What Constitutes a "Right?"

[rubberhead]

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?

This is all true. I don't argue that rights come from God, but from the nature of rational beings capable of communicating. We realize that this is the best way for all of us to exist, so naturally we choose it. Nations that don't collectively choose it will naturally wither and die in the shadow of nations that do choose a peaceful and mutually respectful way of existing. You could from a religious perspective argue that this is the way God made us. That doesn't make it more or less valuable.

 

[rubberhead]

If I am unable to demonstrate the source of our rights, and if our rights ARE ultiamtely 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.

I find it refreshing to hear someone admit that they don't know where rights come from. I feel the same way, even though I use the label "nature" to hide my ignorance (others use God, I knew that would only make me target practice for some atheist). I don't know where they come from, but I know that I have them and I know that I respect the rights of others and I know that if everyone were this way, our world would prosper to an optimal degree. So I argue that the aforementioned world of human society does evolve toward this end by the process of natural selection.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Basically you're saying that rights are what your opinion of them are, and they come from your opinion.
That isn't an argument. It's a statement of opinion. As such, I cannot disagree with it or disprove it.
But it makes your view non-defensible.

To the question below, so what if rights are societal constructs, it brings a host of other questions. It also makes it incumbent on people here to fight to protect the rights we do have. They are not "natural" in any sense but can be taken away with the will of the majority. This has happened with the right to self defense in many places.
Recognizing the societal origin of rights makes it a necessity to understand and defend what they are.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

Well your existance isn't much more than an opinion, when ya get right down to it.

It's a subjective observation... Your existance can be taken whole or left whole, without much consequence to pretty much anyone.

Therefore if Natural Rights are rights claimed to have come from God, that is merely an opinion of their source,

Yep... they're opinions all right...

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

No... God just demonstrated the endowment of one's Life; thus the rights intrinsic with that life. To the best of my knowledge, he's made no claim to protect anyone's rights; leaving such as an inherent responsibility of those possessing the right.

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.

Does it? Well let's see if that's true...


You say that rights come from the government that can protect them.

Which means that where the Government opts not to do so; or simply fails to do so, then your argument provides that the would-be rights then necessarily no longer exist... being present only where the government tends towards the protection of such...

If you weren't an imbecile, you'd recognize that such conditions cannot possibly define a RIGHT... and at best only illustrate a temporal privilege; which is fine for what it is; it's just not worth much.

As such, your conclusions that government provide for Man's Right... is false. As a right is that to which one is RIGHTFULLY ENTITLED... and if one is, in truth, ENTITLED to something, then they are entitled to it without provision, permission or other such considerations of anykind, by anyone.

Which is of course the same basis in reasoning which sets the lie to the notion of Social Entitlements.

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

LOL...

Both... each of us are held to account by our maker for our lives. But this is a function of the final accounting...

You erroneously conclude that the US government protections for the Pre-existing rights, enumerated in the US Bill of Rights are so enumerated as a means of decreeing or establishing rights.

The Bill of Rights does not provide rights to anyone... it merely notes such rights which are intrinsic to the individual and DECREES LIMITATIONS UPON THE INHERENT POWER OF GOVERNEMNT SO AS TO PREVENT THE GOVERNMENT FROM INFRINGING UPON THE MEANS OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO EXERCISE THOSE RIGHTS; RIGHTS WHICH ARE CRITICAL TO THE LIBERTY OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS...

If the US Government were to abolish all adherence to the US Constitution at this moment... such would not effect a single facet of my rights.

It would merely indicate that the US Government has declared itself to by my enemy; and would thus set me directly upon the unenviable task of having to destroy that Government, so as to re-establish the recognition of my natural rights and the government protections there of.

And where you or those like you adhered to such a government; which is what your position clearly illustrates would be the case; you and your comrades would be my mortal enemy and would suffer the unenviable consequences thereof.

As part and parcel of my rights, is the sacred duty to defend my life, my rights and those of my neighbors; from such.

 

[JD_2B]

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.

