What Constitutes a "Right?"

[NYcarbineer]

Your Rights are Protected by more than the Government, or do you not protect Your Right, even Your Life, and that is besides the point that they are recognized by Government.

I was answering the OP's questons. Rights are protected/enforced by the government, the government costs money to run, therefore, yes it is required that the government take money through taxation to protect your rights. The police don't come for free, nor do the courts. And where do people seek redress when they believe their rights have been violated? The government.

That all true in a sense. What we can't resolve Ourselves, may end up there. When Civil Laws are Broken, Government Responds. We live in a System that is Governed by the Consent of the Governed. What Truly bothers Us We have the Power to Change or Abolish through Legislation or Amendment. Our Courts too play a Role.

What people may forget, or don't stop to consider, is that under the rules of our Constitution, if there were enough of the 'governed' that wanted for example to take away your right to practice your religion, they could amend the Constitution and that right would be gone. Even if it continued to exist 'naturally', in theory.

 

[Intense]

Taking from one person to give to another by way of taxes. Not to distort the OP even further, examples would be those who opposed the Iraq war but their taxes went to fund it anyway, but I realize the more current example is taxing everyone for the purpose of health care for all. A direct tax, an income tax, goes directly to my point.

The fact that we have an income tax which theoretically would allow the government to fund something, doesn't mean the government has a right to fund it. The Iraq war and universal healthcare are two examples of this, and just because the government did one wrong thing is no justification to do another.

So then each spending bill should be a separate referrendum? Yeah, I can see that working out well. We'd still be arguing over entry into World War II.

First let's distinguish between the Governments need to Fund It's ordained Operation and Clear Usurpation. Yes the Government is ordained to be able to pay for It's necessary expenses, fulfilling It's obligations and commitments to us.

Tax Law needs to be simplified, Fair and Impartial. Nobody get it the way that it is now. Too many different taxes that need to go away, between the Fed, The States, and Local.

We need Oversight, Transparency, and Accountability. We need Simplification, We need less redundancy.

Congressional Bills need to be Simplified, tested for Relevance, and Constitutionality throughout the construction Process, and content limited to what is related to the Main Theme of the Bill. So vote on 5 Bills rather than 1, big deal.

What does limiting Bills to Theme have to do with Declaring War in 1941? Where do these comparisons come from?

 

[Intense]

I confess I sailed through much of JB's stuff, as he tends to lace it with insults which deter from his points. Nope, my thoughts have been my own here. Frankly, I think a new thread needs to be started to get people's thoughts on exactly what they mean and/or expect by "freedom." For myself, I'm just as free as I was the day I was born, 66 years ago.

Yeah, I probably should ignore it too, but he's the only one talking about this on a philosophical level. Everyone else seems to be talking about the Constitution of the US, which is inspired by natural rights, but it does not necessarily define or originate them.

Exactly.

Exactly, It is not Their Source, but It does Recognize Them, Acknowledge that They exist, and names a few of them as examples.

 

[Intense]

I was answering the OP's questons. Rights are protected/enforced by the government, the government costs money to run, therefore, yes it is required that the government take money through taxation to protect your rights. The police don't come for free, nor do the courts. And where do people seek redress when they believe their rights have been violated? The government.

That all true in a sense. What we can't resolve Ourselves, may end up there. When Civil Laws are Broken, Government Responds. We live in a System that is Governed by the Consent of the Governed. What Truly bothers Us We have the Power to Change or Abolish through Legislation or Amendment. Our Courts too play a Role.

What people may forget, or don't stop to consider, is that under the rules of our Constitution, if there were enough of the 'governed' that wanted for example to take away your right to practice your religion, they could amend the Constitution and that right would be gone. Even if it continued to exist 'naturally', in theory.

Yes. Thoreau labeled it "The Tyranny of the Majority". What I love most about this Nation is that The Bar is So High for Constitutional Amendment, and a change like that, requiring 75% Approval, that it is extremely Unlikely. Long before something like that happens, the Republic will already have been Lost, and not recognizable. Meaning that Freedom of Religion would be among the least of our problems Comrade.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Taking from one person to give to another by way of taxes. Not to distort the OP even further, examples would be those who opposed the Iraq war but their taxes went to fund it anyway, but I realize the more current example is taxing everyone for the purpose of health care for all. A direct tax, an income tax, goes directly to my point.

