What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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...

The fact that you're capable of committing crimes in no way disproves that we as human beings retain our natural rights with or without government force. If you have no natural rights then the mass murders of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were not crimes against humanity. The people they killed obviously didn't have any rights since it was the government that killed them and since the government decided they had no rights those mass murders must have been perfectly justified, right?

 

[JBeukema]

You never demonstrated any 'fairness' right. You listed your ideals.

Locke has been refuted and countered by many p since his writings.

That you constantly say 'read Locke' proves you are unable of thinking for yourself

 

[MaggieMae]

The Founders.

Great, smart men.

Still, one could be forgiven for pondering that ******* a slave woman while penning "all men are created equal" does reveal some form of hypocrisy.

Just maybe?

Or maybe not, he did not pen "all women are created equal".

His pursuit of happiness came at the expense of Sally's.

How bout we found our own ethics away from the founders?

Just a thought.

Exactly. What the founders believed 200+ years ago as an inherent Christian "right" was actually wrong, in many instances. Some have been corrected by amendment, many have not. What "natural right" (God-given?) compelled them to believe that slaves (human beings) were chattel? That only white men could own property? That women could not vote?

That is nonsense.

He made reference to NATURE'S GOD and THEIR CREATOR......not to a god or to a creator and used by the mystics.


.

I didn't interpret it that way at all. So in other words we all must regress back to walking on all fours and foraging for our own food and fighting off predators with our claws and teeth? THAT kind of "godly" nature? No guns? Heaven Forbid!!

 

[Contumacious]

There was the civil war.

Failed revolution?

There was a war of Northern Aggression.


.

the South attacked first

nice try with the revisionist bullshit

try not getting your history lessons from southern democrats

Mr. Fucktard Sir,

You Lie.

Lincoln was told to remove federal troops from Fort Sumter, the ************ refused. South Carolina had no choice.

So STFU.


.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Now you're arguing semantics. Article I, Section II, established the House of Representatives which GAVE the states voting rights.

What you stated previously was in fact incorrect. There is no right to vote in a federal election via the Constitution of the United States.

Article 1, Section II, Clause 1: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature."

You are misreading the Constitution. There is no right to vote in a federal election in the aforementioned part of the Constitution. I don't always agree with the SCOTUS, but they hold the same view.

Um, The Constitution of the UNITED STATES of America is implicit as it incorporates those states by its laws. Hello?

 

[JBeukema]

Wrong, Kev. Hitler's actions were 'crimes against humanity' because they were defined as such under international law.

He who declares war on the world must expect the world to declare, as one party, war upon him. His actions triggered the creation of a new compact between manyparties, who shared the objective of destroying him.

 

[Intense]

The Founders.

Great, smart men.

Still, one could be forgiven for pondering that ******* a slave woman while penning "all men are created equal" does reveal some form of hypocrisy.

Just maybe?

Or maybe not, he did not pen "all women are created equal".

His pursuit of happiness came at the expense of Sally's.

How bout we found our own ethics away from the founders?

Just a thought.

Exactly. What the founders believed 200+ years ago as an inherent Christian "right" was actually wrong, in many instances. Some have been corrected by amendment, many have not. What "natural right" (God-given?) compelled them to believe that slaves (human beings) were chattel? That only white men could own property? That women could not vote?

That is nonsense.

He made reference to NATURE'S GOD and THEIR CREATOR......not to a god or to a creator and used by the mystics.


.

Even at the Time Many knew Slavery to be wrong. They placed the concern over being One Nation, over the issue of Slavery. Who is to say what would have been, had we been two separate Nations instead? The reference to God was from John Locke. Which most on this thread deny and won't study up on. I'm not saying that You need to agree with it, but for the record it is the very foundation of my argument, as with, Jefferson, Madison, Thoreau, King, and Gandhi.

My argument Never called Jefferson the New Jesus, and I Never supported or said a single word about Nazi's, though I was Falsely accused by J Beukema, and He kept building on those false premises. I don't know if this tactic is commonly done among the Intellectual Elite, but it seems so Disreputable to Me. I would be truly ashamed of Myself for treating another being that way.

Anyway Maggie. The Foundation of My argument is based within the context of these two links. See if You Will, the concept of Separation of Church and State, the concept of Nonviolent Civil Disobedience as a form of Protest, The concept of Life, Liberty, and Property, being Natural Right and a Defense against Tyranny, The Concept of Conscience standing against the angry mob. Try not to be too critical of a Man whom lived so long ago, in a world so different. Check Him out when You have the Time to absorb., for your own sake.