Hi, Kevin. Sorry for not reading through the entire thread before responding, but I needed to address a few flaws in your reasoning: 1) Yes you have the right to property. The right is to not have your properly unjustly invaded, or searched without due process. However, your property rights rarely trump the life of an innocent person who is not stepping on your rights to get their own needs (human rights) met, such as food, emergency shelter, and clothing.

2) The fact is, people who are in the welfare system are there because they followed due process- They petitioned the state to assist them with acquiring food EBT cards so as not to have to choose between food and rent (thus, helping to reduce the percentage of the population in being homeless, and therefore reducing the need to have to pay those same people's rent and other related expenses, including health care). You should be aware that there is currently a major decline in business due to a lack of shoppers. This is because people are having fewer and fewer children. Less children = less shoppers. Less shoppers = a drop in stock value. That is an explanation of the current economy in a nutshell.

3) Another problem with not being even generous enough to allow Uncle Sam to take a percentage of tax out, is that this also depletes the options families have for educating their children. Now, an education may not be a human right, but it sure does help in the long run. Also, if these kids were not in school, what would they be doing? Working and paying bills? Not a chance!! See, there are actually child labor laws in place to ensure that children are not made to work full time. They can technically work part time, but that is beside the point. The point is- if we took all taxes away, the kids belonging to the families who are not bringing in enough dough to pay the bills, as a result of a lay-off, are going to have to go to work and YES- pay bills. That just doesn't seem fair to me. In fact, it seems downright cold-hearted. I personally am no bleeding heart, but I refuse to be cold hearted to starving families just because I can't afford a new plasma TV, after taxes.

People have needs and those needs must be met. I am sorry if taxes have somehow deteriorated your life somehow, but they are here for a good reason, and here to stay. If you don't like them, you should maybe have a few hard working kids, and raise them to love you enough that you will not be concerned about Social Security, and other such tax-related needs later on in life.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The vision of 'inalienable rights' was immaterial to our rebellion against Great Britain. It was nothing more than rhetorical embellishment.

You turn to God first if your rights are violated? If the police searched your premises without a warrant, or if your town board passed an ordinance banning all guns, you go to your church, or fall down on your knees and pray for redress? No, you wouldn't. You'd go to court, at least you would if you actually wanted the situation remedied.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

Hi, Kevin. Sorry for not reading through the entire thread before responding, but I needed to address a few flaws in your reasoning: 1) Yes you have the right to property. The right is to not have your properly unjustly invaded, or searched without due process. However, your property rights rarely trump the life of an innocent person who is not stepping on your rights to get their own needs (human rights) met, such as food, emergency shelter, and clothing.

Really?

Well bring your needy ass and you're false human rights to my house and try it and see if I don't solve your needs in finality...

My right to my property, is intrinsic to my right to my life; and the scope of your greatest need, IN NO WAY, trumps the least of my rights.

2) The fact is, people who are in the welfare system are there because they followed due process- They petitioned the state to assist them with acquiring food EBT cards so as not to have to choose between food and rent (thus, helping to reduce the percentage of the population in being homeless, and therefore reducing the need to have to pay those same people's rent and other related expenses, including health care). You should be aware that there is currently a major decline in business due to a lack of shoppers. This is because people are having fewer and fewer children. Less children = less shoppers. Less shoppers = a drop in stock value. That is an explanation of the current economy in a nutshell.

ROFLMNAO... those people are responsible for their own lives and they have no right to demand anything from anyone, except that their rights be recognized and respected.

Contrary to popular opinion... there is no 'right' to follow due process and impart your problems upon another; requiring them to part with their means to subsidize your need.

The balance of your argument is vacuous nonsense...

3) Another problem with not being even generous enough to allow Uncle Sam to take a percentage of tax out, is that this also depletes the options families have for educating their children. Now, an education may not be a human right, but it sure does help in the long run. Also, if these kids were not in school, what would they be doing? Working and paying bills? Not a chance!! See, there are actually child labor laws in place to ensure that children are not made to work full time. They can technically work part time, but that is beside the point. The point is- if we took all taxes away, the kids belonging to the families who are not bringing in enough dough to pay the bills, as a result of a lay-off, are going to have to go to work and YES- pay bills. That just doesn't seem fair to me. In fact, it seems downright cold-hearted. I personally am no bleeding heart, but I refuse to be cold hearted to starving families just because I can't afford a new plasma TV, after taxes.

