What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Liability]

Whatever conscription is or isn't, it certainly has the ability to deprive you of your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

So does crossing a busy intersection.

Which a person chooses to do of their own accord.

In our Republic, we also CHOOSE which laws will get passed and which ones won't. We CHOOSE to live by the results when our representatives make such a choice on our collective behalf (or, if we are truly bothered by it, we replace the offending legislators and get the offending legislation repealed).

We do all of that on our own accord, too.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So does crossing a busy intersection.

Which a person chooses to do of their own accord.

In our Republic, we also CHOOSE which laws will get passed and which ones won't. We CHOOSE to live by the results when our representatives make such a choice on our collective behalf (or, if we are truly bothered by it, we replace the offending legislators and get the offending legislation repealed).

We do all of that on our own accord, too.

Yet we don't vote them authority directly over our lives.

 

[Liability]

Which a person chooses to do of their own accord.

In our Republic, we also CHOOSE which laws will get passed and which ones won't. We CHOOSE to live by the results when our representatives make such a choice on our collective behalf (or, if we are truly bothered by it, we replace the offending legislators and get the offending legislation repealed).

We do all of that on our own accord, too.

Yet we don't vote them authority directly over our lives.

Of course we do.

What a silly thing for you to have said.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Lots of posts and I'm not going to read them all but the definition of "right" that I subscribe to is the one that says that a right is something you have that no one should be able to take away from you. If someone else has to give it to you, it's not a right.

For example: There is no right to health care because someone else has to give that to you. But there is a right to life because it's innate. Same with liberty in general. You have it unless someone takes it away from you.

You have no right to food or shelter. You have a right to pursue such things, but no right to make someone else give them to you if you're not successful. So on and so forth.

Right to property? You have a right to pursue its aquisition. And once you aquire it you have a right to keep it. But, again, you don't have a right to force someone else to give it to you.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In our Republic, we also CHOOSE which laws will get passed and which ones won't. We CHOOSE to live by the results when our representatives make such a choice on our collective behalf (or, if we are truly bothered by it, we replace the offending legislators and get the offending legislation repealed).

We do all of that on our own accord, too.

Yet we don't vote them authority directly over our lives.

Of course we do.

What a silly thing for you to have said.

If that were true none of us would have the right to complain about anything they do, because, after all, we gave them the right to do with our lives whatever they wish.

 

[JohnStOnge]

In our Republic, we also CHOOSE which laws will get passed and which ones won't. We CHOOSE to live by the results when our representatives make such a choice on our collective behalf (or, if we are truly bothered by it, we replace the offending legislators and get the offending legislation repealed).

We do all of that on our own accord, too.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Some of us were born where we were born and, as a pratical matter, have no reasonable alternative to flee to. If an oppressive law is passed we have no real choice as to whether to follow it or not. I guess you could say we can move to another country but any country we go to may have similar problems. None of us who were born here really "chose" to live by the results of elections. It's just the practical reality associated with the world into which we were born.

 

[Liability]

Yet we don't vote them authority directly over our lives.

Of course we do.

What a silly thing for you to have said.

If that were true none of us would have the right to complain about anything they do, because, after all, we gave them the right to do with our lives whatever they wish.

More nonsense. Of course it's true and of course we DO have a valid right (non-contradictory at that) to complain about some of what they do.

Why?

Because the rights we have were always ours. We granted some LIMITED power to them provided that they adhere to our rules which include the non-violation of our rights.

Nothing in any of that prevents them from exercising the legitimate authority we have granted to them in such a way that it has authority directly over our lives.

For an easy example: they can have us put in jail if we break certain criminal laws (provided they can prove it in a forum to which we agree [the courts of law] and to a level of proof [beyond a reasonable doubt] to which WE hold them. HOW is this POSSIBLE? Because we GAVE them power and authority DIRECTLY over our lives. ZOMG!

 

[Intense]

I don't think it is. What you might call "absolute freedom" in a social context is licence. It doesn't work in a social context.

In a natural state, that is without a social context, freedom isn't absolute either. Humans are limited by our physicality and circumstances.

So absolute freedom probably doesn't exist.

As for natural rights. I'm with Bentham - "nonsense upon stilts."

I think that our freedom is limited by more than just our physical capabilities, even in a natural state. I should say, our defensible freedom is limited as such. But this kind of freedom is where our natural rights come from and that's why I argue it is the natural freedom that we are afforded as human beings.

Let me offer an illustration. Even in the state of nature, if you go around violating others' rights then they eventually form into groups to protect themselves and make sure that you can't do that anymore. This naturally leads to a situation where everyone has an equal amount of liberty and thus no one can deprive any other of any portion of their liberty. Eventually you have groups of people violating other groups of people, but you could see that scenario as a larger scale version of the case of individuals. No matter what there is always a ceiling of anarchy on top of the highest stratum of government. That anarchic layer is where one can be absolutely free. We humans have not lived in that layer since before tribal times and before people began cooperating and communicating, even in the most rudimentary sense.

