"Rights are special privileges the government gives you."

[Conservative65]

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution aka "The Bill of Rights" aren't bestowed by the government. The Bill of Rights are limitations on government power.

The Bill of Rights were put in place by the government not to grant rights but restrict the government from violating the ones people had to start with. That those who created our system of government put restrictions on what they could do in relation to those rights, being that many of them placing the restrictions served as members of government subject to the limits, says a lot about where rights come from and where they don't.

The Bill of Rights grants rights. The Constitution grants rights.

If not, why do we so often hear conservative 'constitutionalists' denying that something is a right because it's not in the Constitution?

Not so. An educated reading instead of a bend over grab our ankles mentality like you Liberal constitutionalists have would show that. The Bill of Rights is what the federal government can't do to the rights you already have. Those thing you bleeding hearts want to call rights are things you already have the availability to. Your problem is you want to call them rights so you can get one person to fund them for another person. Healthcare is something you call right so idiots like your President can propose laws that subsidize one person at the expense of another. Not one person is being denied healthcare because of their inability to pay. To say so would be saying I am being denied the right to work a job I want despite not having the educational level and training required to do so.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

homeschool.com, edhelper.com and enchantedlearning.com, sites that exist largely as curriculum guides for families who home-school their kids.

Home
Schoolin'

...

 

[HenryBHough]

Hey, liberals LIKE oppression!

Problem is they expect normal people to like it too.

 

[konradv]

The people who think same sex marriage should be allowed only on a state-by-state basis, are saying in effect that rights are goodies provided by the state. That must lead to massive cognitive dissonance, since many of the same people who believe the former, would deny the latter.

The thing is marriage is not a right. It is sanctioned by the church. For those who are non believers, government made laws that permitted the state to sanction and perform marriage ceremonies. Also, international Maritime Law permits the Captain of a ship to perform marriage ceremonies.
This new thing with gays getting married is a result of social change.
However, due to religious beliefs, many churches will not sanction that which they and their members believe to be sin.

My post was about states approving the marriages, not churches. Whom you're allowed to marry is treated like a right, because some grant it and some forbid it. Equal rights assumes that all should be able to marry whomever they want, as long as age or incest aren't a barrier.

 

[Spare_change]

The people who think same sex marriage should be allowed only on a state-by-state basis, are saying in effect that rights are goodies provided by the state. That must lead to massive cognitive dissonance, since many of the same people who believe the former, would deny the latter.

The thing is marriage is not a right. It is sanctioned by the church. For those who are non believers, government made laws that permitted the state to sanction and perform marriage ceremonies. Also, international Maritime Law permits the Captain of a ship to perform marriage ceremonies.
This new thing with gays getting married is a result of social change.
However, due to religious beliefs, many churches will not sanction that which they and their members believe to be sin.

My post was about states approving the marriages, not churches. Whom you're allowed to marry is treated like a right, because some grant it and some forbid it. Equal rights assumes that all should be able to marry whomever they want, as long as age or incest aren't a barrier.

Nobody -- NOBODY - grants rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The people who think same sex marriage should be allowed only on a state-by-state basis, are saying in effect that rights are goodies provided by the state. That must lead to massive cognitive dissonance, since many of the same people who believe the former, would deny the latter.

The thing is marriage is not a right. It is sanctioned by the church. For those who are non believers, government made laws that permitted the state to sanction and perform marriage ceremonies. Also, international Maritime Law permits the Captain of a ship to perform marriage ceremonies.
This new thing with gays getting married is a result of social change.
However, due to religious beliefs, many churches will not sanction that which they and their members believe to be sin.

My post was about states approving the marriages, not churches. Whom you're allowed to marry is treated like a right, because some grant it and some forbid it. Equal rights assumes that all should be able to marry whomever they want, as long as age or incest aren't a barrier.

Nobody -- NOBODY - grants rights.

Nonsense. If nobody grants rights, how do you know what is or isn't a right, and more importantly,

how then do you get a say, by your vote, on what will or won't be a right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution aka "The Bill of Rights" aren't bestowed by the government. The Bill of Rights are limitations on government power.