Who says that one is rightfully entitled to an education?

If one wants an education; if one feels that an education is the path by which one can best pursue the fulfillment of one's life; then one is rightfully entitled to pursue just that; to the extent of one's means.

There is however a common misnomer that such a right somehow obligates others to subsidize the such; and this is simply not the case.

There is nothing which states that an education can only be had through the pat means of state funded schools... Education is the aquisition of knowledge; and such is readily available to anyone who applies themselves towards such; to whatever degree fulfills their needs.

Today's k-12 school system is an incomprehensible waste of money... serves as a piss poor means to educate children and this is born out by the vastly superior educations which are typically realized by children that are home-schooled.

What's more... take a dead cat and throw it at a map of the US and the odds are that whatever town it lands upon, there are children presently matriculating within the confines of 'portables'... those temporary trailers which are used to provide classrooms during the construction or re-modeling phase of a given school.

Now are those children who are being coddled in those trailers being served less an education than the children who will enjoy the hundred million dollar facility that follows, the graduation of the former students?

Of course not... yet there are endless monuments to such stupidity being erected in nearly every town in the US... Each serving as little more than Indoctrination Centers which do far less 'educating' than they serve as a means to impart the idiotic notions of the ideological left.

People have needs and those needs must be met.

Indeed... And it is their RIGHT to have those needs met...

Sadly for you and this dead-horse of an argument; it is THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT THEIR NEEDS ARE MET; and what's MORE the RIGHT ITSELF... rests PURELY UPON THEIR RECOGNIZING AND RESPECTING AND MAINTAINING THOSE RESPONSBILITIES...

Where they concede those responsibilties... they concede the right; thus you're advocacy requires that such individuals concede their right to have their needs met, to the State; by plopping the responsibility onto the state to meet those needs.

Bad call Sis... as such represents the fast track to tyranny.

I am sorry if taxes have somehow deteriorated your life somehow, but they are here for a good reason, and here to stay. If you don't like them, you should maybe have a few hard working kids, and raise them to love you enough that you will not be concerned about Social Security, and other such tax-related needs later on in life.

No, they're not here to stay... Such is a temporary condition common to the final stages of cultural viability. What follows is abject tyranny and the violent revolution common to the shirking of such.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

The vision of 'inalienable rights' was immaterial to our rebellion against Great Britain. It was nothing more than rhetorical embellishment.

Yeah, sure... except that such is the very basis on which the Founder's of America issued the Declaration, on which the US Revolutionary War rested... Such is just the central core to the entire exercise... that's all; and what's more, such stands as the founding and thus sustaining principle on which the very concept of America rests.

You turn to God first if your rights are violated? If the police searched your premises without a warrant, or if your town board passed an ordinance banning all guns, you go to your church, or fall down on your knees and pray for redress? No, you wouldn't. You'd go to court, at least you would if you actually wanted the situation remedied.

Nope... I'd turn to God for the courage to recognize and respect and MAINTAIN, my sacred responsibilities to DEFEND MY RIGHTS... to disregard such laws and to go to work redressing the government, which operates upon and within the constraints set forth within the constitution; that rests upon principles declared and enumerated in the Founding Charter, which precludes such usurpations of the MEANS to exercise the PRE-EXISTING HUMAN RIGHTS; which enumerated SPECIFIC PROTECTIONS in that Constitution which preclude the government from advancing such unjustifiable usurpations of the means to exercise those pre-existing, God given rights.

And where such redress fails... to destroy the government, thus destroying those individuals who adhere to such; towards re-establishing the protections for those pre-existing rights...

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Hi, Kevin. Sorry for not reading through the entire thread before responding, but I needed to address a few flaws in your reasoning: 1) Yes you have the right to property. The right is to not have your properly unjustly invaded, or searched without due process. However, your property rights rarely trump the life of an innocent person who is not stepping on your rights to get their own needs (human rights) met, such as food, emergency shelter, and clothing.

