Listening to Paul Ryan

[there4eyeM]

So, Americans prefer to be self directed?

I would sincerely love that to be true, but the evidence is to the contrary. The very capacity for self direction is absent. Thinking alone appears to be much too much effort, and thinking would require education and conscious effort to understand analysis, deduction, induction and a basis in philosophy.

In any case, if they really wanted what the above post talks about, they would have cleaned out Congress a long time ago.

 

[Katzndogz]

What set the United States apart from every form of government that had gone before was the promise that the government would recognize and protect God given rights.

The communist liberal view is that all rights come from the government therefore it has no obligation to protect anyone's rights. The slave is a slave because there is no right to freedom. Not because they innately possess the right to freedom that has been wrongfully taken from them.

 

[there4eyeM]

Whether the authority is supposed to come from God or the state, the delusion is that rights are external and established somewhere objectively.
Gravity might be objective.
Rights are purely subjective.

 

[Foxfyre]

So, Americans prefer to be self directed?

I would sincerely love that to be true, but the evidence is to the contrary. The very capacity for self direction is absent. Thinking alone appears to be much too much effort, and thinking would require education and conscious effort to understand analysis, deduction, induction and a basis in philosophy.

In any case, if they really wanted what the above post talks about, they would have cleaned out Congress a long time ago.

Yes. Pollster Scott Rasmussen put out an excellent book In Search of Self Goverance not that long ago that was an excellent study in just that thing. America was founded on the principle of self governance and the seeds of longing for such freedom remains in our culture. And it worked beautifully for us for a long time. But it is now slowly being snuffed out by entrapment into entitlements that seems to be stronger than even the longing for freedom.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is a sense that if there are God given rights, then no one would be able to take them away. God would strike them dead or something like that. Since government can give rights as well as take them away, there are no God given rights.

Not so. When a thief comes into your home and steals your television set do you suddenly no longer own it? Your right exists, and you can enforce that right and take your property back. Taking your property does not end your right.

This should be easily understood. Odd that it isn't. Human beings possess innate rights. If human beings did not have innate rights, we could not possibly ever have ended slavery. There would be no reason or justification for giving slaves freedom. They never had the right in the first place.

 

[there4eyeM]

Can anyone please explain what it means to own something one does not have?

 

[there4eyeM]

Slaves were people who were not in a position to practice their human rights. The temporary moral situation (temporary, although it had lasted throughout the ages) was that slavery was not only OK, but just (it is validated in the Bible).
Finally, the evolution of thought extended what others felt were their rights to 'slaves' as well.
Now, the slaves were free to do what they liked.
The problem was that they did not know how to do very much.
Soon, they fell back into a condition that was almost worse and often just as bad as slavery.
With expanded choice (education and experience) came expanded rights.
Rights only have meaning when they can be exercised.
Like the stolen T.V., it is meaningless to say it still belongs to 'the rightful owner'; What programs can be watched?

 

[Katzndogz]

Can anyone please explain what it means to own something one does not have?

It means the right to possess the property that is superior to the power of someone else to take it from you.

You also confuse rights with acts. The right to own a television set is separate from the act of watching it. You can really own a television set and not ever watch it.

 

[there4eyeM]

When the person who stole the T.V. sells it to B, B becomes an owner. If A arrives and claims it, what right is to be honored?

You only expose the relativity of rights.

 

[Intense]

When the person who stole the T.V. sells it to B, B becomes an owner. If A arrives and claims it, what right is to be honored?

You only expose the relativity of rights.

The Lawful Owner's claim is honored.

 

[Vidi]

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.

Ryan is only half correct.

Some rights are unalienable. And they come from our Creator. This is expressed in the Declaration of Independence when its listed as "amoung these" are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

But like I said, Ryan is only half right. Some rights do in fact come from the State and not God. FOr example, the right to a fair and speedy trial comes from Government, NOT God.


This is one of Ryans fundamental flaws. He does not make the distinction between God or Creator given unalienable rights, and those that are given to us as citizens of this country through the power of the Constitution.

 

[midcan5]

You are trying to prove your point by refusing to look at differing opinions, then saying that that proves your point.

But you miss the point in the first place:

Ryan was talking about the IDEAL that the founding fathers described as the basis for our constitutional republic. Get it? The ideal is the basis for the form of government that they set up. They then used the ideal to write out the laws of the land, which include the bill of rights. (They also setup a mechanism so that things can be changed, it's called a constitutional amendment. You should look into that as I describe your apparent desire to change things later.)