The Bill of Rights were put in place by the government not to grant rights but restrict the government from violating the ones people had to start with. That those who created our system of government put restrictions on what they could do in relation to those rights, being that many of them placing the restrictions served as members of government subject to the limits, says a lot about where rights come from and where they don't.

The Bill of Rights grants rights. The Constitution grants rights.

If not, why do we so often hear conservative 'constitutionalists' denying that something is a right because it's not in the Constitution?

Not so. An educated reading instead of a bend over grab our ankles mentality like you Liberal constitutionalists have would show that. The Bill of Rights is what the federal government can't do to the rights you already have. Those thing you bleeding hearts want to call rights are things you already have the availability to. Your problem is you want to call them rights so you can get one person to fund them for another person. Healthcare is something you call right so idiots like your President can propose laws that subsidize one person at the expense of another. Not one person is being denied healthcare because of their inability to pay. To say so would be saying I am being denied the right to work a job I want despite not having the educational level and training required to do so.

That is such nonsense.

Nobody knows what rights you have or don't have. A woman has the right to an abortion, but people here want to tell us that isn't a right.

Says who?

 

[Spare_change]

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution aka "The Bill of Rights" aren't bestowed by the government. The Bill of Rights are limitations on government power.

The Bill of Rights were put in place by the government not to grant rights but restrict the government from violating the ones people had to start with. That those who created our system of government put restrictions on what they could do in relation to those rights, being that many of them placing the restrictions served as members of government subject to the limits, says a lot about where rights come from and where they don't.

The Bill of Rights grants rights. The Constitution grants rights.

If not, why do we so often hear conservative 'constitutionalists' denying that something is a right because it's not in the Constitution?

Not so. An educated reading instead of a bend over grab our ankles mentality like you Liberal constitutionalists have would show that. The Bill of Rights is what the federal government can't do to the rights you already have. Those thing you bleeding hearts want to call rights are things you already have the availability to. Your problem is you want to call them rights so you can get one person to fund them for another person. Healthcare is something you call right so idiots like your President can propose laws that subsidize one person at the expense of another. Not one person is being denied healthcare because of their inability to pay. To say so would be saying I am being denied the right to work a job I want despite not having the educational level and training required to do so.

That is such nonsense.

Nobody knows what rights you have or don't have. A woman has the right to an abortion, but people here want to tell us that isn't a right.

Says who?

I rest my case ....

You have all rights - you can do ANYTHING you want to do. Nothing is off-limits ... unless society, through its government, restricts you. You don't granted rights - you only get your rights taken away.

 

[Spare_change]

The people who think same sex marriage should be allowed only on a state-by-state basis, are saying in effect that rights are goodies provided by the state. That must lead to massive cognitive dissonance, since many of the same people who believe the former, would deny the latter.

The thing is marriage is not a right. It is sanctioned by the church. For those who are non believers, government made laws that permitted the state to sanction and perform marriage ceremonies. Also, international Maritime Law permits the Captain of a ship to perform marriage ceremonies.
This new thing with gays getting married is a result of social change.
However, due to religious beliefs, many churches will not sanction that which they and their members believe to be sin.

My post was about states approving the marriages, not churches. Whom you're allowed to marry is treated like a right, because some grant it and some forbid it. Equal rights assumes that all should be able to marry whomever they want, as long as age or incest aren't a barrier.

Nobody -- NOBODY - grants rights.

Nonsense. If nobody grants rights, how do you know what is or isn't a right, and more importantly,

how then do you get a say, by your vote, on what will or won't be a right?

Your question is rooted in your lack of understanding of 'your rights' - you have been given free will. You can do ANYTHING you want to ... nothing is off-limits ... unless, society, with your agreement, chooses to restrict your rights for the greater good.

There is NOTHING - other than your societal contracts - that says you can't kill. Your bible says you can't, and your laws say you can't. You have entered into an agreement with your fellow citizens, or your God, to restrict some of your actions.

The government does not grant you rights - it can only restrict your rights. Think about it - you don't vote for a right - you vote for a voluntary restriction of your rights, as part of a larger contract.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The people who think same sex marriage should be allowed only on a state-by-state basis, are saying in effect that rights are goodies provided by the state. That must lead to massive cognitive dissonance, since many of the same people who believe the former, would deny the latter.