HUH?

2) The fact is, people who are in the welfare system are there because they followed due process-

That's fine and dandy.

But the welfare state has no authority to steal from "A" in order to give to "B". So the bureaucrats failed or refused to abide by due process of law as far as the taxpayers are concerned.

 

[rubberhead]

Basically you're saying that rights are what your opinion of them are, and they come from your opinion.
That isn't an argument. It's a statement of opinion. As such, I cannot disagree with it or disprove it.
But it makes your view non-defensible.

To the question below, so what if rights are societal constructs, it brings a host of other questions. It also makes it incumbent on people here to fight to protect the rights we do have. They are not "natural" in any sense but can be taken away with the will of the majority. This has happened with the right to self defense in many places.
Recognizing the societal origin of rights makes it a necessity to understand and defend what they are.

No, I'm not saying that rights are what my opinion of them are. I'm saying that they are bounded by an equal share of rights for each other. What is so hard for you to understand about that? Each agent in the system (of peoples' interactions with one another) is allotted an amount of freedom that is consistent with each other agent having an equal amount. This is basically a mathematical formula. Is it a hard and fast rule that always applies? No, but then what natural rule is without exception? Name one and I'll find an exception. I argue that equal rights is the equilibrium that civilization evolves toward and is therefore the natural order. This course is not one that I or any other person have arbitrarily decided, but the one that nature has set for us. That's why I call them "natural" rights.

The will of the tyrannical majority can violate rights and even commit genocide. They cannot "take away" rights because they are inherent to humanity. If a person gives up their rights either by taking someone else's or by waiving them in exchange for something, then they can't persist in upholding them without losing whatever it is they've agreed to exchange them for. Even then, as I hope you can see, the person is still free (bound by physical limits).

 

[rubberhead]

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.

Hi, Kevin. Sorry for not reading through the entire thread before responding, but I needed to address a few flaws in your reasoning: 1) Yes you have the right to property. The right is to not have your properly unjustly invaded, or searched without due process. However, your property rights rarely trump the life of an innocent person who is not stepping on your rights to get their own needs (human rights) met, such as food, emergency shelter, and clothing.

HUH?

2) The fact is, people who are in the welfare system are there because they followed due process-

That's fine and dandy.

But the welfare state has no authority to steal from "A" in order to give to "B". So the bureaucrats failed or refused to abide by due process of law as far as the taxpayers are concerned.

I have to second that "huh?" and add a little something that has changed my mind about entitlement programs (which most often fail because they are not self sufficient and thus have no incentive to be efficient, as Social Security is failing now). A person's right to property is inherent to their right to life and liberty and here's why. Anything that a person works for (i.e. spends their time earning), they have a right to keep because it is a result of their effort and therefore an extension of their life. There is no room for interpretation here. If you force a person to give 15% of their earnings to government entitlement programs that they do not benefit from, then you are making those people 15% forced laborers. Why? because they are working for 15% of their time and they don't get to keep what they earn. It is as simple as that.


Don't even bother with the appeals to emotion because I believe that entitlement programs are just a way for demagogues to make voters dependent on them. This is the most despicable form of political advancement that our world has ever seen. Good riddance, Teddy Kennedy, I hope your special place in hell is nice and warm.

 

[The Rabbi]

Basically you're saying that rights are what your opinion of them are, and they come from your opinion.
That isn't an argument. It's a statement of opinion. As such, I cannot disagree with it or disprove it.
But it makes your view non-defensible.

To the question below, so what if rights are societal constructs, it brings a host of other questions. It also makes it incumbent on people here to fight to protect the rights we do have. They are not "natural" in any sense but can be taken away with the will of the majority. This has happened with the right to self defense in many places.
Recognizing the societal origin of rights makes it a necessity to understand and defend what they are.

