What Constitutes a "Right?"
- Thread starter Kevin_Kennedy
- Start date
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.
That is Not the Argument Maggie, That is what J Beukema is trying to make it, as a diversion. The Argument is the Existence of Inalienable Right, Natural Right, Existing at All, Existing Separate from Government, Not the Limitations of It. The Limitations are not in Question Maggie. What is in Question for Sum is whether You are Who You are without Society's consent and Permission. Buekema Inserts in His Argument that If Someone Believes that There are Laws Higher than Government, that it is License to Reign Chaos. That is His premise, not mine. Locke was clear on Ethics, the do's and dont's, and the why's behind them. It is disingenuous to know this and make such an absurd argument.
Right and wrong don't change just because we don't like where the boundaries are. They are based on more than Social Contract.
You are a Joke, and really have no business here.
MaggieMae
Reality bits
- Apr 3, 2009
- 24,043
- 1,635
- 48
CommonSensor said:
The Supreme Court recently heard new arguments over publicizing the book "Hillary: The Movie" just before an election (no decision yet), but that decision could weigh heavily on future cases regarding free speech, with the question being does it apply to corporations who are not individuals, not voters or citizens?
Where are You coming From?
Is this some big Joke or do You suffer from some disease that effects your memory and comprehension? Should I be upset with You? Should I pity You?
The Jefferson Bible: Syllabus
The Jefferson Bible
The Life and Morals of Jesus
Jefferson's Syllabus of an Estimate of the
Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus,
Compared with Those of Others.
In a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Jefferson described his views on Jesus and the Christian religion, as well as his own religious beliefs. He appended to this description a Syllabus that compared the teachings of Jesus to those of the earlier Greek and Roman philosophers, and to the religion of the Jews of Jesus' time. This letter and the appended Syllabus are interesting to anyone studying the Jefferson Bible because they explain precisely Jefferson's views which later led him to make the compilation of the moral philosophy of Jesus in the form presented on this website. Both the letter and the Syllabus are presented below, and may be found in the Memorial Edition of Jefferson's Writings, Vol. 10, pg. 379. Following the syllabus is a letter to William Short, which contains further discussion of the syllabus. This letter is found in Vol. 11 of the Memorial Edition, pg. 243.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter To Dr. Benjamin Rush.
Washington, April 21, 1803.
DEAR SIR,
In some of the delightful conversations with you in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you that one day or other I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other. At the short interval since these conversations, when I could justifiably abstract my mind from public affairs, the subject has been under my contemplation. But the more I considered it, the more it expanded beyond the measure of either my time or information. In the moment of my late departure from Monticello, I received from Dr. Priestley his little treatise of "Socrates and Jesus Compared." This being a section of the general view I had taken of the field, it became a subject of reflection while on the road and unoccupied otherwise. The result was, to arrange in my mind a syllabus or outline of such an estimate of the comparative merits of Christianity as I wished to see executed by someone of more leisure and information for the task than myself. This I now send you as the only discharge of my promise I can probably ever execute. And in confiding it to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations and calumnies. I am moreover averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public, because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the rights of conscience which the laws have so justly proscribed. It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. It behooves him, too, in his own case, to give no example of concession, betraying the common right of independent opinion, by answering questions of faith which the laws have left between God and himself. Accept my affectionate salutations.
Th: Jefferson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Syllabus of an Estimate of the
Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus,
Compared with Those of Others.
In a comparative view of the Ethics of the enlightened nations of antiquity, of the Jews and of Jesus, no notice should be taken of the corruptions of reason among the ancients, to wit, the idolatry and superstition of the vulgar, nor of the corruptions of Christianity by the learned among its professors.
Let a just view be taken of the moral principles inculcated by the most esteemed of the sects of ancient philosophy or of their individuals; particularly Pythagoras, Socrates, Epicurus, Cicero, Epictetus, Seneca, Antoninus.
