Education a right ?

[Murf76]

For the logically challenged:

If you must defend against a particular right being taken away, that presupposes that it can in fact be taken away and is therefore by definition, not unalienable.

Sure. Any right can be taken away, unalienable or no. But when they are... that's how you know you're living in TYRANNY.



Oh... and btw. when your avatar is an ass, no matter how pretty... one is left to assume it's representative.

 

[antagon]

Spare me the gradeschool tactics.

These were thoughtful, studied men

I don't disagree with the Rights that they came up with.

the term natural and the idea of inalienability is that which, indeed, elevates rights beyond our capacity to grant or rescind them. natural in the sense that gravity is natural. we could buck against them, but it doesnt strike them from fact. the idea that governments have no right to obstruct our access to certain 'natural', or as murph nicely termed them, 'sacrosanct', freedoms is what the enlightenment, existentialism the US revolution and our constitution is all about.

 

[The Rabbi]

The same people who decided we have unalienable rights decided that only whiteskinned males had them. So even the people who supposedly understood this ethereal concept of unalienable rights assigned them arbitrarily.

Where is there any founding document that gives rights only to whiteskinned males?

Are you being obtuse for any specific reason? Slavery and women's suffrage.

Are you actually this stupid? Where is slavery limited to black people?

 

[The Rabbi]

These were thoughtful, studied men

I don't disagree with the Rights that they came up with.

the term natural and the idea of inalienability is that which, indeed, elevates rights beyond our capacity to grant or rescind them. natural in the sense that gravity is natural. we could buck against them, but it doesnt strike them from fact. the idea that governments have no right to obstruct our access to certain 'natural', or as murph nicely termed them, 'sacrosanct', freedoms is what the enlightenment, existentialism the US revolution and our constitution is all about.

Roughly 3000 years of human history tends to disprove this nicety.

 

[The Rabbi]

I dont know. I dont know what Murf's position is. He seems to be conflating "rights" with moral right and wrong. But I can't tell.

His position is that he agrees with the Founders that the Rights were granted by Nature.

Then, yes I disagree with him.

 

[G.T.]

These were thoughtful, studied men

I don't disagree with the Rights that they came up with.

the term natural and the idea of inalienability is that which, indeed, elevates rights beyond our capacity to grant or rescind them. natural in the sense that gravity is natural. we could buck against them, but it doesnt strike them from fact. the idea that governments have no right to obstruct our access to certain 'natural', or as murph nicely termed them, 'sacrosanct', freedoms is what the enlightenment, existentialism the US revolution and our constitution is all about.

I think Sentient man decided what those Rights were, and so I simply disagree where they "came from" thus disagree with those same Men's Premise. That's all, and my position is quite simple and not disprovable. If so, do so logically. Let's see it. Don't forget that just because someone said so, doesn't make it so "in Nature" or otherwise.

 

[beowolfe]

The idea of education being a right, can not be a fact.
It is a law, none the less, that you must ATTEND (if under a certain age).
No one can force you to become educated. Public schooling is paid for with public taxes, so one could argue that taxation without appropriation would be the only thing at play in this sandbox. (that common good stuff is Communism).

The path to our future depends upon our children. Whether we decide to give them proper education for the new needs of the global economy remains to be seen. If they don’t finish high school then what about collage? No new Dr’s, chemists, engineers, architects, etc. These all have to be imported because we produce none.

No it’s not an inalienable right but the failure of our children, is the failure of our nation.

The grammar and syntax errors in this post are quite ironic in the face of its intended purpose.

Not just grammar and syntax. Check this out:

taxation without appropriation

He has a vocabulary problem too.

 

[beowolfe]

No one can claim a right if excercising that right imposes an obligation on someone else.

True. But in this case, the obligation is on the government.

 

[Murf76]

I dont know. I dont know what Murf's position is. He seems to be conflating "rights" with moral right and wrong. But I can't tell.

Okay. Let me see if I can clarify a bit....

Healthcare and education are NOT unalienable rights. They are not endowed upon us by God (or by Nature if you have no God). They are not things we were born with. We're human animals, so we can speak our opinion... therefore, we have a natural right to do so.

When unalienable rights are observed, and no one impedes upon the rights of other citizens... we can enjoy a peaceful, civilized way of life. This would be our natural state of grace (or being), when it is strictly adhered to.

The "human rights" argument is simply a transparent globalization effort which installs government as an enforcer of wealth redistribution. Government is FORCE. Redistribution is FORCE. It cannot result in peace, because it does not respect the unalienable rights of our humanity. It TAKES from us our labor or property.

The Bill of Rights does NOT endow us with rights. It simply guarantees that government will not impose upon our naturally existing rights as human beings.

It IS possible to do that... to impede these rights as a matter of tyranny. But it doesn't cause them not to exist, and it is a perversion of our Constitution to do so.

Healthcare and Education are laudable goals... but they are NOT rights. Each requires the labor and money (property) of other citizens. These are not something which we can fully acquire on our own. That said, the government does NOT have the right to stop us from acquiring it. And they do. In fact, they'll do even more of it if we don't step up to the plate and put the statists out of power.

An arbitrary "right", endowed by men... can just as easily be taken away, by men. An unalienable right is NOT an imposition upon others. It simply exists. And when it is impeded, the result is disharmony.

The fact that we have traditionally allowed certain impositions, like federally-funded healthcare or state-funded education, does not mean that they aren't in opposition with our natural rights. It simply means that we have been societally tolerant of them on the whole. But, on the other hand... look at the conflict they do in fact cause, because they are NOT the exception to the rule. They redistribute labor and property from one citizen to another and in so doing cause disharmony because the process is involuntary.

 

[Murf76]

No one can claim a right if excercising that right imposes an obligation on someone else.

True. But in this case, the obligation is on the government.

The government has no separate wealth of its own. It conscripts wealth from citizens.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where is there any founding document that gives rights only to whiteskinned males?

Are you being obtuse for any specific reason? Slavery and women's suffrage.

Are you actually this stupid? Where is slavery limited to black people?

In pre-emancipation America. The Constitution did not protect the unalienable rights of black people in America. The framers claimed that we are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights,

but not if you're black.

And a woman's right to vote had to be secured by Constitutional amendment.

In short, the founders and framers were full of shit with their unalienable god-given rights bullshit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Frankly I'm astounded that anyone would not want education to be a right.

 

[manifold]

Are you being obtuse for any specific reason? Slavery and women's suffrage.

Are you actually this stupid? Where is slavery limited to black people?

In pre-emancipation America. The Constitution did not protect the unalienable rights of black people in America. The framers claimed that we are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights,

but not if you're black.

And a woman's right to vote had to be secured by Constitutional amendment.

In short, the founders and framers were full of shit with their unalienable god-given rights bullshit.

Still though, it sure was one helluva damn good sales pitch.

People are still buying it today!

 

[Murf76]

Frankly I'm astounded that anyone would not want education to be a right.

That's likely because you haven't followed that line of thought out to it's worst case scenario, no matter how improbable.

If Education and Healthcare are "rights"... then they MUST be provided. What that means.. is that if all else fails, then citizens themselves, must be conscripted in order to provide it. Say for example, that no matter what we do, we can't provide enough supply to meet demand. Not enough citizens choose education or healthcare as a career. We can't pay enough. We can't import enough. What then???

Yeah. It's an unlikely case that we'd ever see a situation like that. But in exploring it out to the most bizarre conclusion, one can see the moral implications. In the worst case scenario, the government must conscript free citizens and FORCE them to provide these services to others.

 

[G.T.]

I dont know. I dont know what Murf's position is. He seems to be conflating "rights" with moral right and wrong. But I can't tell.

Okay. Let me see if I can clarify a bit....

Healthcare and education are NOT unalienable rights. They are not endowed upon us by God (or by Nature if you have no God). They are not things we were born with. We're human animals, so we can speak our opinion... therefore, we have a natural right to do so.

When unalienable rights are observed, and no one impedes upon the rights of other citizens... we can enjoy a peaceful, civilized way of life. This would be our natural state of grace (or being), when it is strictly adhered to.

The "human rights" argument is simply a transparent globalization effort which installs government as an enforcer of wealth redistribution. Government is FORCE. Redistribution is FORCE. It cannot result in peace, because it does not respect the unalienable rights of our humanity. It TAKES from us our labor or property.

The Bill of Rights does NOT endow us with rights. It simply guarantees that government will not impose upon our naturally existing rights as human beings.

It IS possible to do that... to impede these rights as a matter of tyranny. But it doesn't cause them not to exist, and it is a perversion of our Constitution to do so.

Healthcare and Education are laudable goals... but they are NOT rights. Each requires the labor and money (property) of other citizens. These are not something which we can fully acquire on our own. That said, the government does NOT have the right to stop us from acquiring it. And they do. In fact, they'll do even more of it if we don't step up to the plate and put the statists out of power.

An arbitrary "right", endowed by men... can just as easily be taken away, by men. An unalienable right is NOT an imposition upon others. It simply exists. And when it is impeded, the result is disharmony.

The fact that we have traditionally allowed certain impositions, like federally-funded healthcare or state-funded education, does not mean that they aren't in opposition with our natural rights. It simply means that we have been societally tolerant of them on the whole. But, on the other hand... look at the conflict they do in fact cause, because they are NOT the exception to the rule. They redistribute labor and property from one citizen to another and in so doing cause disharmony because the process is involuntary.

Unalienable rights were said to be unalienable, and made as such, by MEN. Nature does not provide these, neither does God. Men decided upon them, and put them onto paper.

 

[Murf76]

Unalienable rights were said to be unalienable, and made as such, by MEN. Nature does not provide these, neither does God. Men decided upon them, and put them onto paper.

I only said that human beings are capable of a detailed thought process. I didn't say they all engage in it. Clearly... some don't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you actually this stupid? Where is slavery limited to black people?

In pre-emancipation America. The Constitution did not protect the unalienable rights of black people in America. The framers claimed that we are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights,

but not if you're black.

And a woman's right to vote had to be secured by Constitutional amendment.

In short, the founders and framers were full of shit with their unalienable god-given rights bullshit.

Still though, it sure was one helluva damn good sales pitch.

People are still buying it today!

The founders were merely trying to attach some veneer of profondity and grandiosity to their selfish desires to justify treason.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As an aside, the new Iraqi Constitution proclaims healthcare to be a RIGHT.

Would that be an unalienable right? A natural right? A phoney un-American right that no foreigner has any business calling a right because only Americans can decide what are and aren't rights?

eh??

 

[Murf76]

As an aside, the new Iraqi Constitution proclaims healthcare to be a RIGHT.

Would that be an unalienable right? A natural right? A phoney un-American right that no foreigner has any business calling a right because only Americans can decide what are and aren't rights?

eh??

So? Emigrate to Iraq then. They can put whatever they want in their Constitution. It's their country. Drop us a postcard when you get there, why don't you? I'm sure we'll all be waiting on tenterhooks to see how you've adjusted to your new country.

 

[G.T.]

Unalienable rights were said to be unalienable, and made as such, by MEN. Nature does not provide these, neither does God. Men decided upon them, and put them onto paper.

I only said that human beings are capable of a detailed thought process. I didn't say they all engage in it. Clearly... some don't.

Yes, clearly. One believes in something with no evidence, one follows thought and observation.