What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Intense]

Where you see a reactionary modification to the pledge, I see a reference to one line of it pointing the obvious, a reference to The Declaration of Independence, and a Reference to "Memorial and Remonstrance". The Theme is God Above Man. God's Ways above Man's ways. You are free to believe or not believe. There is no Judgement here from Myself, Madison, Jefferson, You are covered. No complaint. The Red scare thing is probably more your generation than mine, so I'm not effected like you. I understand that Under God was not originally in the Pledge, it was added during those years. Funny wasn't it authored by a Christian Minister just the same? Still, besides the Point.

I believe that John Locke as a Philosopher had a large influence over Jefferson and Madison. That is evident in his Writings and evidenced in the Founding Documents.

John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration On Tolerance.

John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government On Civil Government.

I'm surprised that You are unaware of His Views. They changed the world, for those that came to realize the message. Those People changed the rest of us. Thoreau, Gandhi, King.

 

[Intense]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

Firstly my apologies for reproducing the OP and commenting before reading the rest of the thread. In my defence I have been away for a week and I'm catching up.

A right is what society says it is. There are no "natural" rights.

I'll read on and if needs be will defend my position but very interesting OP Kevin.

You say a Right is what Society says. So does the French Constitution. We However believe in an Authority Higher than Society, higher than Government. Study John Locke on the matter. I posted Quotes from Madison and Jefferson that bear directly on the topic. yourself

 

[Diuretic]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

Firstly my apologies for reproducing the OP and commenting before reading the rest of the thread. In my defence I have been away for a week and I'm catching up.

A right is what society says it is. There are no "natural" rights.

I'll read on and if needs be will defend my position but very interesting OP Kevin.

You say a Right is what Society says. So does the French Constitution. We However believe in an Authority Higher than Society, higher than Government. Study John Locke on the matter. I posted Quotes from Madison and Jefferson that bear directly on the topic. yourself

It's okay I understand the point, I just disagree with it that's all

 

[Intense]

Read the words of Adams, Jefferson, Mason, and others- many unkind words for religion in general and xtianity in particular

They called themselves deists because they did not know the word 'atheist'

The Jefferson may be the Equivalent of Psalms, Proverbs, and the Red Letter Portion of The New Testament. that's who he was.

If You are in denial of God's place in Madison's life after reading "Memorial and Remonstrance" the conversation is over.

Locke's view on God and Christianity, which I believe You are unaware of is All about Example and 100% against Mandate. He was more critical of the abuse of Christian Authority and Manipulation than You could ever be on your worst day. Yet, it Never touched His Relationship with God Through Conscience. Distinguish between God and Man. God and Church. God and Society. God and Government.

Deists wanted to lose the Dogma, to live life according to their own expectations, not the expectations of others. Still under God, Through Conscience.

 

[Intense]

Firstly my apologies for reproducing the OP and commenting before reading the rest of the thread. In my defence I have been away for a week and I'm catching up.

A right is what society says it is. There are no "natural" rights.

I'll read on and if needs be will defend my position but very interesting OP Kevin.

You say a Right is what Society says. So does the French Constitution. We However believe in an Authority Higher than Society, higher than Government. Study John Locke on the matter. I posted Quotes from Madison and Jefferson that bear directly on the topic. yourself

It's okay I understand the point, I just disagree with it that's all

 

[Liability]

Read the words of Adams, Jefferson, Mason, and others- many unkind words for religion in general and xtianity in particular

They called themselves deists because they did not know the word 'atheist'

On what basis do you make the claim that a man as well educated as Thomas Jefferson did not know of the word "atheist?"

The word had been around for over a hundred years by the time of the American Revolution. Why would TJ not have known its meaning or not have even heard of it?

Atheism - Etymology

 

[CommonSensor]

I'm going to play devil's advocate a little here...

Where does this right to property come from?

The right to property comes from the fact that you work and you earn property. No one can rightfully take from you that which you have worked hard for and earned.

ummm, no...the right to own property comes from the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution, which is law legislated by Congress (elected by the people) for the purpose of creating a just society, governed by the rules THEY ELECT REPRESENTATIVES to create and enact.

FIFTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'

"Rights" are whatever we (the people) decide they are (as a society). Theoretically, we could blame ourselves for the social disaster we're a part of. But that's such a simpleton perspective. The truth is, there will always be that group of people that desire power above all else, and prey on those that don't think very well to achieve their own agendas.

I personally think my generation (baby boomers) are largely to blame for the "me first" attitude in this country. Had that been the case in the 1930's and 1940's, there is no doubt Hitler would have won. The prosperity following WWII spoiled us as a nation, and we boomers felt we were "owed" a comfortable easy life.

So when those same people came into their power years (the 1980s and 90s) that "spoiled" nature reared it's ugly head. Corrupt people advanced to become Presidents, CEOs and Directors of most the major corporations in this country. The deregulation of the 1980s and lack of government oversight/protection allowed big business to effectively hijack government and the legal system with big money, and control monetary policy. If we're EVER going to fix our system, first we will have to take away the rights of corporations to affect legislation (while they are legal entities, they should not have "civil" rights as individuals do).

The Constitution was never meant to give social power to business. Business exists for the benefit of society, not the other way around. Unfortunately, a by-product of capitalism is it's embrace of greed. Don't get me wrong, I AM a capitalist. I believe in a capitalistic approach to business within markets where that system works well. It is NOT, however, the be all and end all of economics. For that, we need a more practical solution in those markets where the "profit" motive simply doesn't work (such as healthcare), and supply and demand are unbalanced. You know the drill, I can decide not to buy a stereo if I feel it's too expensive, but I'm not likely to turn down a heart transplant no matter what the price. So I, for one, think that qualifies as "unbalanced" demand.

So, whatever we, the people, decide we want (or don't want) the government to manage for us is up to us. That doesn't make us "socialist" at all. It makes us "socially responsible" to each other, and is simply a better way to live. (mho).

dangit! rambling again

-sensored

 

[Liability]

I'm going to play devil's advocate a little here...

Where does this right to property come from?

The right to property comes from the fact that you work and you earn property. No one can rightfully take from you that which you have worked hard for and earned.

ummm, no...the right to own property comes from the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution, which is law legislated by Congress (elected by the people) for the purpose of creating a just society, governed by the rules THEY ELECT REPRESENTATIVES to create and enact.

FIFTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'

"Rights" are whatever we (the people) decide they are (as a society). Theoretically, we could blame ourselves for the social disaster we're a part of. But that's such a simpleton perspective. The truth is, there will always be that group of people that desire power above all else, and prey on those that don't think very well to achieve their own agendas.

I personally think my generation (baby boomers) are largely to blame for the "me first" attitude in this country. Had that been the case in the 1930's and 1940's, there is no doubt Hitler would have won. The prosperity following WWII spoiled us as a nation, and we boomers felt we were "owed" a comfortable easy life.

So when those same people came into their power years (the 1980s and 90s) that "spoiled" nature reared it's ugly head. Corrupt people advanced to become Presidents, CEOs and Directors of most the major corporations in this country. The deregulation of the 1980s and lack of government oversight/protection allowed big business to effectively hijack government and the legal system with big money, and control monetary policy. If we're EVER going to fix our system, first we will have to take away the rights of corporations to affect legislation (while they are legal entities, they should not have "civil" rights as individuals do).

The Constitution was never meant to give social power to business. Business exists for the benefit of society, not the other way around. Unfortunately, a by-product of capitalism is it's embrace of greed. Don't get me wrong, I AM a capitalist. I believe in a capitalistic approach to business within markets where that system works well. It is NOT, however, the be all and end all of economics. For that, we need a more practical solution in those markets where the "profit" motive simply doesn't work (such as healthcare), and supply and demand are unbalanced. You know the drill, I can decide not to buy a stereo if I feel it's too expensive, but I'm not likely to turn down a heart transplant no matter what the price. So I, for one, think that qualifies as "unbalanced" demand.

So, whatever we, the people, decide we want (or don't want) the government to manage for us is up to us. That doesn't make us "socialist" at all. It makes us "socially responsible" to each other, and is simply a better way to live. (mho).

dangit! rambling again

-sensored

Uhm. No.

