What "rights" does nature give us?

[Dante]

Is freedom your birthright?

If I am born in the U.S.

But that wasn't always the case for blacks born in the U.S.

That explains why there was never a slave revolt in the entire history of the US, slaves knew they had no right to freedom.

Wait, I forgot about this one, and at least 240 others.

1811 German Coast Uprising - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

their forebears were captured and enslaved in Africa. They revolted to have a their right to freedom recognized...by the law of the land.

 

[Koios]

Do humans born in North Korea desire dictatorship the way Americans desire freedom?

Obviously your don't believe the bullshit you post, you merely are convinced that revocation of civil rights will empower you to impose your will on others, using the implied or actual violence of the state.

What if you are wrong? What if your rulers decide that a entitled and pampered, petty bourgeoisie child like you is better suited to the mines that to a plush office lording over others?

Liberty allows each to rise or fall on our own. Yes, you have no actual talent and live off the wealth of your parents, but the world you seek may not believe you are owed the position, title and comforts you have simply because you are an overgrown child.

I have no ******* idea. Some do, some don't. But, and knock me over with a ******* feather, you missed the point, entirely, which is: folks born here have more freedom than those born in North Korea.

The point is that people born there have the exact same right to freedom as the ones born here.

You're welcome to believe that, which I do too. But the freedoms the NKs in fact have are WAY THE **** LESS THAN OURS.

Do you disagree?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Okay; how do we do that sans government action?

You're drooling all over, sparky.

In any profitable venture, there will be those who seek to profit from like venture. This is known as "competition." Competition arises spontaneously unless constrained in some manner. Generally, constraint must come directly or with the approval of the governing powers.

Seriously, you should have listened more, and huffed spray paint less, at those fancy prep-schools.

 

[Koios]

You forgot a key word in your definition of progression, sequence. Evolution is not sequential, it is random. If we reverse entropy and start over with the exact same parameters life on Earth will end up looking different because mutations are random.

On the other hand, if we rewind entropy and rerun the Solar System from the beginning we will end up with the exact same thing because planetary formation is sequential, or, if you prefer, progressive.

Maybe if you weren't trying to debate English on the assumption that your public school education actually taught you the language you might not end up feeling as dumb as you do reading this.

here we go again....from natural rights to..........................

drum roll please.............................................
.............................................................
..........................................................
.........................................................
.......................................................
................................................

one word: Galileo

"Seqeunce" and "ordered set of steps" are synonymous.

Meanwhile, GG invents the telescope, which is cool because he can then track the movement of near-in planets, the moon and our sun, and from that determine, in contrast to astrological beliefs of the Catholic Chrich of the day, that the earth and planets revolve around the sun. Cool!!! Astrology be damned, we just created astronomy!!!

But due to distortion at the edges of the lenses, the maginfication was lame and distorted. Plus the scope had to get pretty ******* long for any decent magnification.

Then along comes a guy named Ike Newton, and bingo! Distortion be gone, and a short scope has gobs more magnification than GG's novel design, even long ones (reflector telescopes, still in use today).

The only mystery left, then, is WHAT IN THE **** DID GALILEO GALILEI have to do with what you quoted of mine?

Oops, my bad. I combined two posts thinking they were one. Sorry Que Dubya, just this:

"Seqeunce" and "ordered set of steps" are synonymous.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Prohibition was enacted using the process laid out in the US Constitution. Original intent? It is more than intent here :: the framers wrote into the document, and the ratifiers (the people) voted to have an amendment process to the US Constitution

In other words, your rights are whatever the Constitution says. So if an amendment passed saying slavery was allowed, then slaves would have no rights.

An amendment like that could be added, but then it would be taken into the courts. Why do you have such difficulty understanding the system we have?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. --The Ninth Amendment

You seem a trifle confused, the courts have no authority to declare any portion of the Constitution null and void simply because they don't like it, that is why there is still a death penalty despite massive efforts to wipe it out through the court system.

 

[Koios]

Okay; how do we do that sans government action?

You're drooling all over, sparky.