The fact that we have an income tax which theoretically would allow the government to fund something, doesn't mean the government has a right to fund it. The Iraq war and universal healthcare are two examples of this, and just because the government did one wrong thing is no justification to do another.

So then each spending bill should be a separate referrendum? Yeah, I can see that working out well. We'd still be arguing over entry into World War II.

No. Congress officially and constitutionally declared war for World War 2, which we gave them the power to do in the Constitution. Not so with Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

 

[Liability]

The fact that we have an income tax which theoretically would allow the government to fund something, doesn't mean the government has a right to fund it. The Iraq war and universal healthcare are two examples of this, and just because the government did one wrong thing is no justification to do another.

So then each spending bill should be a separate referrendum? Yeah, I can see that working out well. We'd still be arguing over entry into World War II.

No. Congress officially and constitutionally declared war for World War 2, which we gave them the power to do in the Constitution. Not so with Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

Wrong. Congress DID explicitly authorize and fund each such military effort. And since it is Congressional authorization that the Constitution requires, not some mindless magical incantation of the words "we declare war," it is just your faulty understanding of the Constitution that leads you to make such silly arguments.

 

[Intense]

So then each spending bill should be a separate referrendum? Yeah, I can see that working out well. We'd still be arguing over entry into World War II.

No. Congress officially and constitutionally declared war for World War 2, which we gave them the power to do in the Constitution. Not so with Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

Wrong. Congress DID explicitly authorize and fund each such military effort. And since it is Congressional authorization that the Constitution requires, not some mindless magical incantation of the words "we declare war," it is just your faulty understanding of the Constitution that leads you to make such silly arguments.

All True, yet look at the divisions. In Viet Nam it was a main tool of the Propaganda war, Iraq too. I can't help but wonder where the Department of State is in all this poison and crap. What Flag they serve. Congress Authorizes, then remains about as convicted as the wind. We may be better in the future getting everyone we can on board formally with a declaration of war. Let's also better support the Patton's and MacArthur's too.

 

[rubberhead]

Your Rights are Protected by more than the Government, or do you not protect Your Right, even Your Life, and that is besides the point that they are recognized by Government.

I was answering the OP's questons. Rights are protected/enforced by the government, the government costs money to run, therefore, yes it is required that the government take money through taxation to protect your rights. The police don't come for free, nor do the courts. And where do people seek redress when they believe their rights have been violated? The government.

That all true in a sense. What we can't resolve Ourselves, may end up there. When Civil Laws are Broken, Government Responds. We live in a System that is Governed by the Consent of the Governed. What Truly bothers Us We have the Power to Change or Abolish through Legislation or Amendment. Our Courts too play a Role.

Protection from threats foreign and domestic is an important role of the government. The social contract also serves the purpose of standardizing rights and resolving issues that are left ambiguous by broad theoretical principle (such as the solar panels overshadowing the crops example that we saw earlier in the thread).

I think what the OP was getting at was that any 'right' that must be taxed into existence (aka health care) cannot be a right because it does not exist without the intervention of government. Put another way, rights are not provided by others. You have them when you are born. Just as a thought experiment (I'm not assuming any political orientation), how would one defend their 'right' to health care in the absence of government? By force? No, you would have to force a doctor to provide it for you. This would be a violation of the doctor's natural rights. By pity? The doctor would still have the right not to treat the patient. What is it about health care that makes it NOT a natural right then? I say it's the fact that someone else has to provide it.

 

[rubberhead]

The fact that we have an income tax which theoretically would allow the government to fund something, doesn't mean the government has a right to fund it. The Iraq war and universal healthcare are two examples of this, and just because the government did one wrong thing is no justification to do another.

So then each spending bill should be a separate referrendum? Yeah, I can see that working out well. We'd still be arguing over entry into World War II.

First let's distinguish between the Governments need to Fund It's ordained Operation and Clear Usurpation. Yes the Government is ordained to be able to pay for It's necessary expenses, fulfilling It's obligations and commitments to us.

Tax Law needs to be simplified, Fair and Impartial. Nobody get it the way that it is now. Too many different taxes that need to go away, between the Fed, The States, and Local.

We need Oversight, Transparency, and Accountability. We need Simplification, We need less redundancy.