The thing is marriage is not a right. It is sanctioned by the church. For those who are non believers, government made laws that permitted the state to sanction and perform marriage ceremonies. Also, international Maritime Law permits the Captain of a ship to perform marriage ceremonies.
This new thing with gays getting married is a result of social change.
However, due to religious beliefs, many churches will not sanction that which they and their members believe to be sin.

My post was about states approving the marriages, not churches. Whom you're allowed to marry is treated like a right, because some grant it and some forbid it. Equal rights assumes that all should be able to marry whomever they want, as long as age or incest aren't a barrier.

Nobody -- NOBODY - grants rights.

Nonsense. If nobody grants rights, how do you know what is or isn't a right, and more importantly,

how then do you get a say, by your vote, on what will or won't be a right?

Your question is rooted in your lack of understanding of 'your rights' - you have been given free will. You can do ANYTHING you want to ... nothing is off-limits ... unless, society, with your agreement, chooses to restrict your rights for the greater good.

There is NOTHING - other than your societal contracts - that says you can't kill. Your bible says you can't, and your laws say you can't. You have entered into an agreement with your fellow citizens, or your God, to restrict some of your actions.

The government does not grant you rights - it can only restrict your rights. Think about it - you don't vote for a right - you vote for a voluntary restriction of your rights, as part of a larger contract.

The government decides which rights you have free exercise of, that is the government granting you a right. You're making a mockery of the word 'right' in a twisted attempt to defend an indefensible position.

The Founders weren't talking about murder when they claimed we have certain inalienable rights.

 

[dblack]

The thing is marriage is not a right. It is sanctioned by the church. For those who are non believers, government made laws that permitted the state to sanction and perform marriage ceremonies. Also, international Maritime Law permits the Captain of a ship to perform marriage ceremonies.
This new thing with gays getting married is a result of social change.
However, due to religious beliefs, many churches will not sanction that which they and their members believe to be sin.

My post was about states approving the marriages, not churches. Whom you're allowed to marry is treated like a right, because some grant it and some forbid it. Equal rights assumes that all should be able to marry whomever they want, as long as age or incest aren't a barrier.

Nobody -- NOBODY - grants rights.

Nonsense. If nobody grants rights, how do you know what is or isn't a right, and more importantly,

how then do you get a say, by your vote, on what will or won't be a right?

Your question is rooted in your lack of understanding of 'your rights' - you have been given free will. You can do ANYTHING you want to ... nothing is off-limits ... unless, society, with your agreement, chooses to restrict your rights for the greater good.

There is NOTHING - other than your societal contracts - that says you can't kill. Your bible says you can't, and your laws say you can't. You have entered into an agreement with your fellow citizens, or your God, to restrict some of your actions.

The government does not grant you rights - it can only restrict your rights. Think about it - you don't vote for a right - you vote for a voluntary restriction of your rights, as part of a larger contract.

The government decides which rights you have free exercise of, that is the government granting you a right. You're making a mockery of the word 'right' in a twisted attempt to defend an indefensible position.

The Founders weren't talking about murder when they claimed we have certain inalienable rights.

Of course they weren't. That was the whole point of writing "certain" inalienable rights, rather than "all" inalienable rights. Murder IS an inalienable right, but not one that government would protect because it fundamentally violates the rights of others.

Most people miss the point of the "inalienable" descriptor. It doesn't mean "sacrosanct" or "off-limits", as many on both sides of the political divide seem to believe. Inalienable rights are an extension of free will. They're a byproduct of a person's ability to think for themselves.

The point of calling out inalienable rights, was to distinguish them from manufactured rights. Jefferson was saying that we are born with basic freedom, and we create government to protect it. This was a radical rejection of the prevailing notion of the time, which held that rights were privileges handed down from authority (the king). Liberals today, in their insistence that rights are gifts from government are basically parroting King George.

 

[Spare_change]

My post was about states approving the marriages, not churches. Whom you're allowed to marry is treated like a right, because some grant it and some forbid it. Equal rights assumes that all should be able to marry whomever they want, as long as age or incest aren't a barrier.

Nobody -- NOBODY - grants rights.

Nonsense. If nobody grants rights, how do you know what is or isn't a right, and more importantly,

how then do you get a say, by your vote, on what will or won't be a right?