I. Philosophers.
1. Their precepts related chiefly to ourselves, and the government of those passions which, unrestrained, would disturb our tranquillity of mind.[Note] In this branch of philosophy they were really great.
2. In developing our duties to others, they were short and defective. They embraced, indeed, the circles of kindred and friends, and inculcated patriotism, or the love of our country in the aggregate, as a primary obligation: towards our neighbors and countrymen they taught justice, but scarcely viewed them as within the circle of benevolence. Still less have they inculcated peace, charity and love to our fellow men, or embraced with benevolence the whole family of mankind.
II. Jews.
1. Their system was Deism; that is, the belief in one only God. But their ideas of him and of his attributes were degrading and injurious.
2. Their Ethics were not only imperfect, but often irreconcilable with the sound dictates of reason and morality, as they respect intercourse with those around us; and repulsive and anti-social, as respecting other nations. They needed reformation, therefore, in an eminent degree.
III. Jesus.
In this state of things among the Jews, Jesus appeared. His parentage was obscure; his condition poor; his education null; his natural endowments great; his life correct and innocent: he was meek, benevolent, patient, firm, disinterested, and of the sublimest eloquence.
The disadvantages under which his doctrines appear are remarkable.
1. Like Socrates and Epictetus, he wrote nothing himself.
2. But he had not, like them, a Xenophon or an Arrian to write for him. I name not Plato, who only used the name of Socrates to cover the whimsies of his own brain. On the contrary, all the learned of his country, entrenched in its power and riches, were opposed to him, lest his labors should undermine their advantages; and the committing to writing his life and doctrines fell on unlettered and ignorant men, who wrote, too, from memory, and not till long after the transactions had passed.
3. According to the ordinary fate of those who attempt to enlighten and reform mankind, he fell an early victim to the jealousy and combination of the altar and the throne, at about thirty-three years of age, his reason having not yet attained the maximum of its energy, nor the course of his preaching, which was but of three years at most, presented occasions for developing a complete system of morals.
4. Hence the doctrines he really delivered were defective as a whole, and fragments only of what he did deliver have come to us mutilated, misstated, and often unintelligible.
5. They have been still more disfigured by the corruptions of schismatizing followers, who have found an interest in sophisticating and perverting the simple doctrines he taught, by engrafting on them the mysticisms of a Grecian sophist, frittering them into subtleties, and obscuring them with jargon, until they have caused good men to reject the whole in disgust, and to view Jesus himself as an impostor.
Notwithstanding these disadvantages, a system of morals is presented to us which, if filled up in the style and spirit of the rich fragments he left us, would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man.
The question of his being a member of the Godhead, or in direct communication with it, claimed for him by some of his followers and denied by others, is foreign to the present view, which is merely an estimate of the intrinsic merits of his doctrines.
1. He corrected the Deism of the Jews, confirming them in their belief of one only God, and giving them juster notions of His attributes and government.
2. His moral doctrines, relating to kindred and friends were more pure and perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly more so than those of the Jews; and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids. A development of this head will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others.
3. The precepts of philosophy, and of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions only. He pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head.
4.He taught, emphatically, the doctrines of a future state, which was either doubted or disbelieved by the Jews, and wielded it with efficacy as an important incentive, supplementary to the other motives to moral conduct.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Jefferson's note:] To explain, I will exhibit the heads of Seneca's and Cicero's philosophical works, the most extensive of any we have received from the ancients. Of ten heads in Seneca, seven relate to ourselves, viz. de ira, consolatio, de tranquilitate, de constantia sapientis, de otio sapientis, de vita beata, de brevitate vitae; two relate to others, de clementia, de beneficiis; and one relates to the government of the world, de providentia. Of eleven tracts of Cicero, five respect ourselves, viz. de finibus, Tusculana, academica, paradoxa, de Senectute; one, de officiis, relates partly to ourselves, partly to others; one, de amicitia, relates to others; and four are on different subjects, to wit, de natura deorum, de divinatione, de fato, and sommium Scipionis. [Return to text]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter To William Short.
