Zone1 What are "Rights"? Should we allow them to the other side?

[Mr. Friscus]

If your "right" imposes an obligation upon someone else to perform to deliver it to you, it isn't a right.

Correct (such as health care in this instance)

However, this is to point out that if leftists/progressives and communists deemed it that doctors would be chained inside buildings and made to be slaves of their training or die... there would be no ground for them to say that's wrong. They have no higher moral structure.. if they thought it, or enough of them thought it, it would be correct in their eyes. "The Greater good".

 

[Oddball]

Correct (such as health care in this instance)

However, this is to point out that if leftists/progressives and communists deemed it that doctors would be chained inside buildings and made to be slaves of their training or die... there would be no ground for them to say that's wrong. They have no higher moral structure.. if they thought it, or enough of them thought it, it would be correct in their eyes. "The Greater good".

It's not just health care...Licensing is a tremendous violation of rights.

 

[Zincwarrior]

No they're not. They're inalienable. They're innate.

The government is supposed to recognize them, not grant them.

Inalienable means nothing if the other guy has a gun to your head. The only rights you have are the ones you or someone before you have taken.

 

[LibertyWeeps]

"Rights" are an illusion of power.

"Rights" is what the government decides to give you, so you can think you have some control and power over what you do and say.
But we all know thats all a big, fat lie. The government has the control, and when we peons move too far out of our assigned "rights", then the government starts threatening to react to our responses.

But, the more money you have, and the more of that money you "invest" in that government, the more YOU have in the ways of rights and freedoms. But, the instant you run out of money, so do your special rights and freedoms. Then you are just one of us peons.

All is well and fine, until you start coloring outside the lines. Then the government either puts the fear of Big Brother into you, or they just squash you altogether.

As long as your "rights" are used within their drawn lines, you are fine to think you have control and power. Thats the way they want it.
Thats the way it's always been. All governments are like this. The only differences are the levels of "rights" the government decides to give you and the punishments they give, as well as where the lines are that you are never to cross.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Inalienable means nothing if the other guy has a gun to your head. The only rights you have are the ones you or someone before you have taken.

It's up to men to keep them once they are identified. It's just important to note that only one side of the aisle would do that, and the leftist/progressive communists wouldn't. They'd impose their coldest will on you in a heartbeat, and any protesting you do would be silenced.

 

[norwegen]

Inalienable means nothing if the other guy has a gun to your head. The only rights you have are the ones you or someone before you have taken.

When someone plans to shoot you, you lose your rights?

How stupid. Maybe you should tell Thomas Jefferson the Declaration of Independence is wrong.

 

[Zincwarrior]

It's up to men to keep them once they are identified. It's just important to note that only one side of the aisle would do that, and the leftist/progressive communists wouldn't. They'd impose their coldest will on you in a heartbeat, and any protesting you do would be silenced.

No difference between the two.

 

[Zincwarrior]

When someone plans to shoot you, you lose your rights?

How stupid. Maybe you should tell Thomas Jefferson the Declaration of Independence is wrong.

WHat the hell do you think the redcoats were doing?

The dead have no rights.

 

[norwegen]

WHat the hell do you think the redcoats were doing?

Is the Declaration of Independence wrong?

 

[Zincwarrior]

Is the Declaration of Independence wrong?

Its irrelevant without the Army making it legal.

 

[norwegen]

Its irrelevant without the Army making it legal.

It says rights are inalienable. Is that wrong?

 

[Zincwarrior]

It says rights are inalienable. Is that wrong?

Yes. Its nothing.

Its the legions that make the law legal.
-some Roman dude.

 

[norwegen]

Yes. Its nothing.

Its the legions that make the law legal.
-some Roman dude.

Well, you kind of prove the OP's point, then don't you, you ant-American authoritarian.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

It says rights are inalienable. Is that wrong?

Youre right, but also missing the point.

It's not about if they are inalienable, it's about who keeps them inalienable and maintains them. At the end of the day, the rights are just a speculation or observation by those who founded the nation, correct? They're wise, based on history, and they were smart to "give" them to a higher being so that men can't just come take them whenever they wanted... but that doesn't mean they actually exist. They're like money in the bank. It exists as an ideal, but if the bank runs out of money, you don't get any.

Meanwhile, the opposition doesn't share your viewpoint, and relies on your benevolence to them. You offer them warmth while they would be nothing but tyrannical and cold. It's important to realize this.

 

[Zincwarrior]

On the contrary I am a Bill of Rights fanatic. I am comforted that we have 8,000 fusion bombs and rough men standing the walls to keep them safe.

 

[norwegen]

Youre right, but also missing the point.

It's not about if they are inalienable, it's about who keeps them inalienable and maintains them. At the end of the day, the rights are just a speculation or observation by those who founded the nation, correct? They're wise, based on history, and they were smart to "give" them to a higher being so that men can't just come take them whenever they wanted... but that doesn't mean they actually exist. They're like money in the bank. It exists as an ideal, but if the bank runs out of money, you don't get any.

Meanwhile, the opposition doesn't share your viewpoint, and relies on your benevolence to them. You offer them warmth while they would be nothing but tyrannical and cold. It's important to realize this.

I got your point. Zincwarrior just showed himself not only that he believes rights can be enforced, but that he doesn't believe in our founding principles.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I got your point. Zincwarrior just showed himself not only that he believes rights can be enforced, but that he doesn't believe in our founding principles.

Should we maintain our founding principles against a force that seeks to destroy them? Likely. Do they deserve them? Absolutely not. Yet, they will suggest they do. They would be moral beggars, and should act as such.

 

[toobfreak]

Many worldviews have many opinions on what rights are.

There are many kinds of rights.

1. Inalienable rights.
2. Natural rights.
3. Government-granted rights.

Now, as a Christian Conservative, I believe in rights for all people, but it's important to point out that it is the much higher road. My worldview would require me to give rights to people I oppose, when my opposition wouldn't think twice of taking away my rights if they had the power to do so.

Bingo, you lose. 80% of the strife in this world, 80% of the crime, 80% of all wars are caused by the pursuit of abstract rights. So long as one confers more rights and advantages upon an opponent who would not confer them onto you, you lose every time.

"Turn the other cheek" and "forgive and forget" were never intended to be conveyed to people trying to kill you.

 

[Zincwarrior]

I got your point. Zincwarrior just showed himself not only that he believes rights can be enforced, but that he doesn't believe in our founding principles.

Again incredibly wrong. How did we get our rights? We won the war.

How did we free ourselves from a Mexican dictator? We won the war.

How did we free 4mm slaves? We won the war.

How did keep from the Japanese and Germans? We won the war.

Did the Comanche, Lakotah, and Apache keep their rights? No. They lost the war.

Will Ukrainian have rights? Only if they win the war.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Bingo, you lose. 80% of the strife in this world, 80% of the crime, 80% of all wars are caused by the pursuit of abstract rights. So long as one confers more rights and advantages upon an opponent who would not confer them onto you, you lose every time.

"Turn the other cheek" and "forgive and forget" were never intended to be conveyed to people trying to kill you.

It doesn't mean we shouldn't do those things, it's just important to not imprint the idea onto leftism and assume they'll act in kind, because they won't. It's like when humans imprint human-characteristics onto animals, but then get mauled by a bear. Average, moderate voters need to know this.

There's no reason why a leftist progressive wouldn't take your rights away, there's no higher moral foundation. If they desire it, they'll do it. It's 3rd world justice in government.