Are our rights Innate, or priveledges from the State?

[The2ndAmendment]

No comment here. Just taking the poll.

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

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Oh, when you vote, bump the thread, so it remains visible for others.

 

[konradv]

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

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

 

[SwimExpert]

No comment here. Just taking the poll.

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

"Rights" is far too vague and diverse.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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

If rights are innate, the role of Government is to protect them, or least protect certain rights, as the State only has limited time and resources.The goal of this Government is to prioritize which rights it protects, among the infinite reservoir of rights that are innate and retained by the people (Ninth Amendment).

If rights are granted by the State itself, then the role of Government is to determine when to take those rights away from the Law abiding (non criminals). The goal of this Government is police the people, no ensure that they do not exercise any rights not granted by the State. The State will make maximum use and efficiency of its limited Time and Resources to police those who challenge its authority.


HUGE EFFING DIFFERENCE.

 

[koshergrl]

Innate, and the only job of the government is to protect them.

 

[Sallow]

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.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

You won't find anyone (other than Anarchists) that disagree with that statement.

 

[Clementine]

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.

Exactly. Without controlling politicians, our rights are safe. It's they who constantly seek to trample on them and try to micromanage our lives.

The job of the federal and state governments are simply to create fair laws and uphold them. They should take action only when people trample on the rights of others. Intervening in our private lives or tampering with the way the private sector works is out of line.

Of course, the debate is on what is fair or not. Liberals think it's fair for government to legislate every aspect of our lives from controlling what we eat to taking as much of our earnings as they see fit. They want no limits on what government can do.

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

Nobody is discussing the merits of having a state. The question is whether rights exist separate from being granted by a state. Konradv's position is question begging.

 

[oldfart]

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.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

THis falls along the lines of Constitutionalist/State.

 

[natstew]

Before there was Government there were rights. Governments are formed by the people to protect those rights.

Tyrants, (Obama), get in Government to take those rights.

 

[The T]

Innate, and the only job of the government is to protect them.

Declaration recognized it, Constitution codified it. It is being wrecked on purpose.

 

[Bombur]

Rights are just the name people made up to describe moral beliefs they considered important. The whole thing about them being God given is also a belief but it is also propaganda and an attempt to make sure people know they are important.

By calling them rights it is also meant to establish the relationship between the people and the government. Essentially the basis for establishing the government in the first place is for that government to protect these rights (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness). Inherent in the belief concerning rights is that government can be abolished if it fails to live up to these requirements.

I would also point out that by failing to outlaw slavery the Constitution was clearly a piece of crap that failed to live up to the standards for government which justified the revolution in the first place.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I would also point out that by failing to outlaw slavery the Constitution was clearly a piece of crap that failed to live up to the standards for government which justified the revolution in the first place.

???

There would have been no Constitution at all if the Abolitionists insisted on outlawing slavery. It's also that same Constitution that was amended (after a LOT of bloodshed) that removed that blight.

One can also argue that there existed no PEACEFUL measures that would have ended slavery. Only the industrial revolution (a few decades later) would have brought a peaceful end to it, but no one could have predicted that during the 1860's.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Rights are just the name people made up to describe moral beliefs they considered important. The whole thing about them being God given is also a belief but it is also propaganda and an attempt to make sure people know they are important.

By calling them rights it is also meant to establish the relationship between the people and the government. Essentially the basis for establishing the government in the first place is for that government to protect these rights (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness). Inherent in the belief concerning rights is that government can be abolished if it fails to live up to these requirements.

I would also point out that by failing to outlaw slavery the Constitution was clearly a piece of crap that failed to live up to the standards for government which justified the revolution in the first place.

"Rights" don't exist outside society. They are collective figments, only "existing" when society believes in them.

 

[Destroyer2]

Rights are whatever society as a whole at a particular time perceives them to be.

Hell, we really didn't come up with a real idea of "natural rights" until John Locke came along in the fucking 1700s; I think if rights were innate we'd have realized them before then.

The government is socially pressured to uphold the rights people perceive as necessary to a moral and functioning society.

Hence, rights are society-granted, not state-granted nor innate.

 

[Agit8r]

It depends on the right. Some rights are alienated to society in place of savage freedom and insecurity. other rights are inalienable, in that they are necessary in order to be secure.