Monticello, April 13, 1820.
DEAR SIR,
Your favor of March the 27th is received, and as you request, a copy of the syllabus is now enclosed. It was originally written to Dr. Rush. On his death, fearing that the inquisition of the public might get hold of it, I asked the return of it from the family, which they kindly complied with. At the request of another friend, I had given him a copy. He lent it to his friend to read, who copied it, and in a few months it appeared in the Theological Magazine of London. Happily that repository is scarcely known in this country, and the syllabus, therefore, is still a secret, and in your hands I am sure it will continue so.
But while this syllabus is meant to place the character of Jesus in its true and high light, as no impostor Himself, but a great Reformer of the Hebrew code of religion, it is not to be understood that I am with Him in all His doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance towards forgiveness of sin; I require counterpoise of good works to redeem it, etc., etc. It is the innocence of His character, the purity and sublimity of His moral precepts, the eloquence of His inculcations, the beauty of the apologues in which He conveys them, that I so much admire; sometimes, indeed, needing indulgence to eastern hyperbolism. My eulogies, too, may be founded on a postulate which all may not be ready to grant. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to Him by His biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same Being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to Him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of His disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of His doctrines, led me to try to sift them apart. I found the work obvious and easy, and that His past composed the most beautiful morsel of morality which has been given to us by man. The syllabus is therefore of His doctrines, not all of mine. I read them as I do those of other ancient and modern moralists, with a mixture of approbation and dissent...
The Jefferson Bible: Syllabus
JBeukema
Rookie
- Banned
- #367
What? No, it's not.
Really? Like how xtians rejected the law and God's morality because they didn't like where the boundaries are- like selling their virgin daughters to whoever raped them first and making toomany enemies through committing genocide and GOd's demand that the ME be purged of anll non-jews?
there is not 'right' or 'wrong'. There is instinct, there are complexes, and there is ethics/law (social contract)
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
Noone has EVER demonstrated that 'natural rights' exist
That's what Adolf Hitler said.
You have a quote?
Then take it up with intense. Intense is the one who said Hitler had the right to do that
I believe that the Jewish Holocaust speaks for itself, don't you?
.
rubberhead
Member
- Sep 8, 2009
- 498
- 31
- 16
By freedom I mean a person's dominion over their own agency. I didn't think that such a thing would be confusing. And no, you would not be able to rape me unless your doing so did not infringe upon my freedom. That is, you could not rape me unless I wished to be raped, thus making rape an inappropriate characterization of your actions.
This is where the ambiguity of Rawls's principle lies. This is not my principle, it belongs to Rawls. My rewording is the one that I posed below this one. That said, the principle does not say "should be", but Rawls argues for why the principle "should be" a principle. The principle does seem to imply that those who are unwilling to do for themselves would benefit from the gains of those who create wealth.
The rights are implied by each individual's right to their own freedom. The social contract is not the source of the rights, an individual's sentience is. That is, a sentient being realizes that they can make decisions and so they do. Whether they choose to comply with the wishes of others (as they do by entering and upholding a social contract) is determined by their own free will.
So you don't believe in untapped resources and technological innovation? I don't agree with the assertion that socialism achieves what I wish. I don't even agree with the assertion that what I have stated is what I wish, because I never said that what I have stated aligns with my wishes in any way. I argue that this is the way the world of people works. If a government (or any other artificial entity) infringes upon peoples' freedom, then that entity will meet resistance and if that resistance is fertilized by further infringement, then unrest will eventually erode the legitimacy of that entity and cause its dissolution. I would argue that the reason that Socialism doesn't work is that it infringes upon people's natural right to property (i.e. the fruit of one's labor). If someone is free to choose to work or not, then they have the right to keep the fruit of their own labor. And before you start splitting hairs, no I don't mean they get to keep the cars that they help build on the assembly line. What I mean is, the creator of the wealth get to keep the value that they create. Socialist states do not work this way. I'll just leave it at that for now because I know I can't address all of the potential concerns in a readable post.