No, I'm not saying that rights are what my opinion of them are. I'm saying that they are bounded by an equal share of rights for each other. What is so hard for you to understand about that? Each agent in the system (of peoples' interactions with one another) is allotted an amount of freedom that is consistent with each other agent having an equal amount. This is basically a mathematical formula. Is it a hard and fast rule that always applies? No, but then what natural rule is without exception? Name one and I'll find an exception. I argue that equal rights is the equilibrium that civilization evolves toward and is therefore the natural order. This course is not one that I or any other person have arbitrarily decided, but the one that nature has set for us. That's why I call them "natural" rights.

The will of the tyrannical majority can violate rights and even commit genocide. They cannot "take away" rights because they are inherent to humanity. If a person gives up their rights either by taking someone else's or by waiving them in exchange for something, then they can't persist in upholding them without losing whatever it is they've agreed to exchange them for. Even then, as I hope you can see, the person is still free (bound by physical limits).

I can't understand it because it isn't English.
So as long as I have an equal amount of rights with, say, Barney Frank then I have rights?
Civilization evolves towards natural rights? That is self contradictory. If rights are natural, then everyone has them. If it takes an evolution of civilization to insure them, then they aren't natural rights.
And can you point out the difference between a tyrant violating rights and a tyrant taking away rights? A practical difference, I mean.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The vision of 'inalienable rights' was immaterial to our rebellion against Great Britain. It was nothing more than rhetorical embellishment.

Yeah, sure... except that such is the very basis on which the Founder's of America issued the Declaration, on which the US Revolutionary War rested... Such is just the central core to the entire exercise... that's all; and what's more, such stands as the founding and thus sustaining principle on which the very concept of America rests.

You turn to God first if your rights are violated? If the police searched your premises without a warrant, or if your town board passed an ordinance banning all guns, you go to your church, or fall down on your knees and pray for redress? No, you wouldn't. You'd go to court, at least you would if you actually wanted the situation remedied.

Nope... I'd turn to God for the courage to recognize and respect and MAINTAIN, my sacred responsibilities to DEFEND MY RIGHTS... to disregard such laws and to go to work redressing the government, which operates upon and within the constraints set forth within the constitution; that rests upon principles declared and enumerated in the Founding Charter, which precludes such usurpations of the MEANS to exercise the PRE-EXISTING HUMAN RIGHTS; which enumerated SPECIFIC PROTECTIONS in that Constitution which preclude the government from advancing such unjustifiable usurpations of the means to exercise those pre-existing, God given rights.

And where such redress fails... to destroy the government, thus destroying those individuals who adhere to such; towards re-establishing the protections for those pre-existing rights...

What?! lol. God will not protect your rights. Your government will.

 

[rubberhead]

I can't understand it because it isn't English.
So as long as I have an equal amount of rights with, say, Barney Frank then I have rights?
Civilization evolves towards natural rights? That is self contradictory. If rights are natural, then everyone has them. If it takes an evolution of civilization to insure them, then they aren't natural rights.
And can you point out the difference between a tyrant violating rights and a tyrant taking away rights? A practical difference, I mean.

If you can't read, then I can't really justify helping you learn without due compensation. To untwist your purposeful distortion of my claims, civilization evolves toward a recognition that all have equal rights, making the concept a natural one because the evolution is a natural process. Yes, natural rights are natural and everyone has them. Thanks for the (uncharacteristically reasonable) concession.

Tyrant violates rights:

The people can rebel and (hopefully) overcome the tyrant.

Tyrant "takes away" rights:

People are somehow deprived of their agency and are rendered unable to act in their own interests because of some mind control ray that the tyrant has.


Could you clarify where you think rights come from? Just curious.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's odd that the founders claim inalienable rights endowed by the Creator, that all men are created equal, etc., but then managed also to divine from God's message that specifically he meant all white males of property and position are created equal.

When did we decide God was wrong?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I can't understand it because it isn't English.
So as long as I have an equal amount of rights with, say, Barney Frank then I have rights?
Civilization evolves towards natural rights? That is self contradictory. If rights are natural, then everyone has them. If it takes an evolution of civilization to insure them, then they aren't natural rights.
And can you point out the difference between a tyrant violating rights and a tyrant taking away rights? A practical difference, I mean.

