What Constitutes a "Right?"

[CommonSensor]

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

Yes, and we need to do away with our enemies too =) . You're welcome to "opt-out" of our (mutual) national defense, but then I would also contend you shouldn't be benefiting from the security OTHERS have sacrificed their lives to defend for you...

-sensored

 

[Contumacious]

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.

HUH?

And you relied on what for your conclusion.


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;


.

 

[Intense]

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.

Great Point too. We currently don't have a draft. I'm against it. Were we being under attack and invaded I would accept it, but I would prefer to see it fall under the National Guard, than the Federal Authority. Let it be answerable to the Governor of the State, rather than Congress. Let the Joint Chiefs, or whom ever is in charge, work with the Governors consent A panel or Representative of the State or States, in deployment, and Term.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

Yes, and we need to do away with our enemies too =) . You're welcome to "opt-out" of our (mutual) national defense, but then I would also contend you shouldn't be benefiting from the security OTHERS have sacrificed their lives to defend for you...

-sensored

Because I oppose forcing people to sign up for selective service I'm not worthy of being defended by the armed forces? Utterly ridiculous.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Coooooooorrect.

The right to healthcare is a welfare state right which depends on the M4 Carbine.

 

[CommonSensor]

Because I oppose forcing people to sign up for selective service I'm not worthy of being defended by the armed forces? Utterly ridiculous.

Who owes you what anyway? If you are not willing to participate in the common good ("to provide for the common defense...etc"), then you should not be entitled to the freedoms and benefits that you've inherited in the Constitution (you know, the document those words came from).

We have no rights unless we remain resolved to defend them. What you're saying is, a person that isn't willing to participate in that defense should be entitled to it's benefits. Bullshit...

-sensored

p.s. I'm almost sorry I wasted my time writing this, but please don't bother replying, I won't see your post. good luck!

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Paul Calls for Congressional Declaration of War with Iraq

Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul, insisting that the House International Relations committee follow constitutional principles, yesterday introduced a formal congressional declaration of war with Iraq. The language of the declaration was very clear: "A state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the government of Iraq."

"I don’t believe in resolutions that cite the UN as authority for our military actions," Paul stated yesterday after a committee hearing. "America has a sovereign right to defend itself, and we don’t need UN permission or approval to act in the interests of American national security. The decision to go to war should be made by the U.S. Congress alone. Congress should give the President full warmaking authority, rather than binding him with resolutions designed to please our UN detractors."

"Sadly, the leadership of both parties on the International Relations committee fails to understand that the Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war before our troops are sent into battle," Paul continued. "One Republican member stated that the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war is an anachronism and should no longer be followed," while a Democratic member said that a declaration of war would be ‘frivolous.’ I don’t think most Americans believe our Constitution is outdated or frivolous, and they expect Congress to follow it."

"When Congress issued clear declarations of war against Japan and Germany during World War II, the nation was committed and victory was achieved," Paul concluded. "When Congress shirks its duty and avoids declaring war, as with Korea, and Vietnam, the nation is less committed and the goals are less clear. No lives should be lost in Iraq unless Congress expresses the clear will of the American people and votes yes or no on a declaration of war."

 

[Contumacious]

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

if 'life' is a natural right?

Conscription, slavery,is unconstitutional.


.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Because I oppose forcing people to sign up for selective service I'm not worthy of being defended by the armed forces? Utterly ridiculous.

Who owes you what anyway? If you are not willing to participate in the common good ("to provide for the common defense...etc"), then you should not be entitled to the freedoms and benefits that you've inherited in the Constitution (you know, the document those words came from).

We have no rights unless we remain resolved to defend them. What you're saying is, a person that isn't willing to participate in that defense should be entitled to it's benefits. Bullshit...

-sensored

p.s. I'm almost sorry I wasted my time writing this, but please don't bother replying, I won't see your post. good luck!

Nobody owes me anything, but it was their choice to sign up for the armed services. I don't agree with the foreign policy of our government so why should I be forced to sign up for the selective service where I could potentially be drafted by the government to fight in their wars?

 

[Contumacious]

Because I oppose forcing people to sign up for selective service I'm not worthy of being defended by the armed forces? Utterly ridiculous.

Who owes you what anyway? If you are not willing to participate in the common good ("to provide for the common defense...etc"), then you should not be entitled to the freedoms and benefits that you've inherited in the Constitution (you know, the document those words came from).
!

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeasy Vernon.

We haven't "inherited " any rights.

I am certain that most Americans would fight to defend the nation. But the people know that ALL the military conflicts in which the US has been recently involved - including WW1 - are based on BULLSHIT:


"U.S. declaration of war on Germany

After the British revealed the telegram to the United States, President Wilson, who had won reelection on his keeping the country out of the war, released the captured telegram as a way of building support for U.S. entry into the war. He had previously claimed neutrality, while calling for the arming of U.S. merchant ships delivering munitions to combatant Britain and quietly supporting the British blockading of German ports and mining of international waters, preventing the shipment of food from America and elsewhere to combatant Germany. After submarines sank seven U.S. merchant ships and the publication of the Zimmerman telegram, Wilson called for war on Germany, which the U.S. Congress declared on 6 April 1917.[56]
African-American soldiers marching in France.[57]

Crucial to U.S. participation was the massive domestic propaganda campaign executed by the Committee on Public Information overseen by George Creel. The campaign included tens of thousands of government-selected community leaders giving brief carefully scripted pro-war speeches at thousands of public gatherings. Along with other branches of government and private vigilante groups like the American Protective League, it also included the general repression and harassment of people either opposed to American entry into the war or of German heritage. Other forms of propaganda included newsreels, photos, large-print posters (designed by several well-known illustrators of the day, including Louis D. Fancher and Henry Reuterdahl), magazine and newspaper articles, etc.