Your question is rooted in your lack of understanding of 'your rights' - you have been given free will. You can do ANYTHING you want to ... nothing is off-limits ... unless, society, with your agreement, chooses to restrict your rights for the greater good.

There is NOTHING - other than your societal contracts - that says you can't kill. Your bible says you can't, and your laws say you can't. You have entered into an agreement with your fellow citizens, or your God, to restrict some of your actions.

The government does not grant you rights - it can only restrict your rights. Think about it - you don't vote for a right - you vote for a voluntary restriction of your rights, as part of a larger contract.

The government decides which rights you have free exercise of, that is the government granting you a right. You're making a mockery of the word 'right' in a twisted attempt to defend an indefensible position.

The Founders weren't talking about murder when they claimed we have certain inalienable rights.

Of course they weren't. That was the whole point of writing "certain" inalienable rights, rather than "all" inalienable rights. Murder IS an inalienable right, but not one that government would protect because it fundamentally violates the rights of others.

Most people miss the point of the "inalienable" descriptor. It doesn't mean "sacrosanct" or "off-limits", as many on both sides of the political divide seem to believe. Inalienable rights are an extension of free will. They're a byproduct of a person's ability to think for themselves.

The point of calling out inalienable rights, was to distinguish them from manufactured rights. Jefferson was saying that we are born with basic freedom, and we create government to protect it. This was a radical rejection of the prevailing notion of the time, which held that rights were privileges handed down from authority (the king). Liberals today, in their insistence that rights are gifts from government are basically parroting King George.

What he said ....

 

[Skylar]

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution aka "The Bill of Rights" aren't bestowed by the government. The Bill of Rights are limitations on government power.

The Bill of Rights were put in place by the government not to grant rights but restrict the government from violating the ones people had to start with. That those who created our system of government put restrictions on what they could do in relation to those rights, being that many of them placing the restrictions served as members of government subject to the limits, says a lot about where rights come from and where they don't.

The Bill of Rights grants rights. The Constitution grants rights.

If not, why do we so often hear conservative 'constitutionalists' denying that something is a right because it's not in the Constitution?

Not so. An educated reading instead of a bend over grab our ankles mentality like you Liberal constitutionalists have would show that. The Bill of Rights is what the federal government can't do to the rights you already have. Those thing you bleeding hearts want to call rights are things you already have the availability to. Your problem is you want to call them rights so you can get one person to fund them for another person. Healthcare is something you call right so idiots like your President can propose laws that subsidize one person at the expense of another. Not one person is being denied healthcare because of their inability to pay. To say so would be saying I am being denied the right to work a job I want despite not having the educational level and training required to do so.

The conception of rights as understood by the founders was that the existence of rights predates their enumeration. The Bill of Rights was merely an enumeration of rights that already existed. Just as the all the rights under the 9th amendment still exist despite a lack of explicit enumeration.

The founders were wrong, of course. Rights are a notional concept that we invented. They exist because we say they do. If they were 'inalienable', then we wouldn't have to protect them. The fact that we do demonstrates they are something that can be taken away.

 

[dblack]

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution aka "The Bill of Rights" aren't bestowed by the government. The Bill of Rights are limitations on government power.

The Bill of Rights were put in place by the government not to grant rights but restrict the government from violating the ones people had to start with. That those who created our system of government put restrictions on what they could do in relation to those rights, being that many of them placing the restrictions served as members of government subject to the limits, says a lot about where rights come from and where they don't.

The Bill of Rights grants rights. The Constitution grants rights.

If not, why do we so often hear conservative 'constitutionalists' denying that something is a right because it's not in the Constitution?

Not so. An educated reading instead of a bend over grab our ankles mentality like you Liberal constitutionalists have would show that. The Bill of Rights is what the federal government can't do to the rights you already have. Those thing you bleeding hearts want to call rights are things you already have the availability to. Your problem is you want to call them rights so you can get one person to fund them for another person. Healthcare is something you call right so idiots like your President can propose laws that subsidize one person at the expense of another. Not one person is being denied healthcare because of their inability to pay. To say so would be saying I am being denied the right to work a job I want despite not having the educational level and training required to do so.