If you can't read, then I can't really justify helping you learn without due compensation. To untwist your purposeful distortion of my claims, civilization evolves toward a recognition that all have equal rights, making the concept a natural one because the evolution is a natural process. Yes, natural rights are natural and everyone has them. Thanks for the (uncharacteristically reasonable) concession.

Tyrant violates rights:

The people can rebel and (hopefully) overcome the tyrant.

Tyrant "takes away" rights:

People are somehow deprived of their agency and are rendered unable to act in their own interests because of some mind control ray that the tyrant has.


Could you clarify where you think rights come from? Just curious.

Armed rebellion is unconstitutional.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What about a discussion on "responsibility"??

 

[JD_2B]

2) The fact is, people who are in the welfare system are there because they followed due process-

That's fine and dandy.

But the welfare state has no authority to steal from "A" in order to give to "B". So the bureaucrats failed or refused to abide by due process of law as far as the taxpayers are concerned.

I have to second that "huh?" and add a little something that has changed my mind about entitlement programs (which most often fail because they are not self sufficient and thus have no incentive to be efficient, as Social Security is failing now). A person's right to property is inherent to their right to life and liberty and here's why. Anything that a person works for (i.e. spends their time earning), they have a right to keep because it is a result of their effort and therefore an extension of their life. There is no room for interpretation here. If you force a person to give 15% of their earnings to government entitlement programs that they do not benefit from, then you are making those people 15% forced laborers. Why? because they are working for 15% of their time and they don't get to keep what they earn. It is as simple as that.


Don't even bother with the appeals to emotion because I believe that entitlement programs are just a way for demagogues to make voters dependent on them. This is the most despicable form of political advancement that our world has ever seen. Good riddance, Teddy Kennedy, I hope your special place in hell is nice and warm.

Interesting that you both consider taxation to be the equivalent to theft. I hate to break it to you boys, but taxation has been an anthropological element of societal belonging for literally thousands of years. Its time to start getting used to it- you know, evolve with the rest of us, and all that jazz.

We also have fire stations (if you never have a fire, you dont need them), police (if you are lucky, you might never need them either), wildlife preserves (parks- whether you go to them or not, they are still standing, bro), the military (pro war or anti war, we still need troops *like myself* to defend this country), funding for prosecutors and defense attorneys (Assuming you never get statutorily wronged, and are never arrested for a crime you cant afford an attorney to defend yourself for committing- you dont really have a need for these either), etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.. HELLO??? Huh! Is right. This is not an emotional contest here. This is simply a matter of ensuring that the neighbors house doesn't end up burning up the whole neighborhood, that the local serial killer/ child rapist doesnt get a hold of you and your family, that we still have adequately clean air to breathe in 20 years, that we, the current and former military personnel, can and will defend THESE RIGHTS among others, that if you get accused of a crime and you DID it, we have a good team of prosecutors that will make sure your ass rots in prison for as long as is statutorily possible, that if you were wrongfully accused (of lets say murder), and do not have a few million dollars to throw around to avoid the gas chamber, that you will have adequate representation in court that can save your RIGHT to live freely! If 15% of your taxes went ONLY to all that, and you don't currently need any of those services, then you oughta be counting your lucky stars that you are a very fortunate person.

FACT:
60% (give or take) of homeless families are female headed. Do you want to know why? It is because those women, those mothers, left their abusive husbands and protected their children any way possible. Do you know that "homeless" applies not just to people living under bridges, but also to people who are "staying with friends" and living in a motel? Did you know that? Do you know that MANY people who are on food stamps and what not are not just sitting at home twiddling their thumbs with no goals and aspirations. Most of these people work VERY hard for a living. They are the people who have 5 kids- those kids are the ones who will be shopping in the future and feeding your stock certificates a few extra points.. They are the ones who are going to make you rich. Maybe you do have to pay a little bit of money out of your checks every month, but if you could see the big picture of it all, you would truly understand why our economy is in such a slump, and it has nothing to do with welfare.