NO rights whatsofuckingever come FROM the Constitution.

The Constitution only serves to PROTECT rights. It doesn't give a ******* thing to the People. The People already HAD the rights.

 

[CommonSensor]

The People already HAD the rights.

Says who?

 

[Liability]

The People already HAD the rights.

Says who?

Said THEY, themselves.

Who is it, in your fertile imagination, who has any "right" to say otherwise, exactly?

 

[CommonSensor]

The People already HAD the rights.

Says who?

Said THEY, themselves.

Who is it, in your fertile imagination, who has any "right" to say otherwise, exactly?

who is "they"? do you mean it's up to each person to define their own rights? If so, I'm up for shuttin' people like you up

 

[Liability]

Says who?

Said THEY, themselves.

Who is it, in your fertile imagination, who has any "right" to say otherwise, exactly?

who is "they"? do you mean it's up to each person to define their own rights? If so, I'm up for shuttin' people like you up

You are an imbecile. The FOUNDERS and the FRAMERS noted, on behalf of all of US that our rights are OURS. WE grant some authority and power to the States, and through the States, some additional powers and authority to the Federal Government. We do that to SECURE the RIGHTS we already have. And as a partial consequence of that, YOU have no authority to shut me up and, frankly, no ability to do so in any event.

The government which WE create to serve OUR purposes has no legitimate authority to derpive us of our rights.

Sorry all of this keeps sailing WAY the **** over your pinhead at mach speeds.

 

[CommonSensor]

You are an imbecile.

I'll take that as a complement considering the source...

The FOUNDERS and the FRAMERS noted, on behalf of all of US that our rights are OURS. WE grant some authority and power to the States, and through the States, some additional powers and authority to the Federal Government. We do that to SECURE the RIGHTS we already have.

I'm going to keep asking the "simple" question until you answer (and what are you quoting from up there? lol...) The answers to these questions lead to the following conclusion: We (as a group/society) decide what rights we have through our system of government, not as individuals. That was one of the main points of my post. So please answer this "simple" question:

You reference above :: "WE grant some authority and power to the States" - who is "We"? We the people?

And as a partial consequence of that, YOU have no authority to shut me up and, frankly, no ability to do so in any event.

No worries! We WERE talking hypothetical, right? In real life, you're not worth giving a shit about anyway, so you're safe...relax!

The government which WE create to serve OUR purposes has no legitimate authority to derpive us of our rights.

I never said they did.

Sorry all of this keeps sailing WAY the **** over your pinhead at mach speeds.

Please....in your world I'm Superman, (of course in mine, I'm just an average guy).... So spare me your insults, you're embarrassing yourself.

-sensored

 

[Old Rocks]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

Kevin, you are full of shit. There are no 'natural' rights. For most of history, right only belonged to those with might. The Constitution of the United States is most unnatural. And, by being that, it created an atmosphere in which real progress could prosper. If we dedide that we can create universal access to Health Care, then that becomes a right for our citizens. And creates more freedom for the American Citizen.

 

[Old Rocks]

The right to property comes from the fact that you work and you earn property. No one can rightfully take from you that which you have worked hard for and earned.

ummm, no...the right to own property comes from the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution, which is law legislated by Congress (elected by the people) for the purpose of creating a just society, governed by the rules THEY ELECT REPRESENTATIVES to create and enact.

FIFTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'

"Rights" are whatever we (the people) decide they are (as a society). Theoretically, we could blame ourselves for the social disaster we're a part of. But that's such a simpleton perspective. The truth is, there will always be that group of people that desire power above all else, and prey on those that don't think very well to achieve their own agendas.

I personally think my generation (baby boomers) are largely to blame for the "me first" attitude in this country. Had that been the case in the 1930's and 1940's, there is no doubt Hitler would have won. The prosperity following WWII spoiled us as a nation, and we boomers felt we were "owed" a comfortable easy life.