JBeukema
Rookie
- Banned
- #370
You're the one who compares Jefferson to the red text (Jesus) in the bible
You're still evading, I see
you already conceding that you're an idiot twice (including your assertion that I have a right to rape you and cut your throat when i cum in your ass, then changing your mind) and you've yet to enumerate and demonstrate these 'natural rights'
No you must also demonstrate the existence of moral absolutes, since you raised in in your earlier post
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
I have a right to life, Liberty, property and to pursue happiness.
Foe' rights.
.
"The zombified never cease to amaze me"
Contumacious Freeman
.
MaggieMae
Reality bits
- Apr 3, 2009
- 24,043
- 1,635
- 48
Initially, before the Constitution was amended, only white men who owned property were allowed to vote. Now that voting right extends to all legal citizens.
rubberhead
Member
- Sep 8, 2009
- 498
- 31
- 16
Is that hostility that I sense? No, causing unrest does not make something a right. Causing illegitimacy of a government if denied makes something a right.
I'm sorry but the rest of your post is too incoherent for me to respond to.
Last edited:
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;
SO the federal government did not give me my rights................nor create the internets.
.
BasicGreatGuy
Aut libertas aut mors
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.
"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.
The Constitution does not give rights. It enumerates the powers of the federal government. The reason the revolution was fought, was to be free from an overbearing Monarchical government. Before the revolution, citizens still had rights even though the
government refused to acknowledge such.
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people. It is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." Patrick Henry
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
I understand.....statists are hard to convince........so come into my property uninvited and I will let my Mossberg 590 give you a demonstration.
.TaTa
BasicGreatGuy
Aut libertas aut mors
There is no right to vote ( via the Constitution ) in a federal election. The reason you are allowed to vote for President etc., is because your state provides for such via their constitution.
JBeukema
Rookie
- Banned
- #378
Your refusal to bend over infringes on my right to cum where I wish
Therefore, you have no right to your own body
care to rephrase your argument?
the rights are implied by the rights?
Do you not see what's wrong with that statement?
You've yet to demonstrate any 'rights' at all
If will = rights, then I still have the right to rape you and cut your throat as I cum in your ass
Do you really want to cling to that argument?
I am a realist. Look at human history. If you think all wealth can be generated from 'untapped resources' forever, you're an idiot. It's never been the case and it never will. Someone's not going to fish, hunt, pump their own oil, build their own roads, run their own electric plant....
That's social contract
Specifically, the consent of the governedIt fails due to greed, our and simple. Many Americans don't own property and are perfectly content
.
And someone else is free to take it, given the definition of 'freedom' you provided.
Unless you introduce a social contract where thieves are punished, thus instituting a positive right to keep one's own earnings
Actually, they keep less. That's how businesses stay in business. The factory worker takes home less wealth than he generates for the boss.
MaggieMae
Reality bits
- Apr 3, 2009
- 24,043
- 1,635
- 48
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.
"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
No rights come from the Constitution. The founders believed in natural rights and wrote the Constitution to defend the rights that we as human beings naturally have.
You're nuts. Without quoting them directly, the Bill of Rights includes freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to assemble peaceably, and the rght to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Of course within that amendment, many laws have been written concerning tangible rights of citizens, but that was the intent.
JBeukema
Rookie
- Banned
- #380
self-refutation is an ugly thing
if you accept the consent of the governed, it's illegitimate the moment the people change their minds, meaning that nothingness is a natural right, since the people can change their minds just because a new philosophy is written
THINK, fool
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
32,000 Street Lights Are Out in Democrat Hellhole LA, Mostly Tied to Rampant Copper Theft- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 2
-