Congressional Bills need to be Simplified, tested for Relevance, and Constitutionality throughout the construction Process, and content limited to what is related to the Main Theme of the Bill. So vote on 5 Bills rather than 1, big deal.

What does limiting Bills to Theme have to do with Declaring War in 1941? Where do these comparisons come from?

Now we're talking about government's rights, but I definitely have to bite on this.

As the government gets bigger, the peoples' rights are eroded. Can we agree on that? As the government gets more involved in foreign affairs, our nation's sovereignty is threatened by foreign influence. Can we also agree on that? If the government's role is to protect our freedoms and our nation's sovereignty, then stepping beyond the bounds of serving these interests would be outside of the rights of the government. Am I wrong yet? Am I leaving something out? Please disagree with me and offer me a reasonable alternative.

 

[Liability]

No. Congress officially and constitutionally declared war for World War 2, which we gave them the power to do in the Constitution. Not so with Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

Wrong. Congress DID explicitly authorize and fund each such military effort. And since it is Congressional authorization that the Constitution requires, not some mindless magical incantation of the words "we declare war," it is just your faulty understanding of the Constitution that leads you to make such silly arguments.

All True, yet look at the divisions. In Viet Nam it was a main tool of the Propaganda war, Iraq too. I can't help but wonder where the Department of State is in all this poison and crap. What Flag they serve. Congress Authorizes, then remains about as convicted as the wind. We may be better in the future getting everyone we can on board formally with a declaration of war. Let's also better support the Patton's and MacArthur's too.

If the only difference is whether Congress has the nadz or the intellect to use the PHRASE "We declare War" or "War is hereby decvared ...." then I can not believe that the liberoidals would then -- on that basis -- suddenly refrain from vocal efforts to undermine the war if it suited there political agenda to do so.

 

[Intense]

I was answering the OP's questons. Rights are protected/enforced by the government, the government costs money to run, therefore, yes it is required that the government take money through taxation to protect your rights. The police don't come for free, nor do the courts. And where do people seek redress when they believe their rights have been violated? The government.

That all true in a sense. What we can't resolve Ourselves, may end up there. When Civil Laws are Broken, Government Responds. We live in a System that is Governed by the Consent of the Governed. What Truly bothers Us We have the Power to Change or Abolish through Legislation or Amendment. Our Courts too play a Role.

Protection from threats foreign and domestic is an important role of the government. The social contract also serves the purpose of standardizing rights and resolving issues that are left ambiguous by broad theoretical principle (such as the solar panels overshadowing the crops example that we saw earlier in the thread).

I think what the OP was getting at was that any 'right' that must be taxed into existence (aka health care) cannot be a right because it does not exist without the intervention of government. Put another way, rights are not provided by others. You have them when you are born. Just as a thought experiment (I'm not assuming any political orientation), how would one defend their 'right' to health care in the absence of government? By force? No, you would have to force a doctor to provide it for you. This would be a violation of the doctor's natural rights. By pity? The doctor would still have the right not to treat the patient. What is it about health care that makes it NOT a natural right then? I say it's the fact that someone else has to provide it.

Consent in the law sense requires the majority of votes, in an expanded power it should require 75% approval. Be it Marriage, Abortion (unless one can show that it was established practice at the time, which I doubt), Forced Busing. All these would have been done with one way or the other. I'm clearly relating to Method not Principle here.

Health Care is Not a Natural Right, it is a Service or commodity that has a value or worth. Through consent we make it available to each to some level or extent. We establish Law to enforce standards and practices. As We develop, so do those practices. It is still a contract officially, and a charity by choice. Respect Your Health Care Providers or risk losing them.

 

[Intense]

So then each spending bill should be a separate referrendum? Yeah, I can see that working out well. We'd still be arguing over entry into World War II.

First let's distinguish between the Governments need to Fund It's ordained Operation and Clear Usurpation. Yes the Government is ordained to be able to pay for It's necessary expenses, fulfilling It's obligations and commitments to us.

Tax Law needs to be simplified, Fair and Impartial. Nobody get it the way that it is now. Too many different taxes that need to go away, between the Fed, The States, and Local.

We need Oversight, Transparency, and Accountability. We need Simplification, We need less redundancy.

