What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Intense]

What is at fault here more than a System that has failed in Primary Obligation to Protect and Defend the Constitution of The United States.

What do Our Learning Institutes put out now a days? Qualified Idiots that have zero concept of Our Reason for Existing as a Nation. What You demonstrate is your stupidity on Basic Principle. What are You without Liberty? You are the Property of The State, a Taxable Money Generating Organic Robot, already bought and paid for, by the Government. Don't include me in Your Surrender.

So what, exactly, is a 'right' within the context of the U.S. Constitution?

A right is a specific expression or example of being free, of living in a state of liberty. In addition, something cannot be considered a 'right' if it deprives one's neighbors and fellow countrymen of liberty or of being able to live free.

You do not, for example, have the 'right' to tell me that I cannot plant but one tree on my property, unless, of course, I have willingly signed away my rights in a legally binding document, such as the Covenants and Restrictions of a 'planned community.'
The Liberty Sphere: Misconceptions on What Constitutes a 'Right'

 

[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.

I can't? So tell me, if I take a gun and blow your brains out and there is no government to back up your right to life how did you naturally have that right? And if I take your family and make them my slaves, without government to prevent me, where is their natural right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Seems to me, the only way for a right to be natural is if there exists the force of government to back them up...

You can blow someones brains out and enslave without Government? Wow.

Do you assume that You are safe from retribution, if there is no government?

You are free to act, but no one is free to avenge? Where is the logic in that?

There is no logic in your argument, just stupidity.

 

[JBeukema]

What is at fault here more than a System that has failed in Primary Obligation to Protect and Defend the Constitution of The United States.

Fail.


It's the principles, not the paper, that matter

again, enumerate and demonstrate

So what, exactly, is a 'right' within the context of the U.S. Constitution?

Legally? 'right' ~ 'liberty'

You do not, for example, have the 'right' to tell me that I cannot plant but one tree on my property, unless, of course, I have willingly signed away my rights in a legally binding document, such as the Covenants and Restrictions of a 'planned community.'

Yes, I do. Freedom of speech. Retard

Whether I'm permitted to infringe on your liberty to do so ins another matter

 

[rubberhead]

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

Where does this right to property come from?

John Locke believed that an individual owned themselves and therefore they own the fruits of their own labor. It's very simple, if you believe that people are free naturally, then you must believe that the fruits of a person's labor belong to them and them alone. If you are talking about land ownership, it is more difficult to make that particular case. However, a person's life requires that they have a dwelling so if they have a right to live, then they have a right to a dwelling and a means to provide for themselves (the right to live is not guaranteed by the government, it is guaranteed by the peoples' ability to overthrow a government that attempts to deny it).

Check out Locke's "Second Treatise of Government" if this doesn't clear it up. It's a really short and easy read and was one of the major influences for the founders of the US.

 

[Intense]

Quoting legal documents doesn't prove natural rights exist, only that they're accepted idiomatically in the wording of the law in order to best enforce the will of the people and protect positive rights

Quoting Legal Documents Proves that The Authors of Those Documents Recognized that Natural Rights are Above Governments Jurisdiction. They exist with or without Government or society. That at best Government can, by choice, create Laws that demonstrate Recognition and Harmony with that which they recognize.

 

[JBeukema]

Locke contradicted himself

his 'consent of the governed' = social contract


government, ethics, and law are all the same in that they emerge from this same social contract

his 'natural rights' breaks down, as it cannot be given and rights cannot be enumerated, nor is there anything to protect them. It's merely a pipe dream expressing the liberties one wishes to protect upon entering into the social contract

 

[JBeukema]

Quoting legal documents doesn't prove natural rights exist, only that they're accepted idiomatically in the wording of the law in order to best enforce the will of the people and protect positive rights

Quoting Legal Documents Proves that The Authors of Those Documents Recognized that Natural Rights are Above Governments Jurisdiction.

appeal to authority is a logical fallacy

It doesn't matter what they believed. They also thought blacks were subhuman- does that mean they are?

They exist with or without Government or society.

Then why can't you enumerate and demonstrate them? From whence do they come and what enforces them?

That at best Government can, by choice, create Laws that demonstrate Recognition and Harmony with that which they recognize.

