What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Intense]

So your point is that the founders favored national unity over principle?

Was Nat Turner's slave rebellion justified, morally and in principle, by the Declaration of Independence, along with Jefferson's musings on the blood of tyrants?

Are you kidding? They were divided then too on almost everything. When weren't they? NY didn't even want to separate from England. Follow the money.

Thoreau was a favorite Super Hero of mine, does that answer my personal position on People owning other people? He like Locke, put Conscience first.

The point being that if the founders believed 'one nation, indivisible' to borrow a phrase, was more important than an idealistic adherence to principle, then there are alot of people in the anti-government, 'secessionist', states rights fanatic, 'liberty' crowd that are very misguided in invoking the founders to support their stances.

And Nat Turner? above? what do you think?

How about John Brown? His plan was to free and arm slaves to terrorize the South into ending slavery. Was he morally right, or wrong? Could he claim Jefferson's 'blood of tyrants' statement as supporting HIS cause?

How about the secession of the South? Was that supported in principle by the Declaration of Independence? Was it the South or Lincoln who could claim the founders as champions of their respective causes?

Me, I, Personal Philosophy. That which Serves Justice and Truth, is the Right path. Any form of government can by chance or, purposefully find harmony with that. We, in Inalienable Right, in the Proclamation of Recognizing that It Existed apart From Man's Government and Law, above it, opened to a realization that there is Something In Each of Us Sacred and Untouchable by Society and Government, even Each Other. This Revolution, as each Recognizes it, the Power unleashed, be it Discovery, Invention, Growth, is unsurpassed anywhere else on the planet. To lose this awareness as a Society, changes nothing for the Individual, yet it will be the death of the society.

Was John Brown Justified. Not after the first drop of innocent blood was shed. His cause may have been just, his method betrayed his cause. It's a Fine Line. Even Vigilantism is a fine line, too easy to cross. My advise Beware. Locke, Madison, Thoreau, King, Gandhi, would Address and bring light to concerns, bring attention and discussion and debate. Change through awareness. Our System does allow for that. I wish it would more so.

We had Principles We agreed Upon, and some We could not reach agreement on. Some we were not ready for. In The Revolutionary War and the Years that followed We needed to be Unified to Survive the Threats. Had we split who is to say how it would work out. The Anti Slavery movement was strong in the North and South. Slavery's days were numbered either way. Most of this Hemisphere ended Slavery without War. There is a Book "Reclaiming The American Revolution" that will teach things about those times we did not learn in school. The South was driven to Succession, by the Powers that be, in areas well outside of Slavery.

 

[Intense]

[
Wrong. They proposed the Ideal, and settled for the best they could agree on that would bring in all 13 states. The failure to protect has developed over time, yet it fails even today. We learn and we try to improve. We recognize and address, that does bring change, one group that made out far worse than blacks were the American Indian. Try reading "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee". We have all survived some fucked up shit. There is good and bad in all of us, and plenty more than two sides to the account.

You're actually agreeing with me now, in that much of Declaration of Independence was little more than lofty rhetoric.

Madison and Jefferson were Idealists. They meant what they Said. Hamilton was playing Chess, and screwed us.

 

[rubberhead]

By their failure to protect the equal rights of women and non-whites in the founding document that they signed. Proven by the fact that it required amendments decades later to establish such equal rights.

I can't believe you had to ask that question.

I can't believe he had to either, because the Constitution doesn't specifically say that only white men are protected by it. It was unconstitutional to own slaves before the 13th amendment was added. Just like it was unconstitutional for the federal government to infringe on states' rights before the 10th amendment. Have you read the constitution? Why don't you cite an example of what you're talking about. If you're talking about the "other persons" thing, that's just about calculating how many representatives each state gets. Give me an example where the Constitution says that only white men's rights are protected. If you don't, I'll take that as a concession and an apology.

Slavery was not rendered unconstitutional by the ratification of the Constitution. Is that what you said? Are you insane?

Why don't you cite an example of why it wasn't? I understand that this implies that slave owners were criminals once the constitution became law and I believe that they were. Slaves were denied all of the rights guaranteed by the original amendments. So how can you say that was constitutional before the 13th amendment? Are you insane?!?!

 

[Diuretic]

Is Sin a Social Invention? Is Righteousness a Social Invention? Is Justice a Social Invention? Can You Prove it?

We have you beat. It was rigged from the start. You just didn't know it.