John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government

John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration

 

[Contumacious]

Exactly. What the founders believed 200+ years ago as an inherent Christian "right" was actually wrong, in many instances. Some have been corrected by amendment, many have not. What "natural right" (God-given?) compelled them to believe that slaves (human beings) were chattel? That only white men could own property? That women could not vote?

That is nonsense.

He made reference to NATURE'S GOD and THEIR CREATOR......not to a god or to a creator and used by the mystics.


.

I didn't interpret it that way at all. So in other words we all must regress back to walking on all fours and foraging for our own food and fighting off predators with our claws and teeth? THAT kind of "godly" nature? No guns? Heaven Forbid!!

HUH?

What we have here is a failure to communicate.


.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

now you're arguing semantics. Article i, section ii, established the house of representatives which gave the states voting rights.

huh?


.

Some of you guys would make TERRIBLE lawyers. What more can I say?

 

[JBeukema]

There was a war of Northern Aggression.


.

the South attacked first

nice try with the revisionist bullshit

try not getting your history lessons from southern democrats

Mr. Fucktard Sir,

You Lie.

Lincoln was told to remove federal troops from Fort Sumter, the ************ refused. South Carolina had no choice.

So STFU.


.

So they did what?
attacked a union fort!

You just proved me correct, thank you

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Now you're arguing semantics. Article I, Section II, established the House of Representatives which GAVE the states voting rights.

What you stated previously was in fact incorrect. There is no right to vote in a federal election via the Constitution of the United States.

Article 1, Section II, Clause 1: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature."

You are misreading the Constitution. There is no right to vote in a federal election in the aforementioned part of the Constitution. I don't always agree with the SCOTUS, but they hold the same view.

You're mostly right. In fact, there is no such thing as a "Federal" election. All Federal offices are elected by the individual States. For the office of President, the States could theoretically remove the right of the people to vote for electors anytime it chooses.

The office of President is a federal office, as is Congress. That is why I said what I did. I agree with you on your latter point.

Here we go again with this agreeing stuff.

 

[MaggieMae]

Now you're arguing semantics. Article I, Section II, established the House of Representatives which GAVE the states voting rights.

What you stated previously was in fact incorrect. There is no right to vote in a federal election via the Constitution of the United States.

Article 1, Section II, Clause 1: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature."

You are misreading the Constitution. There is no right to vote in a federal election in the aforementioned part of the Constitution. I don't always agree with the SCOTUS, but they hold the same view.

You're mostly right. In fact, there is no such thing as a "Federal" election. All Federal offices are elected by the individual States. For the office of President, the States could theoretically remove the right of the people to vote for electors anytime it chooses.

To which I was ask of anyone who doesn't understand that clause, which came first? The Constitution which CREATED the states, or powers of the states?

 

[rubberhead]

You never demonstrated any 'fairness' right. You listed your ideals.

Locke has been refuted and countered by many p since his writings.

That you constantly say 'read Locke' proves you are unable of thinking for yourself

Fairness: If a party obtains wealth, then that party must either obtain it through an exchange for an equal amount of wealth or create it from unclaimed resources or resources owned by that party.

I am not listing my ideals. I am listing those transgressions of government that history has proven to cause nations to fall and the rights that they imply in the simplest terms I can.

Please cite refutations to Locke and make their case. Locke's arguments were a bit unrefined, which is why I brought Rawls to the discussion.

How does citing people smarter than me prove that I can't think for myself? I think it proves that I don't think I'm the smartest person ever to live. Maybe you should consider making such a concession before you prove the opposite about yourself.

 

[Annie]

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

Where does this right to property come from?

One has the right to the 'fruits of one's labors.' In the 'hunting & gathering days,' would have been to what one 'caught or gathered.' However, as Hobbes noticed thousands of years later, some folks just don't go along with those rules. Thus the necessity of some sort of government, to Hobbes the more compelling, the better. Locke a few years later amended the breath of government into 'the least possible, while still controlling those non-conformists.'

Nutshell answer.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Yet many felt the Bill of Rights was completely unnecessary because they knew we already had those rights and saw no reason to explicitly spell it out. If we had no natural rights the ninth amendment wouldn't make any sense. How could you define the other rights retained by the people if you don't believe in natural rights?

 

[MaggieMae]

Exactly. What the founders believed 200+ years ago as an inherent Christian "right" was actually wrong, in many instances. Some have been corrected by amendment, many have not. What "natural right" (God-given?) compelled them to believe that slaves (human beings) were chattel? That only white men could own property? That women could not vote?

That is nonsense.

He made reference to NATURE'S GOD and THEIR CREATOR......not to a god or to a creator and used by the mystics.


