What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Intense]

Basic Locke, Conscience is Exempt from Government Control, Civil Infraction is Punishable. You Folks will just keep spinning, the same stuff over and over.

 

[The Rabbi]

Basic Locke, Conscience is Exempt from Government Control, Civil Infraction is Punishable. You Folks will just keep spinning, the same stuff over and over.

BEcause we're not willing to go for the ipse dixit fallacy.

 

[Intense]

You are Just in Denial. The State Made You that way, It's not Your Fault. Some Day Maybe, If You are Really Good, I'll tell You about God.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are Just in Denial. The State Made You that way, It's not Your Fault. Some Day Maybe, If You are Really Good, I'll tell You about God.

I don't need to be told about god by some illiterate on the internet who cannot spell, cannot reason, and cannot read. Go curl up with John Locke and fantasize about universal human rights.

 

[Intense]

You are Just in Denial. The State Made You that way, It's not Your Fault. Some Day Maybe, If You are Really Good, I'll tell You about God.

I don't need to be told about god by some illiterate on the internet who cannot spell, cannot reason, and cannot read. Go curl up with John Locke and fantasize about universal human rights.

You are the failure here Rabbi. The Terms I defend are Inalienable Rights, or Natural Rights, which We Believe as Locke, Come From Our Maker, God. You Deny The Messenger. You Deny the Source. It is not the First Time Rabbi, Is it. Personal attack is beneath the Label Rabbi, I forgive you though. Go curl up with your fantasies about Government holding the Reigns, If it pleases you, and I'll curl up with the Wonders of Creation, and how Great God is.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ya hockey puck.

 

[Intense]

Ya hockey puck.

Are You even Jewish?

 

[rubberhead]

You may have a Right by Trial by Jury, under Due Process, should You live so long, that is a Constructed Right by Any Means and Involves Process. It is not a Natural Right in The State of Nature. If You were killed in Self Defense, that could be Justified, and not Murder.

I agree. The right to due process is not a natural one, it is merely a peacekeeping measure that prescribes penalties for infringements upon rights. In The State of Nature, the victim decides on his own what the penalty is for the violator. This right is deferred to the state in order to keep the peace. The legal system, however, is descriptive of those rights that people agree upon before enacting it and those rights which people consent to defer to the state.

 

[Intense]

You may have a Right by Trial by Jury, under Due Process, should You live so long, that is a Constructed Right by Any Means and Involves Process. It is not a Natural Right in The State of Nature. If You were killed in Self Defense, that could be Justified, and not Murder.

I agree. The right to due process is not a natural one, it is merely a peacekeeping measure that prescribes penalties for infringements upon rights. In The State of Nature, the victim decides on his own what the penalty is for the violator. This right is deferred to the state in order to keep the peace. The legal system, however, is descriptive of those rights that people agree upon before enacting it and those rights which people consent to defer to the state.

It is a Constructed right. I have No problem with Any Decree, in It's Capacity to Serve Justice. It's when We stray, that We run into Problems. Some fail to admit to that.

 

[Contumacious]

You may have a Right by Trial by Jury, under Due Process, should You live so long, that is a Constructed Right by Any Means and Involves Process. It is not a Natural Right in The State of Nature. If You were killed in Self Defense, that could be Justified, and not Murder.

The right to due process is not a natural one,

Incorrect.

Individuals have a right to life and Liberty.....there is a presumption of innocence ...the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual engaged in criminal behavior.


.

 

[The Rabbi]

You may have a Right by Trial by Jury, under Due Process, should You live so long, that is a Constructed Right by Any Means and Involves Process. It is not a Natural Right in The State of Nature. If You were killed in Self Defense, that could be Justified, and not Murder.

I agree. The right to due process is not a natural one, it is merely a peacekeeping measure that prescribes penalties for infringements upon rights. In The State of Nature, the victim decides on his own what the penalty is for the violator. This right is deferred to the state in order to keep the peace. The legal system, however, is descriptive of those rights that people agree upon before enacting it and those rights which people consent to defer to the state.