The reason our economy is failing is a result of several different things, but it all boils down to people having fewer kids than ever. The reasons for this are:

1- Prosperity- We want to give less children more, rather than giving more children less. People have fewer children by choice, as a result.

2- Family planning- The advent of the birth control pill, plan b, and abortion options has led to fewer live births annually. This is usually a matter of personal preference, by default, and before you go blaming women for this- there are even temporary male birth control options are commonly available, including the use of condoms, pills. injection methods, and ancient testicular heating methods.

3- Divorce/ Unmarried status- This hasn't affected the birth rate significantly, but the divorce rate does decrease the number of children born overall. Just need a person of the opposite sex to have a kid with, bottom line.

4- Sandwich generation- Currently, our generation (the 30-40 crowd) is supporting not only our own kid or kids, but our parents as well. Many people in my age group have their parents living in their home, because their parents are older, and generally have major health problems that the family cannot afford to pay for if the parents lived on their own.

5- Working women- Because of how many women are now working, there are 100% more tired people in these relationships. (1 tired husband, and now 1 tired wife). People do not have the energy to have a bunch of kids, and still work.

6- The education generation- We are also the generation that has seen so many people we love being laid off of work, that we are convinced that more education is the ticket to success and apparently, also the ticket to not getting laid off. It is a generation-wide pathology, I think, lol.. Anyways, we are so financially frugal and fearful, that we do not have many kids, just in case something changes, or because we are still getting our graduates degree, or doing CEUs, etc.. Its literally nuts.

OK so as you can see- the gap between having children to grow up, and shop, and add to the economy by giving the stocks a boost, is a major problem. This is the PRIMARY problem. Welfare is not the primary problem here. It is actually maybe secondary to the decrease in babies we are making.

However- and I am not saying this because I am a bleeding heart here- but because I care about the economy- If people didn't act like such jerks towards the very people who are, in essence, ensuring your well being for the future. (the welfare moms to whom your T-Shirt refers to "Cant feed em? Dont Breed em!") then maybe more people would feel a little bit more "free" to make babies (as poor as those children might be) not have abortions, etc, and the better our economy will turn out, in the long run. The problem is that anti-abortion "pro lifers" curse those who choose to abort, and then play devils advocate and curse those children whose mothers chose to birth them, in spite of needing public assistance to support them. Get over it already. Pick a side- you can be pro life and shut up about welfare, or be anti abortion, and curse everyone on food stamps. You cannot pick both, because it is entirely self defeating, either way you cut it.

Now get a damned education and have some kids.. Even if you cant afford any more kids, lol!

 

[The Rabbi]

I can't understand it because it isn't English.
So as long as I have an equal amount of rights with, say, Barney Frank then I have rights?
Civilization evolves towards natural rights? That is self contradictory. If rights are natural, then everyone has them. If it takes an evolution of civilization to insure them, then they aren't natural rights.
And can you point out the difference between a tyrant violating rights and a tyrant taking away rights? A practical difference, I mean.

If you can't read, then I can't really justify helping you learn without due compensation. To untwist your purposeful distortion of my claims, civilization evolves toward a recognition that all have equal rights, making the concept a natural one because the evolution is a natural process. Yes, natural rights are natural and everyone has them. Thanks for the (uncharacteristically reasonable) concession.

Tyrant violates rights:

The people can rebel and (hopefully) overcome the tyrant.

Tyrant "takes away" rights:

People are somehow deprived of their agency and are rendered unable to act in their own interests because of some mind control ray that the tyrant has.


Could you clarify where you think rights come from? Just curious.

M reading is fine. Your ability to think and express those thoughts logically and coherently is at issue here.
So you are saying that rights are "natural" because society's evolution is a natural process? I guess the Soviet Union didn't have natural rights because their society was maed by artificial process.
So in your example rights are synonymous with individual agency and/or will?

To clarify my position: rights are artificial constructs of society and depend on what people generally and characteristically believe those rights to be.
So a racist sheriff in rural Alabama might believe Blacks have no right to due process but through appeals the judicial system will enforce society's belief to the contrary.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So a racist sheriff in rural Alabama

Wow.. really? What the hell are you saying....????