Are our rights Innate, or priveledges from the State?

[Dante]

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

Right. Ownership is antiquated.

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.

speaking about selves -- ownership. geesh, nuts!

 

[Dante]

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.

people have always had a form of government after they formed groups and societies.

you'd have to go back to a generation where we were swinging from the trees to find this mythical freedom people like to romanticize (Thomas Jefferson for one ), and even then, in the trees, there were hierarchies.

God needs to be proven to posit a god grants anything at all.

did human beings even think of themselves as 'humans' with rights before philosophy and such?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

 

[Dante]

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 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

 

[Yurt]

why does dante need the government to grant him rights that our founders held to inalienable...?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

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.

 

[Dante]

why does dante need the government to grant him rights that our founders held to inalienable...?

poor lil squirty yurty

never said the government grants rights


next

 

[Dante]

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.

wrong. this has always been disputed.

 

[jasonnfree]

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.

 

[SwimExpert]

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?

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.

Actually, Dante seems to have the best grasp of this subject of anyone in this thread, and certainly more than you. I'm sorry to have to say, but you're taking a very rudimentary and unsophisticated perspective on this whole thing. You keep espousing this idea of self ownership, as if it offered the highest degree of rights possible. When in reality your mode of thinking is obtuse and illogical.

You keep presenting this challenge:

Oh?

If you don't own yourself, whose slave are you?

What you fail to realize is that your entire position is based on a fallacious complex question. You're insistent that someone must own you. You seem incapable of envisioning a world where nobody owns you.

Inalienable rights are not compatible with your view of self ownership. If you own yourself, then it is possible to sell or trade that ownership to another person. Since such an owner would be able to deprive you of the rights that you claim come from self ownership, those rights would not be truly inalienable.

 

[SwimExpert]

Again, rights manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

And yet the government can and does take away the rights of people every single day.

 

[Dante]

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.

Imagine if all of us did what we wanted to? We'd burn down all the forests, pollute all the waterways, and more. Too many people irresponsible and thinking they can do what they want, where they want, in the way they want to.

Get a license. Lower the fees?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What's your point? Regardless of whether rights are "God-given", without a State to ensure them they aren't anything but wishful thinking.

Which is why Spartacus was wrong.

Except he wasn't, so you must be.

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

You are contradicting yourself. Clearly the government does take away people's rights. Even if it's for a "rational" basis, the government does it. Even the most important right, often said to be inalienable, the right to life, can and is taken away by the government in many instances.

Regardless of how "rational" the reason may or may not be, if the government can take away a right, then it is not inalienable by virtue of your humanity.

 

[Dante]

natural law is nuttiness on steroids

 

[Friends]

There are no "inalienable rights." There are privileges that governments give or take at will. If you think you have the right to criticize the government, take a vacation to North Korea, and see what happens when you exercise that right.

 

[dblack]

"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.

Only by those who don't fully understand the concept.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I'm actually surprised there weren't any Constitutionalists that believe rights from the State. There's actually more than you think. They see rights as a result of a social contract, even if an infinite reservoir of rights are reserved to the people (Ninth Amendment) at birth.

That's not my stance, but I am surprised, since I exchange intellectual salvos with them quite frequently at our meetings.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Really?

I believe that rights are enforceable in a Glockian state.