The conception of rights as understood by the founders was that the existence of rights predates their enumeration. The Bill of Rights was merely an enumeration of rights that already existed. Just as the all the rights under the 9th amendment still exist despite a lack of explicit enumeration.

The founders were wrong, of course. Rights are a notional concept that we invented. They exist because we say they do. If they were 'inalienable', then we wouldn't have to protect them. The fact that we do demonstrates they are something that can be taken away.

See what I mean?

 

[Skylar]

dblack....I'm just being realistic. You're right in that the rights as understood by the founders predate their articulation. But the founders were wrong. Rights are a social construct that we invent, define and maintain. All the talk 'inalienable' and 'inherent' is mere subjective philosophy. In all ways that matter, rights exist for exactly as long as we carefully protect them.

Which makes them more precious. Not less.

 

[dblack]

dblack....I'm just being realistic. You're right in that the rights as understood by the founders predate their articulation. But the founders were wrong. Rights are a social construct that we invent, define and maintain. All the talk 'inalienable' and 'inherent' is mere subjective philosophy. In all ways that matter, rights exist for exactly as long as we carefully protect them.

Which makes them more precious. Not less.

No, you're missing the point, in exactly the way I explained in earlier posts. Inalienable doesn't mean inviolable, or sacrosanct. The point of identifying "inalienable rights" is to recognize that they are a natural by-products of volition, and not special powers granted by authority.

The reason this is so important, is that it draws a distinction between fundamental freedoms and special privilege. It's the reason sane people balk at the idea that things like health care or education should be considered rights .

 

[Conservative65]

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution aka "The Bill of Rights" aren't bestowed by the government. The Bill of Rights are limitations on government power.

The Bill of Rights were put in place by the government not to grant rights but restrict the government from violating the ones people had to start with. That those who created our system of government put restrictions on what they could do in relation to those rights, being that many of them placing the restrictions served as members of government subject to the limits, says a lot about where rights come from and where they don't.

The Bill of Rights grants rights. The Constitution grants rights.

If not, why do we so often hear conservative 'constitutionalists' denying that something is a right because it's not in the Constitution?

Not so. An educated reading instead of a bend over grab our ankles mentality like you Liberal constitutionalists have would show that. The Bill of Rights is what the federal government can't do to the rights you already have. Those thing you bleeding hearts want to call rights are things you already have the availability to. Your problem is you want to call them rights so you can get one person to fund them for another person. Healthcare is something you call right so idiots like your President can propose laws that subsidize one person at the expense of another. Not one person is being denied healthcare because of their inability to pay. To say so would be saying I am being denied the right to work a job I want despite not having the educational level and training required to do so.

The conception of rights as understood by the founders was that the existence of rights predates their enumeration. The Bill of Rights was merely an enumeration of rights that already existed. Just as the all the rights under the 9th amendment still exist despite a lack of explicit enumeration.

The founders were wrong, of course. Rights are a notional concept that we invented. They exist because we say they do. If they were 'inalienable', then we wouldn't have to protect them. The fact that we do demonstrates they are something that can be taken away.

We have to protect them so the government's we establish don't violate them. You would be wrong, of course. Don't confuse something that governments have taken away with something not existing. Because someone can't use those inalienable right because the government they live under doesn't allow isn't the same as those rights not existing.

 

[Spare_change]

I

dblack....I'm just being realistic. You're right in that the rights as understood by the founders predate their articulation. But the founders were wrong. Rights are a social construct that we invent, define and maintain. All the talk 'inalienable' and 'inherent' is mere subjective philosophy. In all ways that matter, rights exist for exactly as long as we carefully protect them.

Which makes them more precious. Not less.

No, you're missing the point, in exactly the way I explained in earlier posts. Inalienable doesn't mean inviolable, or sacrosanct. The point of identifying "inalienable rights" is to recognize that they are a natural by-products of volition, and not special powers granted by authority.

The reason this is so important, is that it draws a distinction between fundamental freedoms and special privilege. It's the reason sane people balk at the idea that things like health care or education should be considered rights .

I'm amazed at the torturous twisting of words and concepts in order to arrive a preconceived notion ... inalienable, by definition, means "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred" (Merriam-Webster) or "not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated" (Dictionary.com).