'that which they recognize' = social contract = positive rights

you've proven my point for me yet again and once again destroyed your own premise

 

[Intense]

What is at fault here more than a System that has failed in Primary Obligation to Protect and Defend the Constitution of The United States.

Fail.


It's the principles, not the paper, that matter

again, enumerate and demonstrate

So what, exactly, is a 'right' within the context of the U.S. Constitution?

Legally? 'right' ~ 'liberty'

You do not, for example, have the 'right' to tell me that I cannot plant but one tree on my property, unless, of course, I have willingly signed away my rights in a legally binding document, such as the Covenants and Restrictions of a 'planned community.'

Yes, I do. Freedom of speech. Retard

Whether I'm permitted to infringe on your liberty to do so ins another matter

Who are you to talk about Principles, Freak. You attempt to Piss all over, knowing no boundary, no decency, no consideration. You Fail Society, You fail Yourself, Retard. Your actions depict You too well.

 

[JBeukema]

More blind attacks, I see

ad homs and no refutation

your concession is accepted

discussion is ended

 

[rubberhead]

so.. you can't enumerate these 'natural right' and demonstrate that they exist?

Then why the **** are you still posting?

According to Rawls (Theory of Justice), who is the most prominent political philosopher of the 20th century and who is cited on all sides of every legitimate political debate that we have these days, there are two principals of justice:

1. Everyone has an amount of freedom compatible with the same amount of freedom for everyone else.

2. If one party (individual or group) creates wealth it is to the benefit of the least advantaged (fairness)

The first principle is one we can all agree on (I hope). So everyone has freedom and the right not to have their freedom infringed upon. All natural rights stem from these principles.

The second principle has been more controversial and I actually believe that it should be reworded as follows:

2. If one party obtains wealth, it shall not be to the detriment of the rest of the populace governed.

In other words, one who wishes to obtain wealth must create it. This is opposed to shifting (aka stealing) it from another, perhaps less advantaged, party onto oneself.

I hope this answers your question.

 

[Intense]

Existence = Positive Rights = Recognition = Social contract.

Predators = Denial of Life Liberty, Property.

 

[rubberhead]

appeal to authority is a logical fallacy

It doesn't matter what they believed. They also thought blacks were subhuman- does that mean they are?

They exist with or without Government or society.

Then why can't you enumerate and demonstrate them? From whence do they come and what enforces them?

That at best Government can, by choice, create Laws that demonstrate Recognition and Harmony with that which they recognize.

'that which they recognize' = social contract = positive rights

you've proven my point for me yet again and once again destroyed your own premise

OK, I know hostility makes your posts more exciting and inflaming, but it doesn't make your argument more valid. Natural rights do not come from the government they are protected by the government (ideally). If the government does not protect them or begins to infringe upon them, unrest ensues and the government is eventually toppled. This is what makes them natural rights.

 

[Intense]

so.. you can't enumerate these 'natural right' and demonstrate that they exist?

Then why the **** are you still posting?

According to Rawls (Theory of Justice), who is the most prominent political philosopher of the 20th century and who is cited on all sides of every legitimate political debate that we have these days, there are two principals of justice:

1. Everyone has an amount of freedom compatible with the same amount of freedom for everyone else.

2. If one party (individual or group) creates wealth it is to the benefit of the least advantaged (fairness)

The first principle is one we can all agree on (I hope). So everyone has freedom and the right not to have their freedom infringed upon. All natural rights stem from these principles.

The second principle has been more controversial and I actually believe that it should be reworded as follows:

2. If one party obtains wealth, it shall not be to the detriment of the rest of the populace governed.

In other words, one who wishes to obtain wealth must create it. This is opposed to shifting (aka stealing) it from another, perhaps less advantaged, party onto oneself.

I hope this answers your question.

The Retard Predator Refuses to Recognize the First Principle.

 

[JBeukema]

so.. you can't enumerate these 'natural right' and demonstrate that they exist?

Then why the **** are you still posting?