.

Even at the Time Many knew Slavery to be wrong. They placed the concern over being One Nation, over the issue of Slavery. Who is to say what would have been, had we been two separate Nations instead? The reference to God was from John Locke. Which most on this thread deny and won't study up on. I'm not saying that You need to agree with it, but for the record it is the very foundation of my argument, as with, Jefferson, Madison, Thoreau, King, and Gandhi.

My argument Never called Jefferson the New Jesus, and I Never supported or said a single word about Nazi's, though I was Falsely accused by J Beukema, and He kept building on those false premises. I don't know if this tactic is commonly done among the Intellectual Elite, but it seems so Disreputable to Me. I would be truly ashamed of Myself for treating another being that way.

Anyway Maggie. The Foundation of My argument is based within the context of these two links. See if You Will, the concept of Separation of Church and State, the concept of Nonviolent Civil Disobedience as a form of Protest, The concept of Life, Liberty, and Property, being Natural Right and a Defense against Tyranny, The Concept of Conscience standing against the angry mob. Try not to be too critical of a Man whom lived so long ago, in a world so different. Check Him out when You have the Time to absorb., for your own sake.

John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government

John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration

I'm sure those are fascinating reads, and I completely understand that the mindset was once idyllic and a much hoped-for conscience driven society. But that is not the case today. I deal in the world of reality. That said, and alluding to your previous comment, no, I don't spend a lot of time on this message board and thus tend to jump into an already engrossing conversation. And on that note, I have to leave now!

Thanks for the rep a few days ago, by the way.

Have a good weekend all!

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Now you're arguing semantics. Article I, Section II, established the House of Representatives which GAVE the states voting rights.

What you stated previously was in fact incorrect. There is no right to vote in a federal election via the Constitution of the United States.

Article 1, Section II, Clause 1: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature."

You are misreading the Constitution. There is no right to vote in a federal election in the aforementioned part of the Constitution. I don't always agree with the SCOTUS, but they hold the same view.

Um, The Constitution of the UNITED STATES of America is implicit as it incorporates those states by its laws. Hello?

Hello to you as well. The states are mentioned. That much is true. However, the fact remains that the Article 1, Section II, Clause I does not and never has in the history of this Republic, given the citizens of the United States the right to vote.

The founding fathers disagree with you Maggie. I challenge you to back up your claim via the Constitution itself, the supporting founding documents, as well as the pertinent SCOTUS decision. It can't rightfully be done in proper context.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Our nation was founded on the belief of natural rights so if what you say is true we should have stayed a part of Great Britain. As for healthcare being a right and giving us more freedom, I'd say you're quite mistaken. Freedom doesn't entail the government taking from one person to give to another.

So now you're trying to argue the Sixteenth Amendment? You make no sense, none.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The 16th amendment gives the federal government the power to institute an income tax. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

 

[MaggieMae]

What you stated previously was in fact incorrect. There is no right to vote in a federal election via the Constitution of the United States.

Article 1, Section II, Clause 1: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature."

You are misreading the Constitution. There is no right to vote in a federal election in the aforementioned part of the Constitution. I don't always agree with the SCOTUS, but they hold the same view.

You're mostly right. In fact, there is no such thing as a "Federal" election. All Federal offices are elected by the individual States. For the office of President, the States could theoretically remove the right of the people to vote for electors anytime it chooses.

The office of President is a federal office, as is Congress. That is why I said what I did. I agree with you on your latter point.

Here we go again with this agreeing stuff.

The Constitution is always good for solid debate. I think the framers wrote it in such an ambiguous way as to promote that debate.

 

[Intense]

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.

If a right exists, such as my right to speak my mind, then writing it down as part of a list of things over which the gubmint has no valid say does not create that right. The right pre-existed the writing part.

I have a right to swing my closed fist, too. My right to do so, however, does NOT go so far as the point where I make contact with your nose (or even wheere I get so close to it that I interfere with your right not to be physically threatened by my behavior).

Rights are NOT "all or nothing" constructs.

SOME rights may be absolute or nearly absolute.

Other rights quite a bit less so.

And there is no contradiction in noting as much.

And thus the reason we have laws. You can't use as a defense in a court of law that you had an inalienable "right" to punch someone in the nose because your reading of the Constitution implies that it was an expession of "freedom of speech."

Maggie, You are falling into JBeukema's Pit Fall. Nobody is suggesting anything like that but Him, and now You. Why? Where has anyone Rationally defended doing Harm to Others is a Natural Right? All these arguments are abstract diversions, if you simply study up on Source, you will see that.