights are a social concept
Incorrect.
That our rights are inalienable are beyond dispute, and this fact is not mitigated when government seeks to place unwarranted restrictions on our civil liberties. The fact that the state may not restrict our civil rights absent a rational basis, objective documentation in support, and pursuant to a proper legislative end is proof of the inalienable nature of our rights.
wrong. this has always been disputed.
None of the above. Our rights are created as part of a social compact. Otherwise they are unenforceable. Then we would be in a Hobbesian state.