Just as the progressive ideal is that government knows best.

These are the two opposing ideaologies that are in play in this election. But take a closer look at the above statements about ideals. One describes they way in which our country was set up. The other is something completely different. So you are either for the constitutional republic, or you are not.

The question was about rights and where they come from, it was not about government. I purposely left government out because Ryan clearly said our rights come from Gawd and nature. His next words were they do not come from government. My question stands.

OT - No progressive person who lives in the real world thinks government knows best or that government acts as a single thing. An ideal is not real it is an ideal, you're barking up a tree with no branches nor substance. Ideas are not rights, we may aspire to them but the world is not an idea. is there any need to give examples? Think slavery, civil rights etc.

"Rights are just (tastes) emotions without rational thought.' Bentham

 

[P@triot]

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 defintion 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.

again, nice concept... but the declaration of independence doesn't carry force of law...

which brings us back to...the rights only exist which government will enforce.

So if government gives you rights, logically, one would have to conclude they can take them away. So if government can take away your right to life, do you accept that? Do you agree with that? I sure as hell don't and never will.

 

[P@triot]

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.

There are many of them:

The right to life (thou shalt not kill) - nobody has the right to take your life away from you.

All men are created equal (that doesn't mean all men have the same equal abilities or will get the same equal outcomes - it means all people will be held to the same standards and will follow the same laws)

Liberty - you are born free (nobody comes out of their mothers womb with shackles on). You have a right to live free

You get the idea now?

 

[jillian]

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 defintion of these rights, their foundational source (no tautologies), explanatory reasons, and consequential implications.

it's an interesting concept in terms of political philosophy.

in reality, rights only exist which the government is willing to enforce. i'm sure that 2nd generation japanese-americans would have been pleased to attest to that in 1940....

and women, pre-vote, would have seconded...

which would have been fully agreed with by blacks during slavery, and post slavery through the jim crow era.

and that doesn't even begin to touch on things like the right to marry a person of the color you choose (not enforced until loving v virginia during the 70's) and a myriad of other issues

We all have Rights that We Each Enforce, with or without Governments knowledge, approval, permission, or consent. There are Authorities higher than that of Government.

really? there was an uprising letting the interned japanese out of their camps?

it's a great thought. but not reality, unfortunately.

rights exist which the government enforces.... or they don't exist.

 

[P@triot]

really? there was an uprising letting the interned japanese out of their camps?

it's a great thought. but not reality, unfortunately.

rights exist which the government enforces.... or they don't exist.

I think this really sums up the ideological differences between the right and the left. Everything you've stated in this thread can be summed up as "We the people are the pets of the government. We answer to them, they are our masters, and we have rights based on what they 'enforce' or don't".

As a proud American conservative, I can say without hesitation that I am the governments master, that the government answers to me, and that my rights will not be trampled on because I will take up arms and die over throwing them before I allow them to decide for me what my rights are. It's exactly what our founders did, and I find it tragic that the left feels they are the good little obedient slaves of the government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 defintion of these rights, their foundational source (no tautologies), explanatory reasons, and consequential implications.

it's an interesting concept in terms of political philosophy.

in reality, rights only exist which the government is willing to enforce. i'm sure that 2nd generation japanese-americans would have been pleased to attest to that in 1940....

and women, pre-vote, would have seconded...

which would have been fully agreed with by blacks during slavery, and post slavery through the jim crow era.

and that doesn't even begin to touch on things like the right to marry a person of the color you choose (not enforced until loving v virginia during the 70's) and a myriad of other issues

In reality, government exist only to take away rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You haven't read very much, have you?

The problem is that most people confuse natural and legal obligations. Natural rights are those that are inherent in us as individuals. I think Hobbes was the first to effectively articulate the difference between a right and a obligation. Despite jillian's pointing to the fact that women were denied the right to vote as proof that rights come from the government, voting is not actually a natural right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Voting does not exist in nature, it is not a right that is inherent in our nature.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights granted by the Creator, a quick question...........

Does that mean that people in places like China, N. Korea, Iran, Syria, etc. were never created by the Creator? I mean, if those rights are granted to all humans, then the people in those places must be something less than human because they don't have the right to life (can be killed by govt troops for no reason like in Syria where they are exterminating Sunnis), liberty (you can't go where you want to in N. Korea or Iran), or the pursuit of happiness?

Are people in those countries less than human, or just lacking a relationship with the Creator? And, if they're lacking a relationship with the Creator, why did He abandon them?

Yep, that is what it means.

Idiot.