According to Rawls (Theory of Justice), who is the most prominent political philosopher of the 20th century and who is cited on all sides of every legitimate political debate that we have these days, there are two principals of justice:

1. Everyone has an amount of freedom compatible with the same amount of freedom for everyone else.

define 'freedom' for the sake of this discussion. We all have the liberty to do anything we want, insomuch as we are able and ther is nothing to stop us from carrying out an act. This has nothing to do with any ';right', but merely our own power. TO claim this makes it a right would be saying that we have a 'right' to do anything we have the power to do, or 'might makes right'. This means to contend I have a right to rape you in the ass so long as I am able

2. If one party (individual or group) creates wealth it is to the benefit of the least advantaged (fairness)

Did you mean
1)It IS
or
2)Is SHOULD BE

to the benefit of those unable or unwilling to do it themselves? I need you to clarify before I respond further

The first principle is one we can all agree on (I hope). So everyone has freedom and the right not to have their freedom infringed upon. All natural rights stem from these principles.

Wrong. No 'rights' (in the sense you use it) exist. Only powers and abilities. The only 'rights' that exist are positive rights which emerge from social contract, which are not 'rights', but protected liberties and benefits of participation in the contract(s).

The second principle has been more controversial and I actually believe that it should be reworded as follows:

2. If one party obtains wealth, it shall not be to the detriment of the rest of the populace governed.

Not possible. For one man to gain a thing, that thing must be lost form someone or somewhere. Even in a socialist system (the closest thing to achieving what you wish), for the poor man to gain, his neighbors must lose.

In other words, one who wishes to obtain wealth must create it. This is opposed to shifting (aka stealing) it from another, perhaps less advantaged, party onto oneself.

So you oppose capitalism as well as collectivism, then? What system do you support?

 

[JBeukema]

so.. you can't enumerate these 'natural right' and demonstrate that they exist?

Then why the **** are you still posting?

According to Rawls (Theory of Justice), who is the most prominent political philosopher of the 20th century and who is cited on all sides of every legitimate political debate that we have these days, there are two principals of justice:

1. Everyone has an amount of freedom compatible with the same amount of freedom for everyone else.

2. If one party (individual or group) creates wealth it is to the benefit of the least advantaged (fairness)

The first principle is one we can all agree on (I hope). So everyone has freedom and the right not to have their freedom infringed upon. All natural rights stem from these principles.

The second principle has been more controversial and I actually believe that it should be reworded as follows:

2. If one party obtains wealth, it shall not be to the detriment of the rest of the populace governed.

In other words, one who wishes to obtain wealth must create it. This is opposed to shifting (aka stealing) it from another, perhaps less advantaged, party onto oneself.

I hope this answers your question.

The Retard Predator Refuses to Recognize the First Principle.

still angry about being proven wrong, I see

 

[MaggieMae]

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

Isn't there an obligation of the appropriate institution to step in when some nut job kills his whole family because "God made him do it"?? After all, that person was "answering to a higher power."

You're trying to prove that God is superior to government, whereas God is intangible and His "power" is only in the eyes of the beholder. When people start infringing on the rights of others because of their religious beliefs, God alone rarely steps in to correct the situation.

 

[rubberhead]

Locke contradicted himself

his 'consent of the governed' = social contract


government, ethics, and law are all the same in that they emerge from this same social contract

his 'natural rights' breaks down, as it cannot be given and rights cannot be enumerated, nor is there anything to protect them. It's merely a pipe dream expressing the liberties one wishes to protect upon entering into the social contract

The social contract is designed by the people, and if it is not upheld then there is revolution. The government protects the rights of the governed, but the people legitimize the government. I'm not really sure what you're getting at, but it seems like you think that the government is all powerful and the social contract is an eternal oath. History has shown this Hobbesian claim to be wrong on both counts. Please clarify your position.

 

[JBeukema]

Natural rights do not come from the government

No shit, you retarded ****. Any rights that come from the contract are positive rights

do try to keep up

. If the government does not protect them or begins to infringe upon them, unrest ensues and the government is eventually toppled. This is what makes them natural rights.

So, 'natural rights' are those demands which lead to unrest when not met? Like demanding Lot's daughters be sent out to be framed- since unrest would ensue if they were refused, raping the women is a 'natural right'?

You're fuckin' retarded. Do you ever think things out before posting?

 

[JBeukema]

Existence = Positive Rights = Recognition = Social contract.

Predators = Denial of Life Liberty, Property.

So existence = social contract?

That doesn't even make sense


moron

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Nice, except this isn't a perfect world with perfect Christians acting perfectly toward their fellow man. I doubt that kind of perfection can even be found within the confines of a seminary, humans being what they are.