Congressional Bills need to be Simplified, tested for Relevance, and Constitutionality throughout the construction Process, and content limited to what is related to the Main Theme of the Bill. So vote on 5 Bills rather than 1, big deal.

What does limiting Bills to Theme have to do with Declaring War in 1941? Where do these comparisons come from?

Now we're talking about government's rights, but I definitely have to bite on this.

As the government gets bigger, the peoples' rights are eroded. Can we agree on that? As the government gets more involved in foreign affairs, our nation's sovereignty is threatened by foreign influence. Can we also agree on that? If the government's role is to protect our freedoms and our nation's sovereignty, then stepping beyond the bounds of serving these interests would be outside of the rights of the government. Am I wrong yet? Am I leaving something out? Please disagree with me and offer me a reasonable alternative.

We are totally on the same page. That is why it bothers Me so much that the supposed brightest among us are not able to comprehend John Locke and Natural Law, or Inalienable Right, as depicted in The Constitution. That alone is a Hi-Jacking of Intent, and in truth makes those that do deny Inalienable Right enemies of The Constitution and the State. This argument started in Washington's and Adam's Presidency. The decedents of those opposed to Government by consent, seek to rub out all reference to anyone having a single right outside of the Arbitrary Consent of Ruling Law. Government by The Government, for The Government; as opposed to Government by the People, for the People. Madison was a servant to Principle, Hamilton a servant to the Structure of Government, which was his empire and God.

 

[rubberhead]

There is one sticking point that I have been grappling with. I'm sure that everyone who is still maintaining interest in this thread are familiar with the Constitution of the U.S. and the welfare clause. You know:

Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

First of all, how do we define general welfare? Second, is that the duty of government?

Obviously the answer to my second question depends on the answer to the first.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So how does one justify conscription, i.e., forcing a citizen to fight and die for his country,

if 'life' is a natural right?

 

[CommonSensor]

So how does one justify conscription, i.e., forcing a citizen to fight and die for his country,

if 'life' is a natural right?

Great point! with one caveat... we no longer have a draft (since the early 70s), so we're not technically "forcing" them anymore. But your basic point is very well taken.

-sensored

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So how does one justify conscription, i.e., forcing a citizen to fight and die for his country,

if 'life' is a natural right?

It can't be justified. Conscription is slavery.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So how does one justify conscription, i.e., forcing a citizen to fight and die for his country,

if 'life' is a natural right?

Great point! with one caveat... we no longer have a draft (since the early 70s), so we're not technically "forcing" them anymore. But your basic point is very well taken.

-sensored

We're forcing all 18 year old males to sign up for selective service. That needs to be done away with completely.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Your rights are protected by the government. They exist only in theory if they are not protected.

Correct.

That is the problem with democracies - individuals only have those rights recognize by the majority.


.

 

[Intense]

There is one sticking point that I have been grappling with. I'm sure that everyone who is still maintaining interest in this thread are familiar with the Constitution of the U.S. and the welfare clause. You know:

Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

First of all, how do we define general welfare? Second, is that the duty of government?

Obviously the answer to my second question depends on the answer to the first.

Look to Hamilton's Defense of The Constitutionality of The Bank of The United States where he reduces enumerated Powers to a Foot Note and Trumps them With Health and General Welfare clause, where he claims almost unlimited Power. His arguments even attempt to restrict State Powers in ways the Constitution restricts the Federal. You can key word search The Federalist Papers, and so much of what he claims is so obvious was unmentioned in them, or the opposite holds true.

Hamilton: The Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, 1791



Federalist Papers with Word Search. Federalist Papers Index


Liberty Library Index.
Liberty Library of Constitutional Classics



The Duty of Government is Defined, well in the Declaration Of Independence, Generally.
Check out the Liberty Library, on what the role of Government should be.

 

[Contumacious]

Your rights are protected by the government. They exist only in theory if they are not protected.

Your Rights are Protected by more than the Government, or do you not protect Your Right, even Your Life, and that is besides the point that they are recognized by Government.

I was answering the OP's questons. Rights are protected/enforced by the government, the government costs money to run, therefore, yes it is required that the government take money through taxation to protect your rights. The police don't come for free, nor do the courts. And where do people seek redress when they believe their rights have been violated? The government.

Police and fire services can be easily privatized. So can road services.


.