In any profitable venture, there will be those who seek to profit from like venture. This is known as "competition." Competition arises spontaneously unless constrained in some manner. Generally, constraint must come directly or with the approval of the governing powers.

Seriously, you should have listened more, and huffed spray paint less, at those fancy prep-schools.

Nice to have you weasle into the conver, and with something even. Praise babyjesus, things are lookin' up.

Meanwhile, what you talk about are markets, which exploded when polities developed into fewer much larger organized societies -- with governments -- that CREATED RULES OF COMMERCE. (Not to menton units of trade: coins, then nat'l currencies)

Sorry to pop your bubble and send you hurdling back to reality.

 

[Dante]

The left does have that belief, but most liberals do not. Imagine that, a distinction with a difference

Leftism and liberalism are diametrically opposite positions, D.

1) I am a liberal, you are a leftist. I support liberty, individual rights, the recognition of natural rights and the constitutional mandate that government at all levels respect natural rights.

2) You are a leftist. You support the rule of the state as supreme and seek the conformity of individuals to the collective will. You deny civil rights and view only privilege granted by the ruling elite, which can be granted or revoked at will. You seek the removal of any restraint on the power of the state.

3)

The moralistic right also has the belief that government needs to step in.

Rarely, mostly this is a blatant lie by you little Goebbels of the left. Failure to create laws that grant special privilege to preferred groups of the left, such as federalizing marriage laws as payment to homosexuals for support of the DNC, is not seeking the government to "step in." Quite the opposite.

In short, we liberal seek to constrain the government so the people may enjoy liberty. You leftist seek to constrain the people so the government may enjoy power.

1) You? Liberal or Libertarian? More like an imbecilic ideologue no matter what label you hijack.

Liberalism would embrace things from both the left and the right. See? You truly are dumb

People recognize rights claimed by ideologues who claim those same rights are somehow given by a creator...the validity of the rights being tied to the validity of this creator/

While it may be natural for man to desire freedom, and I believe it is mostly so, there is no proof, only a belief, that a creator is involved who doles out this freedom.

Believing there is no creator, and that human constructs contribute to dictating our nature and how we evolve as a species, I can proudly demand the world recognize my right to freedom. Whether they do or not is another question

2) rantings and ravings of a mad person intoxicated by the thoughts scrambling around in your dis-eased mind

3) Denial, self-deception and the on-set of dementia?

 

[Dante]

Do humans born in North Korea desire dictatorship the way Americans desire freedom?

Obviously your don't believe the bullshit you post, you merely are convinced that revocation of civil rights will empower you to impose your will on others, using the implied or actual violence of the state.

What if you are wrong? What if your rulers decide that a entitled and pampered, petty bourgeoisie child like you is better suited to the mines that to a plush office lording over others?

Liberty allows each to rise or fall on our own. Yes, you have no actual talent and live off the wealth of your parents, but the world you seek may not believe you are owed the position, title and comforts you have simply because you are an overgrown child.

I have no ******* idea. Some do, some don't. But, and knock me over with a ******* feather, you missed the point, entirely, which is: folks born here have more freedom than those born in North Korea.

The point is that people born there have the exact same right to freedom as the ones born here.

you may believe that, but I doubt even the North Koreans all do. I may believe it on a philosophical level, but then reality kicks in

 

[Uncensored2008]

natural rights ... human construct

You're a mindless fucktard, Dainty.

True story.

 

[bripat9643]

Okay; let's play along, Dreamy. What answers have you for problems facing our people which does not involve government?

More competition in the private sector beats out government both in cost and quality.

US Education. Could improve in quality with less government involvement and more private sector competition. If I choose to send my child to a private school instead of a public school the monies normally allotted to the public school should follow my child to the school of our choice.

Okay; how do we do that sans government action?

Simply abolish government schools and quit taxing people for them.

 

[Dante]

If an amendment to the Constitution allowing slavery was passed in 1861, which is what Lincoln proposed, then slaves would never have had any rights, and according to you that would be perfectly OK.

Slavery was legal.

