Listening to Paul Ryan

[Intense]

IF we really have come to a point where people honestly believe that our rights are given or withheld by government, we don't have a country left anymore. We have moved government back to beyond even the Magna Carta, to the point where rights were at the whim of the King.

The government doesn't enforce rights. The government is and always was, to protect the natural, God given rights of the people.

The blame obviously lies with poor quality public school education and indoctrination. It's the comfort zone of the Totalitarian Statist Progressive, to think the Sun rises and sets by their decree. ...... I think we need to find a new Baby Sitter.

 

[Intense]

Paul Ryan said yesterday, that our rights come from Gawd and nature. So then my question is, if rights come from Gawd and nature, what might they be? Can someone describe a right that comes from nature? Can someone define a right that comes from Gawd? I am interested in a definition of these rights, their foundational source (no tautologies), explanatory reasons, and consequential implications.

All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Those words are from the Constitution, it is neither nature nor gawd, it was written by men and its power, if it has any at all, resides in how people in America interpret those words. The pursuit of happiness is particularly hard to establish as a right, what would they entail? So then you disagree with Ryan as those rights do come from our constitutional government?

Intense, Locke is not gawd and certainly not nature, borrow but give us detail.

Valerie, The full text of Ryan's comments is not the question, but you did give away part of my purpose in asking this question. The full text contains more BS than honest history, we can go there another time.


Be back, good lord willing and the creek don't rise.

Locke would be among the last to claim he was God. He knew better. Yet his philosophy, so much a part of what motivated, Madison, Jefferson, Thoreau, MLK, Gandhi. Funny, huh.

 

[The Rabbi]

Paul Ryan said yesterday, that our rights come from Gawd and nature. So then my question is, if rights come from Gawd and nature, what might they be? Can someone describe a right that comes from nature? Can someone define a right that comes from Gawd? I am interested in a definition of these rights, their foundational source (no tautologies), explanatory reasons, and consequential implications.

All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Those words are from the Constitution, it is neither nature nor gawd, it was written by men and its power, if it has any at all, resides in how people in America interpret those words. The pursuit of happiness is particularly hard to establish as a right, what would they entail? So then you disagree with Ryan as those rights do come from our constitutional government?

Intense, Locke is not gawd and certainly not nature, borrow but give us detail.

Valerie, The full text of Ryan's comments is not the question, but you did give away part of my purpose in asking this question. The full text contains more BS than honest history, we can go there another time.


Be back, good lord willing and the creek don't rise.

They're actually from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Ryan is echoing the words of the Founders. You dont like that? Fine.

 

[Foxfyre]

Throughout the recorded history of the world. governments have assigned the rights the people are allowed to have and can just as easily take those rights away.

IMO, Ryan was expressing that the U.S. Constitution was based on the concept that the people's rights precede government and are God given, or if you are a non believer, are the natural state of humankind. The sole purpose of the U.S. government is to secure those rights and provide a structure within which those rights can be exercised. Then government is to leave us alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of society we wish to have.

And that is what makes the United States unique among all nations that have ever existed and is the fundametal foundation of American exceptionalism. It is a principle that the people are not governed but rather govern themselves.

 

[peach174]

Paul Ryan said yesterday, that our rights come from Gawd and nature. So then my question is, if rights come from Gawd and nature, what might they be? Can someone describe a right that comes from nature? Can someone define a right that comes from Gawd? I am interested in a definition of these rights, their foundational source (no tautologies), explanatory reasons, and consequential implications.

All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Those words are from the Constitution, it is neither nature nor gawd, it was written by men and its power, if it has any at all, resides in how people in America interpret those words. The pursuit of happiness is particularly hard to establish as a right, what would they entail? So then you disagree with Ryan as those rights do come from our constitutional government?

Intense, Locke is not gawd and certainly not nature, borrow but give us detail.

Valerie, The full text of Ryan's comments is not the question, but you did give away part of my purpose in asking this question. The full text contains more BS than honest history, we can go there another time.


Be back, good lord willing and the creek don't rise.

I think that President George Washington said it best as to the question of the pursuit of happiness.
He said that it was each and everyone as an American, to strive for their own little piece of heaven.
Each and every American has the right to strive for their hopes and dreams of what they want in order to be happy.
Our Federal and State Governments and the Departments have stopped this, from too many Laws and Regulations.
One example would be that our children can not set up a lemon aid stand without a very cost prohibitive permit. When the permit costs more than what the child can make in sales, is not that young persons pursuit of happiness.
Most recent in the news, was the child who set up a hot dog stand to help out his family. It was shut down. These are state laws.
Now transfer the above examples to our entrepreneurs and businesses, which is Federal laws.
Federal Governments role is to protect the people as well as the businesses.What has been happening for the last 30 years is Government laws and regulations is prohibiting businesses.
We the people are suppose to be in power.
If you think you might get sick from a kids lemon aid stand don't buy the product. Same with the hot dog stand.