How do you know that? Someone here disagrees on it being a natural right. So how do you prove that it is?
Where would someone find a listing of natural rights? Where did this list come from? How do you know it is true?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[The Understanding of Cause and Effect, in how it relates to You directly, is an understanding of Natural Law. The Feelings of Guilt, Loss Sadness, Inappropriateness, fear, Anger, Jealousy, are indicators and warning beacons. You get it and deny it in the same breath.

Feelings ofGuilt is a learned behaviour.

Rationalizing Feelings, or in some cases, false Justification is a learned Behavior.

Guilt is a Warning Mechanism. It may be developed, it may be ignored. It is Born of Conscience, not Society.

Conscience is not instinctive.

 

[Intense]

You may have a Right by Trial by Jury, under Due Process, should You live so long, that is a Constructed Right by Any Means and Involves Process. It is not a Natural Right in The State of Nature. If You were killed in Self Defense, that could be Justified, and not Murder.

The right to due process is not a natural one,

Incorrect.

Individuals have a right to life and Liberty.....there is a presumption of innocence ...the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual engaged in criminal behavior.


.

I did not say it wasn't a Right, I said it was a Constructed Right, formed Through Society, which itself is constructed. When Charged with a Crime, You have a Presumption of Innocence.

 

[Intense]

Feelings ofGuilt is a learned behaviour.

Rationalizing Feelings, or in some cases, false Justification is a learned Behavior.

Guilt is a Warning Mechanism. It may be developed, it may be ignored. It is Born of Conscience, not Society.

Conscience is not instinctive.

Each is born with a Conscience, Experience helps develop it. Society contributes to that development, society is not the Creator of Conscience. Ye of Little Faith.

 

[Intense]

You may have a Right by Trial by Jury, under Due Process, should You live so long, that is a Constructed Right by Any Means and Involves Process. It is not a Natural Right in The State of Nature. If You were killed in Self Defense, that could be Justified, and not Murder.

I agree. The right to due process is not a natural one, it is merely a peacekeeping measure that prescribes penalties for infringements upon rights. In The State of Nature, the victim decides on his own what the penalty is for the violator. This right is deferred to the state in order to keep the peace. The legal system, however, is descriptive of those rights that people agree upon before enacting it and those rights which people consent to defer to the state.

How do you know that? Someone here disagrees on it being a natural right. So how do you prove that it is?
Where would someone find a listing of natural rights? Where did this list come from? How do you know it is true?

Why not study the 10 Commandments with that thought in mind Rabbi?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are Just in Denial. The State Made You that way, It's not Your Fault. Some Day Maybe, If You are Really Good, I'll tell You about God.

I don't need to be told about god by some illiterate on the internet who cannot spell, cannot reason, and cannot read. Go curl up with John Locke and fantasize about universal human rights.

You are the failure here Rabbi. The Terms I defend are Inalienable Rights, or Natural Rights, which We Believe as Locke, Come From Our Maker, God. You Deny The Messenger. You Deny the Source. It is not the First Time Rabbi, Is it. Personal attack is beneath the Label Rabbi, I forgive you though. Go curl up with your fantasies about Government holding the Reigns, If it pleases you, and I'll curl up with the Wonders of Creation, and how Great God is.

God's existence is only an opinion, therefore any claim of anything coming from God is also only an opinion.
Therefore if Natural Rights are rights claimed to have come from God, that is merely an opinion of their source,

and since a God has never demonstrated his own ability to protect your rights, but government has,

it is a better argument, between the two, that rights in practice come from the government that establishes and protects them, not from a supernatural being who exists only as an exercise of faith.

Who do you turn to for redress if your rights are violated in America? God or the government?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rationalizing Feelings, or in some cases, false Justification is a learned Behavior.

Guilt is a Warning Mechanism. It may be developed, it may be ignored. It is Born of Conscience, not Society.

Conscience is not instinctive.

Each is born with a Conscience, Experience helps develop it. Society contributes to that development, society is not the Creator of Conscience. Ye of Little Faith.