By definition, rights cannot be assigned, revoked, repudiated, or transferred. Nothing more needs to be said.

The problem is actually very simple ... by calling them 'inalienable rights', the founding fathers recognize the existence of a greater being. This is anathema to leftists who believe in relativism, recognition of human as the highest order of life, and the concordant belief that government is the ultimate mechanism of control of lesser humanity by the elites who constitute the highest of the highest.

The founding fathers recognized that government must answer to the people, and the people must answer to God.

Makes ya squirm just thinking about it, don't it?

 

[Skylar]

dblack....I'm just being realistic. You're right in that the rights as understood by the founders predate their articulation. But the founders were wrong. Rights are a social construct that we invent, define and maintain. All the talk 'inalienable' and 'inherent' is mere subjective philosophy. In all ways that matter, rights exist for exactly as long as we carefully protect them.

Which makes them more precious. Not less.

No, you're missing the point, in exactly the way I explained in earlier posts. Inalienable doesn't mean inviolable, or sacrosanct. The point of identifying "inalienable rights" is to recognize that they are a natural by-products of volition, and not special powers granted by authority.

I get you. I'm indicating that the 'sacrosanct' designation is just a subjective judgement call. And that rights are whatever we say they are. If we agree that a given set of rights is 'sacrosanct', then they are - at least in our society.

The reason this is so important, is that it draws a distinction between fundamental freedoms and special privilege. It's the reason sane people balk at the idea that things like health care or education should be considered rights .

I see rights as a construct that means whatever we agree it does. The 9th amendment leaves plenty of open room for enumerated rights. I think you can be quite sane and recognize say...healthcare, as a right. One might view it as an unarticulated right, protected by the 9th amendment. Or as an extension of the right to life. Or as some 'natural right', related to the same.

Its all just window dressing for what is a subjective judgment call. Rights are whatever we say they are. The paradigm that you're working under of 'sacrosanct' and 'intrisnic' isn't necessarily true. And thus a process that incorporates rights while bypassing your assumptions doesn't necessarily lack sanity.

 

[Skylar]

I'm amazed at the torturous twisting of words and concepts in order to arrive a preconceived notion ... inalienable, by definition, means "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred" (Merriam-Webster) or "not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated" (Dictionary.com).

By definition, rights cannot be assigned, revoked, repudiated, or transferred. Nothing more needs to be said.

Nothing more needs to be said....if we agree with your conception of rights. That conception is valid per our system of laws and per the conception of the founders on what rights were. As the changing nature of rights demonstrates, they're quite malleable and changable. As they are our invention. They are whatever we agree they are. And to a large extent, rights are a form of intellectual technology. Their existence is intrinsically predicated on previous intellectual technology....each step one of refinement, each step required to be taken.

The problem is actually very simple ... by calling them 'inalienable rights', the founding fathers recognize the existence of a greater being. This is anathema to leftists who believe in relativism, recognition of human as the highest order of life, and the concordant belief that government is the ultimate mechanism of control of lesser humanity by the elites who constitute the highest of the highest.

The founders were clearly believed in God, in varying conceptions. Most were Christians, some were Deists. In a discussion of how the founders conceived rights, its extraordinarily relevant information. In a conversation about rights as a concept, its little more than a historical footnote. As the founders conception of rights doesn't provide any authority on what rights are objectively. It provides us with what the founders believed the term meant.

The problem with absolutism is that its hard to find a valid baseline. You can have conceptions that you believe. But someone else may another. And they don't have to agree. Determining whose is valid and whose is not is problematic.....especially between cultures and across time. As even in the same culture, you'll get wildly different answers to the same fundamental questions over a long enough span of time.

The founding fathers recognized that government must answer to the people, and the people must answer to God.

Makes ya squirm just thinking about it, don't it?

The founders believed in slavery, that only land owners should vote and that women shouldn't. Clearly we've done better. This bizarre hero worship of the founders is just strange in my estimation. They were just men. They made a constitution of compromise based on the situation that they had at the time of its crafting. And that constitution was deeply, deeply flawed.

We've vastly improved on the document, extending freedoms and privileges that the founders never dreamed of.