If we don't start to contain the costs of our or state and federal government costs, it will have to be paid for by our future generations and they will be working for nothing but the government payouts and not for their dreams and happiness.

 

[Foxfyre]

In his book In Search of Self Governance, pollster Scott Rassmussen made an excellent case for the original concept of American government. And his ongoing polling data backs up everything Ryan was saying summarized in this short essay:

Excerpt:

Put it all together, and it's easy to understand why 66 percent believe that the best thing government could do to help the economy is cut spending. Americans have come to view the government as a burden that is weighing down the economy and the nation.

This is not an anti-government attitude, it's simply a desire to have government play its proper role in society. Too many politicians, from both political parties, believe the government's job is to run the country. A healthier view is to recognize that our government was designed to play a support role rather than take the lead.

As I wrote in my book "In Search of Self-Governance," the American people do not want to be governed from the left, the right or the center. They want to govern themselves.
The Heavy Burden of Government - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[Katzndogz]

It's very simple. If you believe that your rights come from the government you are not a free person. You are a subject or a slave. You will never own property because the right to own that property comes from the government. You will never be able to advance because the right to advance comes from the government. You can't amass wealth because the government has the rights to all that wealth and you can't have any more than the government lets you have.

Rights come from God, the government's proper role is to protect those rights. Protect does not mean create. It is unfortunate that so many individuals prefer to believe that rights come from the government and a person can have no more or less than what the government allows.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's very simple. If you believe that your rights come from the government you are not a free person. You are a subject or a slave. You will never own property because the right to own that property comes from the government. You will never be able to advance because the right to advance comes from the government. You can't amass wealth because the government has the rights to all that wealth and you can't have any more than the government lets you have.

Rights come from God, the government's proper role is to protect those rights. Protect does not mean create. It is unfortunate that so many individuals prefer to believe that rights come from the government and a person can have no more or less than what the government allows.

I have to say I can't really agree with that. Rights appear to be a construct of society.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's very simple. If you believe that your rights come from the government you are not a free person. You are a subject or a slave. You will never own property because the right to own that property comes from the government. You will never be able to advance because the right to advance comes from the government. You can't amass wealth because the government has the rights to all that wealth and you can't have any more than the government lets you have.

Rights come from God, the government's proper role is to protect those rights. Protect does not mean create. It is unfortunate that so many individuals prefer to believe that rights come from the government and a person can have no more or less than what the government allows.

I have to say I can't really agree with that. Rights appear to be a construct of society.

That was the entire point of America to begin with. That no society would be created that would deprive someone of God given rights. As we forget that and shift the benefit of rights to the government we are losing them.

It might be because you are conflating our horde of created rights with the rights that come from the Creator. Freedom of Speech is a constructed right. Freedom of religion is a constructed right. The right to a trial by jury isn't a natural right. It's a created right.

Natural rights given by the Creator include the right to be let alone. To be able to rise or fall on their own merits. The right to order their own affairs. Drafts of the Declaration of Independence show that originally it said Life, Liberty and Property. It was later changed to pursuit of happiness. It should have stayed the way it was.

 

[there4eyeM]

A 'right' is an invention of the human mind to describe a certain kind of relationship between a human and the universe.

In general, it refers to something assumed to extend to a person's being simply by existing. In an essential sense, the right to remain alive is probably the most universal right that is implicitly accepted by all cultures, and explicitly in many.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's very simple. If you believe that your rights come from the government you are not a free person. You are a subject or a slave. You will never own property because the right to own that property comes from the government. You will never be able to advance because the right to advance comes from the government. You can't amass wealth because the government has the rights to all that wealth and you can't have any more than the government lets you have.

Rights come from God, the government's proper role is to protect those rights. Protect does not mean create. It is unfortunate that so many individuals prefer to believe that rights come from the government and a person can have no more or less than what the government allows.

I have to say I can't really agree with that. Rights appear to be a construct of society.

That was the entire point of America to begin with. That no society would be created that would deprive someone of God given rights. As we forget that and shift the benefit of rights to the government we are losing them.

It might be because you are conflating our horde of created rights with the rights that come from the Creator. Freedom of Speech is a constructed right. Freedom of religion is a constructed right. The right to a trial by jury isn't a natural right. It's a created right.

Natural rights given by the Creator include the right to be let alone. To be able to rise or fall on their own merits. The right to order their own affairs. Drafts of the Declaration of Independence show that originally it said Life, Liberty and Property. It was later changed to pursuit of happiness. It should have stayed the way it was.

I disagree there are rights given by the Creator. I have never seen any enumerated, nor a source for them.

 

[there4eyeM]

"I disagree there are rights given by the Creator."

Whether there are or not we will probably never know.

What is true at human level of existence is that rights are a human concept and, as such, mean precisely what humans decide they mean.

How would we even know if an outside, objective viewer existed?