 

[rubberhead]

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

if 'life' is a natural right?

Conscription, slavery,is unconstitutional.


.

I have to agree with this statement. With one difference: conscription is not technically slavery since the soldiers are paid for their services. It's more like indentured servitude. Still a violation of the natural right. But like I've been saying since we began this tangent about a specific case study of the US government, our rights do not come from the constitution. The purpose of the constitution mainly exists to limit the power of government and to define those rights of the people-which they are born with and possess naturally-which the government shall not abridge. You could argue that the power of Congress to organize militias in their states could be seen to originate the draft. However, since the constitution does not define our natural rights, this power is meaningless without the consent of the governed. This is what has given rise to the anti-war movement and the idea of conscientious objection. The fact is that if you do not wish to fight in a war that you believe is unjust or does not protect our national interest (the evidence to is effect of most recent wars from Vietnam to Iraq is very compelling), then the law cannot force you to do so.

 

[Liability]

Except that conscription is not slavery.

Words have meaaning.

Sorry, but that's just the simple truth.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Except that conscription is not slavery.

Words have meaaning.

Sorry, but that's just the simple truth.

So slavery isn't defined as being forced to do something against your will?

 

[Liability]

Except that conscription is not slavery.

Words have meaaning.

Sorry, but that's just the simple truth.

So slavery isn't defined as being forced to do something against your will?

No. Your would-be definition is not an actual definition.

Slaves were property :: Those conscripted, as in the draft, are not property.

Slaves got no vote as to the existence of slavery :: Conscripts do get such a say in our representative Republic.

 

[Intense]

The Constitution limits the Federal Governments. State Constitutions govern the States. State Constitutions could easily enact the Draft, in most cases with a simple majority vote. Federal Constitution would require a 75% Majority that would end debate. Extreme circumstances like 9/11 could easily get that support.

There is an Old Al Pacino Movie called "Revolution". I Highly recommend it.

Revolution (1985) More at IMDbPro »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisementOverview
User Rating:4.7/10 2,465 votes
MOVIEmeter: No change in popularity this week. See why on IMDbPro.
Director:Hugh Hudson

Writer:Robert Dillon (writer)

Contact:View company contact information for Revolution on IMDbPro.
Release Date:25 December 1985 (USA) more
Genre:Adventure | Drama | History | War more
Tagline:A Nation Forged In Blood more
Plot:New York trapper Tom Dobb becomes an unwilling participant in the American Revolution after his son... more | add synopsis


Revolution (1985)

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Except that conscription is not slavery.

Words have meaaning.

Sorry, but that's just the simple truth.

So slavery isn't defined as being forced to do something against your will?

No. Your would-be definition is not an actual definition.

Slaves were property :: Those conscripted, as in the draft, are not property.

Slaves got no vote as to the existence of slavery :: Conscripts do get such a say in our representative Republic.

Conscription implies government ownership of the people they conscript. Otherwise how could they send them? If I owned my own person I would be free to refuse to be conscripted with no consequences, but that's not the case. Yes, conscripts get a chance to vote, but that doesn't change anything. The rights of the minority must still be protected, and conscription violates those rights.

 

[Intense]

So slavery isn't defined as being forced to do something against your will?

No. Your would-be definition is not an actual definition.

Slaves were property :: Those conscripted, as in the draft, are not property.

Slaves got no vote as to the existence of slavery :: Conscripts do get such a say in our representative Republic.

Conscription implies government ownership of the people they conscript. Otherwise how could they send them? If I owned my own person I would be free to refuse to be conscripted with no consequences, but that's not the case. Yes, conscripts get a chance to vote, but that doesn't change anything. The rights of the minority must still be protected, and conscription violates those rights.

not if Draft is Viewed by Government within It's Power. Check into The Articles of Confederation, or The Magna Carta. Our Militias Drafted, We drafted to fight for Independence.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No. Your would-be definition is not an actual definition.

Slaves were property :: Those conscripted, as in the draft, are not property.

Slaves got no vote as to the existence of slavery :: Conscripts do get such a say in our representative Republic.

Conscription implies government ownership of the people they conscript. Otherwise how could they send them? If I owned my own person I would be free to refuse to be conscripted with no consequences, but that's not the case. Yes, conscripts get a chance to vote, but that doesn't change anything. The rights of the minority must still be protected, and conscription violates those rights.

not if Draft is Viewed by Government within It's Power. Check into The Articles of Confederation, or The Magna Carta. Our Militias Drafted, We drafted to fight for Independence.

Slavery was constitutional as well.

 

[Contumacious]

We drafted to fight for Independence.

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter written to John Adams during the War for Independence, referred to conscription as "the last of all oppressions." If the State can steal you -- not just your labor, but your physical being -- as those controlling it see fit, you have no right.


.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

HUH?

And you relied on what for your conclusion.


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;


.

Which is not in the Constitution and did not prevent the founders from preserving slavery and denying women and not a few men the right to vote.


Technically the Constitution could be amended to reinstitute slavery. Less dramatically, the Constitution could be amended to repeal any of the Bill of Rights. The Constitution is subordinate to the will of the People.