Rarely does a person feel guilty for having done something that is morally and socially acceptable in his culture.

 

[rubberhead]

You may have a Right by Trial by Jury, under Due Process, should You live so long, that is a Constructed Right by Any Means and Involves Process. It is not a Natural Right in The State of Nature. If You were killed in Self Defense, that could be Justified, and not Murder.

I agree. The right to due process is not a natural one, it is merely a peacekeeping measure that prescribes penalties for infringements upon rights. In The State of Nature, the victim decides on his own what the penalty is for the violator. This right is deferred to the state in order to keep the peace. The legal system, however, is descriptive of those rights that people agree upon before enacting it and those rights which people consent to defer to the state.

How do you know that? Someone here disagrees on it being a natural right. So how do you prove that it is?
Where would someone find a listing of natural rights? Where did this list come from? How do you know it is true?

Because I am a person and I know that I am free (bound by physical limits). However, I also know that I am not free to take away someone else's freedom without expecting resistance and likewise they are not free to take away mine without my resistance. Rights are a consequence of this balance. This is why you don't need a list. Because there is a rule:

You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't prevent others from doing what they want. If you deliberately break this rule, then you forfeit your rights.

Yes, there will be conflicts and stalemates and people will have to resolve those. This is why we came up with laws and organized government. So that those disputes would not have to be violent and just outcomes could be reached.

 

[Liability]

If I am unable to demonstrate the source of our rights, and if our rights ARE ultimately just social constructs, my question is:

So?

I'm not sure why it matters where our rights are said to originally come from.

Do we or do we not have -- in this society -- a pretty well rooted and (at least until recently) largely agreed-upon basic, fundamental right to life itself? Does the Constitution not serve to enshrine that right? The Constitution doesn't create that right. We just articulated it as one of the fundamental bases of our Republic.

We agreed that we have and should have our rights spelled out clearly to help LIMIT the power and authority of the Federal government. If we agreed that it needed to be spelled out to help protect those rights, in order to craft our Constitution, then obviously the rights existed BEFORE the Constitution. If a right existed BEFORE the Constitution, it cannot be the Constitution that gives us such a right.

We agreed to the basic foundation before the the Constitution. Those rights articulated IN the Constitution therefore pre-existed the Constitution. Did they come from God Almighty or did they come about only as constructs of a human society? I don't much care. What I do care about is that we valued the rights enought to spell them out ahead of time in order to preserve them and remove them from the reach of the Federal Government. We STILL value those rights.

Everyone who posts here values the fact that we can do so without a permission slip from Uncle Sam. That goes for the foreigners, too.

 

[Intense]

I don't need to be told about god by some illiterate on the internet who cannot spell, cannot reason, and cannot read. Go curl up with John Locke and fantasize about universal human rights.

You are the failure here Rabbi. The Terms I defend are Inalienable Rights, or Natural Rights, which We Believe as Locke, Come From Our Maker, God. You Deny The Messenger. You Deny the Source. It is not the First Time Rabbi, Is it. Personal attack is beneath the Label Rabbi, I forgive you though. Go curl up with your fantasies about Government holding the Reigns, If it pleases you, and I'll curl up with the Wonders of Creation, and how Great God is.

God's existence is only an opinion, therefore any claim of anything coming from God is also only an opinion.
Therefore if Natural Rights are rights claimed to have come from God, that is merely an opinion of their source,

and since a God has never demonstrated his own ability to protect your rights, but government has,

it is a better argument, between the two, that rights in practice come from the government that establishes and protects them, not from a supernatural being who exists only as an exercise of faith.

Who do you turn to for redress if your rights are violated in America? God or the government?

I turn to God First.

This Government broke away from Britain because We Claimed Inalienable Right? Would You have us give everything back. Just because You do not agree with a premise, do not use your disbelief to fabricate History. Your God may Very well be Society or Government, yet those Roots are more exposed than the Acknowledgement that God Is. The only thing You Represent is the Hi-Jacking of History, and Government. Yet You can Neither Create nor Destroy Conscience.