 

[Bill Angel]

It's very simple. If you believe that your rights come from the government you are not a free person. You are a subject or a slave. You will never own property because the right to own that property comes from the government. You will never be able to advance because the right to advance comes from the government. You can't amass wealth because the government has the rights to all that wealth and you can't have any more than the government lets you have.

Rights come from God, the government's proper role is to protect those rights. Protect does not mean create. It is unfortunate that so many individuals prefer to believe that rights come from the government and a person can have no more or less than what the government allows.

I have to say I can't really agree with that. Rights appear to be a construct of society.

I would agree that rights are a construct of society. Does an unborn child have the same rights as a human being? That's a question to be resolved by the standards of the community expressed through the legislative process. The issue of whether or not a diety views an unborn child as a human being is irrelevant, given the separation of church and state.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

IF we really have come to a point where people honestly believe that our rights are given or withheld by government, we don't have a country left anymore. We have moved government back to beyond even the Magna Carta, to the point where rights were at the whim of the King.

The government doesn't enforce rights. The government is and always was, to protect the natural, God given rights of the people.

The blame obviously lies with poor quality public school education and indoctrination. It's the comfort zone of the Totalitarian Statist Progressive, to think the Sun rises and sets by their decree. ...... I think we need to find a new Baby Sitter.

Right you are. Although, I do not think we need a change in babysitter. We dont need a babysitter at all. We need a solid "referee" system to protect each of our rights equally. Progressives believe much differently.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Do you own yourself? If yes, with that ownership lies responsibility to care for yourself and your interests. Whether they be owned production means, or a community of producers with which creates the function of other production (in particular, your production).

If no, who owns you?

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you own yourself? If yes, with that ownership lies responsibility to care for yourself and your interests. Whether they be owned production means, or a community of producers with which creates the function of other production (in particular, your production).

If no, who owns you?

Same one who owns the air or the moon.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The progressives remind me of the peasants groveling in the mud at the feet of the king. As long he gets a pat on the head and a chit, he'll be back to bow again like a good serf or servant.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Even praising the boot on his neck. Who protects and keeps him safe from the dangers of the other plebs just like him. At the price of servitude, of course.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's very simple. If you believe that your rights come from the government you are not a free person. You are a subject or a slave. You will never own property because the right to own that property comes from the government. You will never be able to advance because the right to advance comes from the government. You can't amass wealth because the government has the rights to all that wealth and you can't have any more than the government lets you have.

Rights come from God, the government's proper role is to protect those rights. Protect does not mean create. It is unfortunate that so many individuals prefer to believe that rights come from the government and a person can have no more or less than what the government allows.

I have to say I can't really agree with that. Rights appear to be a construct of society.

I would agree that rights are a construct of society. Does an unborn child have the same rights as a human being? That's a question to be resolved by the standards of the community expressed through the legislative process. The issue of whether or not a diety views an unborn child as a human being is irrelevant, given the separation of church and state.

The government is supposed to protect inalienable rights such as a right to life. When the government stops protecting those rights and starts taking them away at whim the government is no longer a legitimate government.

At one time black people did not have the same rights as human beings. They were by law, less than men. The issue of whether or not a diety views a black person as a human being is irrelevant, given the separation of church and state.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's very simple. If you believe that your rights come from the government you are not a free person. You are a subject or a slave. You will never own property because the right to own that property comes from the government. You will never be able to advance because the right to advance comes from the government. You can't amass wealth because the government has the rights to all that wealth and you can't have any more than the government lets you have.

Rights come from God, the government's proper role is to protect those rights. Protect does not mean create. It is unfortunate that so many individuals prefer to believe that rights come from the government and a person can have no more or less than what the government allows.

I have to say I can't really agree with that. Rights appear to be a construct of society.

That was the entire point of America to begin with. That no society would be created that would deprive someone of God given rights. As we forget that and shift the benefit of rights to the government we are losing them.

It might be because you are conflating our horde of created rights with the rights that come from the Creator. Freedom of Speech is a constructed right. Freedom of religion is a constructed right. The right to a trial by jury isn't a natural right. It's a created right.

Natural rights given by the Creator include the right to be let alone. To be able to rise or fall on their own merits. The right to order their own affairs. Drafts of the Declaration of Independence show that originally it said Life, Liberty and Property. It was later changed to pursuit of happiness. It should have stayed the way it was.

There is no such thing as a ‘created right,’ fundamental rights are natural and innate: the right to free expression, the right to privacy, the right of self-determination, to marry, to vote, to have children no not. The Constitution and its case law create a framework balancing the interests of the state and individual.

The 14th Amendment, essentially a codification of the doctrine of inalienable rights, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, is the engine which drives the mechanics of the Constitution ensuring a consistent application of individual liberties among all jurisdictions. That all persons will enjoy due process of the law, both procedural and substantive, and that all persons will enjoy equal protection of the law.

The Constitution both acknowledges the existence of inalienable rights and, just as importantly, ensures the process by which those rights may be expressed freely by the individual.