So when those same people came into their power years (the 1980s and 90s) that "spoiled" nature reared it's ugly head. Corrupt people advanced to become Presidents, CEOs and Directors of most the major corporations in this country. The deregulation of the 1980s and lack of government oversight/protection allowed big business to effectively hijack government and the legal system with big money, and control monetary policy. If we're EVER going to fix our system, first we will have to take away the rights of corporations to affect legislation (while they are legal entities, they should not have "civil" rights as individuals do).

The Constitution was never meant to give social power to business. Business exists for the benefit of society, not the other way around. Unfortunately, a by-product of capitalism is it's embrace of greed. Don't get me wrong, I AM a capitalist. I believe in a capitalistic approach to business within markets where that system works well. It is NOT, however, the be all and end all of economics. For that, we need a more practical solution in those markets where the "profit" motive simply doesn't work (such as healthcare), and supply and demand are unbalanced. You know the drill, I can decide not to buy a stereo if I feel it's too expensive, but I'm not likely to turn down a heart transplant no matter what the price. So I, for one, think that qualifies as "unbalanced" demand.

So, whatever we, the people, decide we want (or don't want) the government to manage for us is up to us. That doesn't make us "socialist" at all. It makes us "socially responsible" to each other, and is simply a better way to live. (mho).

dangit! rambling again

-sensored

Uhm. No.

NO rights whatsofuckingever come FROM the Constitution.

The Constitution only serves to PROTECT rights. It doesn't give a ******* thing to the People. The People already HAD the rights.

Dumb. Real dumb. If that was the case, why do we have a Constitution?

We did not have those rights, that is why we fought the Revolutionary War. In fact, almost nobody in the civilized world had those rights at that time. We created those rights, and the world is a far better place for that creation. And we can add rights as our wealth allows us to. Since all the other industrial nations, and some non-industrial nations have already surpassed us in this regard, it is time now for us to learn from these nations as they learned from us concerning the rights of citizens.

 

[CommonSensor]

Uhm. No.

NO rights whatsofuckingever come FROM the Constitution.

The Constitution only serves to PROTECT rights. It doesn't give a ******* thing to the People. The People already HAD the rights.

Dumb. Real dumb. If that was the case, why do we have a Constitution?

We did not have those rights, that is why we fought the Revolutionary War. In fact, almost nobody in the civilized world had those rights at that time. We created those rights, and the world is a far better place for that creation. And we can add rights as our wealth allows us to. Since all the other industrial nations, and some non-industrial nations have already surpassed us in this regard, it is time now for us to learn from these nations as they learned from us concerning the rights of citizens.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791 - nuff said!

edit: ah hell...here's another Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[JBeukema]

Read the words of Adams, Jefferson, Mason, and others- many unkind words for religion in general and xtianity in particular

They called themselves deists because they did not know the word 'atheist'

The Jefferson may be the Equivalent of Psalms, Proverbs, and the Red Letter Portion of The New Testament. that's who he was. [/quopte]

So Jefferson was the Jesus of the 1700s?

Good to know noone else mateters

If You are in denial of God's place in Madison's life after reading "Memorial and Remonstrance" the conversation is over.

Madison doesn't matter. You just said Jefferson was Jesus

Locke's view on God and Christianity,

Don't matter. Jefferson was Jesus, you said so yourself

Deists wanted to lose the Dogma, to live life according to their own expectations, not the expectations of others. Still under God, Through Conscience.

Deists don't believe in 'god's will'. Deists can't live 'under god', for god has no will for its creation.

 

[JBeukema]

Remember, Jesus (both the biblical and the American) preached the separation of Church and State

 

[CommonSensor]

Just wondering if it would be wise to split this thread. I was trying to post on the title (sorry for interrupting your conversation on religion). Just a Suggestion.

 

[JW Frogen]

Remember, Jesus (both the biblical and the American) preached the separation of Church and State

Indeed he did.

Render unto Ceasar that which, well, that which Ceasar is going to take anyway.

I am not mocking, the constant piggy bank penny count will shrink a soul faster than Lady Gaga can gag on her lack of talent and her growing piggy bank.

I have nothing against money, indeed it can visit my any time, but I will be God damed if I think about it all the time, or live for it.

I want more.