Sin. Sin is a religious concept. Religion is a human invention. So sin must be a human invention.

Righteousness. Righteousness is a word describing an attitude. Attitude is the product of human emotions. Human emotions are controlled by the brain and the endocrine system operating with one another.

Justice. Justice is a human invention. There's no justice in nature, it's "red in tooth and claw".

There is justice in human nature is there not? I mean, that's really what we're talking about here. We can impose such concepts on nature (ecological justice), but I agree that it's bullshit to do so.

Humans possess the ability to create the concept and give it a name, form and application. It doesn't exist outside of humans.

 

[Intense]

Sin. Sin is a religious concept. Religion is a human invention. So sin must be a human invention.

Righteousness. Righteousness is a word describing an attitude. Attitude is the product of human emotions. Human emotions are controlled by the brain and the endocrine system operating with one another.

Justice. Justice is a human invention. There's no justice in nature, it's "red in tooth and claw".

There is justice in human nature is there not? I mean, that's really what we're talking about here. We can impose such concepts on nature (ecological justice), but I agree that it's bullshit to do so.

Humans possess the ability to create the concept and give it a name, form and application. It doesn't exist outside of humans.

Yes it does. Cause and effect Govern Creation Itself. Animals and Elements included. We Rationalize that which is already, even what could be. You're fooling aren't you. this is a trick isn't it?

We Create Concepts, We also Discern. To be Guilty of Sin, Wrong doing, will tear You to the core, whether you were aware or not at the time. Be you in a crowd or floating on a raft, by yourself, you will know consequence for wrong action whether you rationalize it or not.

 

[Diuretic]

There is justice in human nature is there not? I mean, that's really what we're talking about here. We can impose such concepts on nature (ecological justice), but I agree that it's bullshit to do so.

Humans possess the ability to create the concept and give it a name, form and application. It doesn't exist outside of humans.

Yes it does. Cause and effect Govern Creation Itself. Animals and Elements included. We Rationalize that which is already, even what could be. You're fooling aren't you. this is a trick isn't it?

We Create Concepts, We also Discern. To be Guilty of Sin, Wrong doing, will tear You to the core, whether you were aware or not at the time. Be you in a crowd or floating on a raft, by yourself, you will know consequence for wrong action whether you rationalize it or not.

I'm not fooling, no. I'm of the opinion that humans are creative and not simply reactive. While some animals simply adapt to their environment and some can, in rudimentary fashion, control their environment to a degree, humans have actively and massively adapted their environment. We can do this because of our intelligence. That intelligence allows us to create complex rules to guide our interaction with each other. We don't rely on instinct, albeit instinct does motivate us. We can think in an abstract fashion, hence we're able to wonder. We can create social concepts such as "justice" that don't exist outside of human minds or human interaction.

But we're - like everything else - subject to the natural laws and cause and effect is one of those laws. We understand it, we use it, we control it as well as being subject to it. Other animals have a lesser understanding of cause and effect but they respond to it probably in a conditioned manner. But I would suggest that abstract concepts such as "justice" aren't known in animals outside of humans. It doesn't float around in the ether, nor does it grow on trees, we created it.

 

[Intense]

Humans possess the ability to create the concept and give it a name, form and application. It doesn't exist outside of humans.

Yes it does. Cause and effect Govern Creation Itself. Animals and Elements included. We Rationalize that which is already, even what could be. You're fooling aren't you. this is a trick isn't it?

We Create Concepts, We also Discern. To be Guilty of Sin, Wrong doing, will tear You to the core, whether you were aware or not at the time. Be you in a crowd or floating on a raft, by yourself, you will know consequence for wrong action whether you rationalize it or not.

I'm not fooling, no. I'm of the opinion that humans are creative and not simply reactive. While some animals simply adapt to their environment and some can, in rudimentary fashion, control their environment to a degree, humans have actively and massively adapted their environment. We can do this because of our intelligence. That intelligence allows us to create complex rules to guide our interaction with each other. We don't rely on instinct, albeit instinct does motivate us. We can think in an abstract fashion, hence we're able to wonder. We can create social concepts such as "justice" that don't exist outside of human minds or human interaction.

But we're - like everything else - subject to the natural laws and cause and effect is one of those laws. We understand it, we use it, we control it as well as being subject to it. Other animals have a lesser understanding of cause and effect but they respond to it probably in a conditioned manner. But I would suggest that abstract concepts such as "justice" aren't known in animals outside of humans. It doesn't float around in the ether, nor does it grow on trees, we created it.

Nope. It's Bigger than Us. Predators shape Their Environment too, so do dominant Species.
It's bigger than them too.

 

[Diuretic]

Yes it does. Cause and effect Govern Creation Itself. Animals and Elements included. We Rationalize that which is already, even what could be. You're fooling aren't you. this is a trick isn't it?

We Create Concepts, We also Discern. To be Guilty of Sin, Wrong doing, will tear You to the core, whether you were aware or not at the time. Be you in a crowd or floating on a raft, by yourself, you will know consequence for wrong action whether you rationalize it or not.

I'm not fooling, no. I'm of the opinion that humans are creative and not simply reactive. While some animals simply adapt to their environment and some can, in rudimentary fashion, control their environment to a degree, humans have actively and massively adapted their environment. We can do this because of our intelligence. That intelligence allows us to create complex rules to guide our interaction with each other. We don't rely on instinct, albeit instinct does motivate us. We can think in an abstract fashion, hence we're able to wonder. We can create social concepts such as "justice" that don't exist outside of human minds or human interaction.

But we're - like everything else - subject to the natural laws and cause and effect is one of those laws. We understand it, we use it, we control it as well as being subject to it. Other animals have a lesser understanding of cause and effect but they respond to it probably in a conditioned manner. But I would suggest that abstract concepts such as "justice" aren't known in animals outside of humans. It doesn't float around in the ether, nor does it grow on trees, we created it.

Nope. It's Bigger than Us. Predators shape Their Environment too, so do dominant Species.
It's bigger than them too.

That's interesting, that predators shape their environment. I know that some ants do farm other insects, I think aphids, for some sort of sugar substance but I can't think of predators shaping their environment. I mean it's not even in their interests to hunt out a particular area, but I'm sure it's happened in the past with wild animals. But us, good old humans, we have actually industrialised food getting. We've turned unproductive land into productive land to feed ourselves. And we've domesticated previously wild animals for our own needs. I mean we turned Aurochs into Friesians (Holsteins)!

 

[rubberhead]

Sin. Sin is a religious concept. Religion is a human invention. So sin must be a human invention.

Righteousness. Righteousness is a word describing an attitude. Attitude is the product of human emotions. Human emotions are controlled by the brain and the endocrine system operating with one another.

Justice. Justice is a human invention. There's no justice in nature, it's "red in tooth and claw".

There is justice in human nature is there not? I mean, that's really what we're talking about here. We can impose such concepts on nature (ecological justice), but I agree that it's bullshit to do so.

Humans possess the ability to create the concept and give it a name, form and application. It doesn't exist outside of humans.

The concept that we create, I mean if it survives the marketplace of ideas, has something to do with what we observe don't you think? I mean, we created logic, but only because it made sense. Same goes for mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology. And yet somehow, anyone who studies these things can agree that a number of concepts are natural principles that are publicly observable and repeatable.

Saying that people don't have rights without government is like saying mathematics doesn't exist without mathematicians. I'm glad that the first thinkers weren't so restrained. It would have been impossible to make any progress.

 

[Intense]

There is justice in human nature is there not? I mean, that's really what we're talking about here. We can impose such concepts on nature (ecological justice), but I agree that it's bullshit to do so.

Humans possess the ability to create the concept and give it a name, form and application. It doesn't exist outside of humans.

The concept that we create has something to do with what we observe don't you think? I mean, we created logic, but only because it made sense. Same goes for mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology. And yet somehow, anyone who studies these things can agree that a number of concepts are natural principles that are publicly observable and repeatable.

Saying that people don't have rights without government is like saying mathematics doesn't exist without mathematicians. I'm glad that the first thinkers weren't so restrained. It would have been impossible to make any progress.

I think that it is a problem that plenty of roughage and fluids would correct, don't you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you kidding? They were divided then too on almost everything. When weren't they? NY didn't even want to separate from England. Follow the money.

Thoreau was a favorite Super Hero of mine, does that answer my personal position on People owning other people? He like Locke, put Conscience first.

The point being that if the founders believed 'one nation, indivisible' to borrow a phrase, was more important than an idealistic adherence to principle, then there are alot of people in the anti-government, 'secessionist', states rights fanatic, 'liberty' crowd that are very misguided in invoking the founders to support their stances.

And Nat Turner? above? what do you think?

How about John Brown? His plan was to free and arm slaves to terrorize the South into ending slavery. Was he morally right, or wrong? Could he claim Jefferson's 'blood of tyrants' statement as supporting HIS cause?

How about the secession of the South? Was that supported in principle by the Declaration of Independence? Was it the South or Lincoln who could claim the founders as champions of their respective causes?

Me, I, Personal Philosophy. That which Serves Justice and Truth, is the Right path. Any form of government can by chance or, purposefully find harmony with that. We, in Inalienable Right, in the Proclamation of Recognizing that It Existed apart From Man's Government and Law, above it, opened to a realization that there is Something In Each of Us Sacred and Untouchable by Society and Government, even Each Other. This Revolution, as each Recognizes it, the Power unleashed, be it Discovery, Invention, Growth, is unsurpassed anywhere else on the planet. To lose this awareness as a Society, changes nothing for the Individual, yet it will be the death of the society.

Was John Brown Justified. Not after the first drop of innocent blood was shed. His cause may have been just, his method betrayed his cause. It's a Fine Line. Even Vigilantism is a fine line, too easy to cross. My advise Beware. Locke, Madison, Thoreau, King, Gandhi, would Address and bring light to concerns, bring attention and discussion and debate. Change through awareness. Our System does allow for that. I wish it would more so.

We had Principles We agreed Upon, and some We could not reach agreement on. Some we were not ready for. In The Revolutionary War and the Years that followed We needed to be Unified to Survive the Threats. Had we split who is to say how it would work out. The Anti Slavery movement was strong in the North and South. Slavery's days were numbered either way. Most of this Hemisphere ended Slavery without War. There is a Book "Reclaiming The American Revolution" that will teach things about those times we did not learn in school. The South was driven to Succession, by the Powers that be, in areas well outside of Slavery.

We have never fought a war wherein no innocents were killed, so by your logic every American cause that has ever involved war was betrayed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's a Constitutional Right:

Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public
health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different
types of hospitals and health institutions.


It's in Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution. And they're a theocracy. They were endowed by their Creator with the right to healthcare, maintained and provided by the State.

 

[rubberhead]

Here's a Constitutional Right:

Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public
health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different
types of hospitals and health institutions.


It's in Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution. And they're a theocracy. They were endowed by their Creator with the right to healthcare, maintained and provided by the State.

I'm glad we don't have that "right". Because health care is a service that is provided by another human being. You have the right to provide yourself with health care, but you do not have the right to force someone else to provide it for you. Yeah, yeah, taxes will pay for it, etc. What if tax revenue is insufficient? Do we lower doctors wages? What happens when less people want to become doctors? Do we force people to be doctors? Do we force retired doctors back to work? How do you justify rationing? Rationing happens with or without government mandates as it does by natural law of economics when a scarce resource is to be distributed. Actually, it doesn't even require economics, only the Pigeonhole Principle. If you have more Pigeons than you have Pigeonholes, then some Pigeons are left out. Very simple. So, under the Iraqi system, these Pigeons would be able to claim that their rights had been violated by the very fabric of reality, namely that thread called the Pigeonhole Principle. If you go against reality, you will lose every time. By making health care a right, you would necessarily outlaw reality.

The Iraqis made their own decision and they'll have to live with it. I hope that we don't make the same mistake here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's a Constitutional Right:

Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public
health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different
types of hospitals and health institutions.


It's in Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution. And they're a theocracy. They were endowed by their Creator with the right to healthcare, maintained and provided by the State.

I'm glad we don't have that "right". Because health care is a service that is provided by another human being. .

So is national defense.

 

[rubberhead]

Here's a Constitutional Right:

Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public
health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different
types of hospitals and health institutions.


It's in Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution. And they're a theocracy. They were endowed by their Creator with the right to healthcare, maintained and provided by the State.

I'm glad we don't have that "right". Because health care is a service that is provided by another human being. .

So is national defense.

Doctors don't volunteer to be doctors in general. If they do, it's of their own free will, just as those who volunteer to be soldiers. If our country's national security is threatened we hope that more people would volunteer to be soldiers. I think the draft is unconstitutional and in direct opposition to peoples' natural rights as is forcing people to be doctors, or government control over doctors' wages. This is just what would have to happen to guarantee health care to everyone as if it were a right.

 

[Intense]

The point being that if the founders believed 'one nation, indivisible' to borrow a phrase, was more important than an idealistic adherence to principle, then there are alot of people in the anti-government, 'secessionist', states rights fanatic, 'liberty' crowd that are very misguided in invoking the founders to support their stances.

And Nat Turner? above? what do you think?

How about John Brown? His plan was to free and arm slaves to terrorize the South into ending slavery. Was he morally right, or wrong? Could he claim Jefferson's 'blood of tyrants' statement as supporting HIS cause?

How about the secession of the South? Was that supported in principle by the Declaration of Independence? Was it the South or Lincoln who could claim the founders as champions of their respective causes?

Me, I, Personal Philosophy. That which Serves Justice and Truth, is the Right path. Any form of government can by chance or, purposefully find harmony with that. We, in Inalienable Right, in the Proclamation of Recognizing that It Existed apart From Man's Government and Law, above it, opened to a realization that there is Something In Each of Us Sacred and Untouchable by Society and Government, even Each Other. This Revolution, as each Recognizes it, the Power unleashed, be it Discovery, Invention, Growth, is unsurpassed anywhere else on the planet. To lose this awareness as a Society, changes nothing for the Individual, yet it will be the death of the society.

Was John Brown Justified. Not after the first drop of innocent blood was shed. His cause may have been just, his method betrayed his cause. It's a Fine Line. Even Vigilantism is a fine line, too easy to cross. My advise Beware. Locke, Madison, Thoreau, King, Gandhi, would Address and bring light to concerns, bring attention and discussion and debate. Change through awareness. Our System does allow for that. I wish it would more so.

We had Principles We agreed Upon, and some We could not reach agreement on. Some we were not ready for. In The Revolutionary War and the Years that followed We needed to be Unified to Survive the Threats. Had we split who is to say how it would work out. The Anti Slavery movement was strong in the North and South. Slavery's days were numbered either way. Most of this Hemisphere ended Slavery without War. There is a Book "Reclaiming The American Revolution" that will teach things about those times we did not learn in school. The South was driven to Succession, by the Powers that be, in areas well outside of Slavery.

We have never fought a war wherein no innocents were killed, so by your logic every American cause that has ever involved war was betrayed.

To some Point that is True. That is why I Personally advocate Voice, Discussion, Debate, Realization as an Engine of Reform, over Violence. Defensive Violence more justified than aggressive. Reform over Revolution.

 

[Intense]

Here's a Constitutional Right:

Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public
health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different
types of hospitals and health institutions.


It's in Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution. And they're a theocracy. They were endowed by their Creator with the right to healthcare, maintained and provided by the State.

I'm glad we don't have that "right". Because health care is a service that is provided by another human being. .

So is national defense.

That is Statist Infiltration coming from Our Left that Influenced Iraq. It is Funny how They Accidentally left out Inalienable Rights, and Equal Justice. That should be sounding off alarms off in your head. The One World Government, New World Order wants to sweep it under the Rug.

 

[Intense]

I'm glad we don't have that "right". Because health care is a service that is provided by another human being. .

So is national defense.

Doctors don't volunteer to be doctors in general. If they do, it's of their own free will, just as those who volunteer to be soldiers. If our country's national security is threatened we hope that more people would volunteer to be soldiers. I think the draft is unconstitutional and in direct opposition to peoples' natural rights as is forcing people to be doctors, or government control over doctors' wages. This is just what would have to happen to guarantee health care to everyone as if it were a right.

We will All contribute in Our Own Ways, some organized some not. There is Power in that.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Humans possess the ability to create the concept and give it a name, form and application. It doesn't exist outside of humans.

The concept that we create has something to do with what we observe don't you think? I mean, we created logic, but only because it made sense. Same goes for mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology. And yet somehow, anyone who studies these things can agree that a number of concepts are natural principles that are publicly observable and repeatable.

Saying that people don't have rights without government is like saying mathematics doesn't exist without mathematicians. I'm glad that the first thinkers weren't so restrained. It would have been impossible to make any progress.

Humans did not create Logic, or mathematics... No more than humans created Human Rights...

What Human's did was to discover Logic, Human Rights, etc...

This notion that because Humanity possessed the means to reason, leading to the discovery of these principles, that we somehow 'created it,' is simply absurd.

 

[Contumacious]

Here's a Constitutional Right:

Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public
health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different
types of hospitals and health institutions.


It's in Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution. And they're a theocracy. They were endowed by their Creator with the right to healthcare, maintained and provided by the State.

Were they endowed by their creator or the state?


.