Lincoln did not propose allowing slavery in 1861. Where do you get this shit? FOX News? Glenn Beck? WND?

Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Corwin Amendment was passed by the House on March 1, 1861 and the Senate on March 3, 1861. President Buchanan signed it the same day, his last full day in office; it was ratified by three states: Ohio, Maryland and Illinois.[28] This proposed amendment would have forbidden the adopting of any constitutional amendment abolishing or restricting slavery, or permitting the Congress to do so. This proposal was an unsuccessful attempt to persuade the Southern states not to secede from the Union.

Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, said of the Corwin Amendment:[14][15]

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service....[H]olding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

right wing revisionist history where a fact is used with the whole context left out,

an example of right wingers being fed bogus history and passing it on

 

[Dante]

In other words, your rights are whatever the Constitution says. So if an amendment passed saying slavery was allowed, then slaves would have no rights.

An amendment like that could be added, but then it would be taken into the courts. Why do you have such difficulty understanding the system we have?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. --The Ninth Amendment

You seem a trifle confused, the courts have no authority to declare any portion of the Constitution null and void simply because they don't like it, that is why there is still a death penalty despite massive efforts to wipe it out through the court system.

you and the other imbecile seen totally confused

you are confusing. the discussion is about an amendment negating a right. in that situation a person could go to court asking it to decide which right trumped the other. happens all the time.

don't make me help you look like a bigger fool than you are already.


---

In other words, your rights are whatever the Constitution says. So if an amendment passed saying slavery was allowed, then slaves would have no rights.

An amendment like that could be added, but then it would be taken into the courts. Why do you have such difficulty understanding the system we have?

Wrong. The courts don't decide whether the Constitution or its amendments are "valid." By definition, they are the standard of what's valid. If an amendment to the Constitution allowing slavery was passed in 1861, which is what Lincoln proposed, then slaves would never have had any rights, and according to you that would be perfectly OK.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. --The Ninth Amendment

Later amendments take precedence over earlier amendments. Otherwise, we'd still have prohibition.

What I said was:
"An amendment like that could be added, but then it would be taken into the courts. Why do you have such difficulty understanding the system we have??" -- I did not say the court would decide the validity of the amendment. The Supreme Court has decided cases where conflicting rights/issues/amendments were before them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

... all anyone has to do is show a single example of government transferring the right to life from one person to another, yet not a single person has come up with one. This clearly demonstrates that government is not the source of rights...

Dante has not claimed government is the source of our rights

Yet Dante feels the need to defend the idea even when others present it.

and he did address your imbecilic test, just not in the way you desire.

Sure he did.

rights are abstract concepts

If, by abstract, you mean difficult to understand, you have clearly demonstrated why you think they are abstract.

It should be a simple process to prove that the concept of rights is a human construct. All you have to do is take one persons right to life and transfer it to another person who is dead. Once you do that you can conclusively prove that the right to life is an entirely human construct, until then I am simply going to assume you are wrong.

In the womb, or once born, no life, no pre-life, nobody has a right to life, outside of the human construct that says they do. Where does this supposed right come from if not from the human mind? Nature? A god? Which god, Zeus, the Volcano god, Satan?

You are stating an opinion, yet offering nothing to support it. If I remember correctly, your claim is that rights come from "We the People." Until you can demonstrate that people are capable of taking that right and transferring it to another you cannot claim that they are the source of anything.

 

[bripat9643]

If an amendment to the Constitution allowing slavery was passed in 1861, which is what Lincoln proposed, then slaves would never have had any rights, and according to you that would be perfectly OK.

Slavery was legal.

Lincoln did not propose allowing slavery in 1861. Where do you get this shit? FOX News? Glenn Beck? WND?

Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Corwin Amendment was passed by the House on March 1, 1861 and the Senate on March 3, 1861. President Buchanan signed it the same day, his last full day in office; it was ratified by three states: Ohio, Maryland and Illinois.[28] This proposed amendment would have forbidden the adopting of any constitutional amendment abolishing or restricting slavery, or permitting the Congress to do so. This proposal was an unsuccessful attempt to persuade the Southern states not to secede from the Union.

Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, said of the Corwin Amendment:[14][15]

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service....[H]olding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

You just posted the evidence that proves what I said.

Yeah, I know slavery was legal, but it wasn't enshrined in the Constitution. If it had been, then we would all have a constitutional right to own other people.

 

[Dante]

More competition in the private sector beats out government both in cost and quality.

US Education. Could improve in quality with less government involvement and more private sector competition. If I choose to send my child to a private school instead of a public school the monies normally allotted to the public school should follow my child to the school of our choice.

Okay; how do we do that sans government action?

Simply abolish government schools and quit taxing people for them.

QUICK!!! Throw the baby out with the bathwater. We're not as creative or resourceful as our forebears

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is English your first language? Maybe I'm being too hard on you.

Progress generally means improvement, and forward movement. I think most would agree that that would be the common perception when hearing / reading "progress."

Progression is merely an ordered set of steps / circumstances toward an outcome. Some might think it's only in a positive direction, but it is not. Example: What was the progression in Meth use, in America? (Tip: began in Portland, OR, and is progressing Eastwardly. It that a positive thing? Of course not.)

Or simply google "downward progression." You'll likely get millions of hits.

You forgot a key word in your definition of progression, sequence. Evolution is not sequential, it is random. If we reverse entropy and start over with the exact same parameters life on Earth will end up looking different because mutations are random.

On the other hand, if we rewind entropy and rerun the Solar System from the beginning we will end up with the exact same thing because planetary formation is sequential, or, if you prefer, progressive.

Maybe if you weren't trying to debate English on the assumption that your public school education actually taught you the language you might not end up feeling as dumb as you do reading this.

here we go again....from natural rights to..........................

drum roll please.............................................
.............................................................
..........................................................
.........................................................
.......................................................
................................................

one word: Galileo

I went back and reread that post three times and didn't see any mention of a specific person.

 

[bripat9643]

What I said was:
"An amendment like that could be added, but then it would be taken into the courts. Why do you have such difficulty understanding the system we have??" -- I did not say the court would decide the validity of the amendment. The Supreme Court has decided cases where conflicting rights/issues/amendments were before them.

The Supreme Court cannot rule a legitimately ratified amendment to the Constitution to be invalid. That's what you're suggesting it would do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If I am born in the U.S.

But that wasn't always the case for blacks born in the U.S.

That explains why there was never a slave revolt in the entire history of the US, slaves knew they had no right to freedom.

Wait, I forgot about this one, and at least 240 others.

1811 German Coast Uprising - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

their forebears were captured and enslaved in Africa. They revolted to have a their right to freedom recognized...by the law of the land.

You just admitted that freedom does not come from government, people, or society.

I guess that makes me right.

 

[bripat9643]

Your opinions are noted. The court will take them under consideration.

Please, 'the people' will always **** up, it's why the framers debated so fiercely on how to slow down the populist urge. We do not have a direct democracy, we have a representative democracy with a government structure that has checks and balances built in.

The right of self-ownership is an ideological concept that is not self evident to many people around the world. I don't see those words in the Declaration or the Constitution. I do believe in it on some level, but not being an ideological purist...

The law of gravity isn't evidence to the large mass of numskulls the compromise the American electorate. Does that make it a matter of opinion?

Nope.

The so-called "checks and balances" in our system are mostly illusions. When the same party controls all three branches of government, their power is virtually unlimited.

We have an representative form of democracy where our ('the people'), elected representatives, govern in our name.

Party politics is another thing. It is our founders who gave us the two party system.

How does that prove the right of self ownership is not true?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have no ******* idea. Some do, some don't. But, and knock me over with a ******* feather, you missed the point, entirely, which is: folks born here have more freedom than those born in North Korea.

The point is that people born there have the exact same right to freedom as the ones born here.

You're welcome to believe that, which I do too. But the freedoms the NKs in fact have are WAY THE **** LESS THAN OURS.

Do you disagree?

If you believe that they have the same right to freedom we do then you have to admit that that right does not come from the government.