On your first point. The concept of a “right” is a human invention. Rights were invented by us to better order social intercourse.

On your second point. I think you've made my first point. The concept of violation of rights can only occur in a social context.

Everything You do has consequence. Cause and Effect> When you act wrongly against man or beast, there is consequence. That is Natural Law at work. You have Rights, whether You realize them or not, regardless of them being written down on a piece of paper or not. You have instinct. Instinct is not based on written Law, but Written Law is based in Part on Instinct. In Right and wrong, some behaviors are debatable, some are crystal clear. When You deny Natural Right, Inalienable Right, You deny the Premise for the Foundation of This Country.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Identify by article section and clause that Constitutional Proviso which authorizes congress to deny the 5th Amend due process clause to certain individuals.


Identify by article section and clause that Constitutional Proviso which authorizes congress to deny women the right of suffrage.


.

 

[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?

It can't be justified. Conscription is slavery.

Could we have won WWII without the draft?

Should there be a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit a future resumption of the draft?

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished.

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


.

 

[Intense]

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.

Identify by article section and clause that Constitutional Proviso which authorizes congress to deny the 5th Amend due process clause to certain individuals.


Identify by article section and clause that Constitutional Proviso which authorizes congress to deny women the right of suffrage.


.

Technically a 75% Majority could decree almost anything. That doesn't mean it's going to happen, but it is a good reason to not be drinking the Kool-Aid. We could be our own worst enemy, and that would be the end of the Republic. I would much prefer to see that 75% Super Majority, focus more on Stregnthening Individual Liberties, rather than controlling Us.

 

[Intense]

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Identify by article section and clause that Constitutional Proviso which authorizes congress to deny the 5th Amend due process clause to certain individuals.


Identify by article section and clause that Constitutional Proviso which authorizes congress to deny women the right of suffrage.


.

Women did not have the right to vote until the Constitution was amended.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Healthcare is a right, btw...

...if you're an Iraqi.

It's in their Constitution.

 

[Contumacious]

However, since the constitution does not define our natural rights, this power is meaningless without the consent of the governed. .

So when Jefferson referred to the rights to Life, Liberty, Property and the pursuit of happiness he was referring to:

A- Canadians

B- Mexicans

C- Germans

D- Martians


Am I close?


.

 

[Contumacious]

Yes, this is true. Which is why freedom cannot be absolute for all and still be natural.

Nonsense.

Freedom is absolute, unless the individual agree to waive his right.


.

I don't think it is. What you might call "absolute freedom" in a social context is licence. It doesn't work in a social context.

In a natural state, that is without a social context, freedom isn't absolute either. Humans are limited by our physicality and circumstances.

So absolute freedom probably doesn't exist.

As for natural rights. I'm with Bentham - "nonsense upon stilts."

The ONLY ones that do not recognize NATURAL RIGHTS are the parasites - they can not stand on their own two feet - they need to be fed. clothed sheltered.


.

 

[Contumacious]

Lots of posts and I'm not going to read them all but the definition of "right" that I subscribe to is the one that says that a right is something you have that no one should be able to take away from you. If someone else has to give it to you, it's not a right.

For example: There is no right to health care because someone else has to give that to you. But there is a right to life because it's innate. Same with liberty in general. You have it unless someone takes it away from you.

You have no right to food or shelter. You have a right to pursue such things, but no right to make someone else give them to you if you're not successful. So on and so forth.

Right to property? You have a right to pursue its aquisition. And once you aquire it you have a right to keep it. But, again, you don't have a right to force someone else to give it to you.

 

[Contumacious]

Identify by article section and clause that Constitutional Proviso which authorizes congress to deny the 5th Amend due process clause to certain individuals.


Identify by article section and clause that Constitutional Proviso which authorizes congress to deny women the right of suffrage.


.

Women did not have the right to vote until the Constitution was amended.

I believe you meant to say that women were arbitrarily and whimsically refused the right of suffrage - NOTHING in the federal constitution prevented them from voting.



.

 

[Intense]

Healthcare is a right, btw...

...if you're an Iraqi.

It's in their Constitution.

You are stuck in that New York State of mind man. The Land of the Privileged Elite, The Empire State. The Land of Fines, Fee's, and Penalties for The Masses, and Exemptions for the Privileged. Too many here wiping their feet on the backs and necks on the rest. Of course You deserve Health Care Immediately when You want it, no matter who is in front of you. Yes Sir, No Sir, Right away Sir. Who Pays? Who Cares? It's a Right.

 

[Intense]

However, since the constitution does not define our natural rights, this power is meaningless without the consent of the governed. .

So when Jefferson referred to the rights to Life, Liberty, Property and the pursuit of happiness he was referring to:

A- Canadians

B- Mexicans

C- Germans

D- Martians


Am I close?


.

No. But these were originally John Lock's defense against Totaliarinism, and Jefferson being swayed by the French adaptation, Traded Property for Pursuit of Happiness. Funny how He saw Personal Possession as a Defense against Totalitarianism.

Life, Liberty, and Property. V.S. Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness.