Do our rights come from nature and God as Paul Ryan says?

[manifold]

If all rights come from the government and no superior rights exist, then the government can take those rights away any time it wants to, after all they owned those rights in the first place.

This might be why atheism has always failed when religion becomes the resource of the government.

Yes, that's why we have the 2nd Amendment dumbass.

 

[Katzndogz]

Whatever rights God may or may not have given us, it still takes a government to enforce them. Absent one, if I'm stronger than you, your only right is to sit meekly by while I eat YOUR kill in hopes that I might leave you some scraps.

Government doesn't enforce the natural rights of man, its purpose is to protect those rights instead.

 

[konradv]

Whatever rights God may or may not have given us, it still takes a government to enforce them. Absent one, if I'm stronger than you, your only right is to sit meekly by while I eat YOUR kill in hopes that I might leave you some scraps.

Nobody claims that our unalienable rights cannot be tresspassed upon.

Nobody can prove there's any such thing, either.

 

[manifold]

Whatever rights God may or may not have given us, it still takes a government to enforce them. Absent one, if I'm stronger than you, your only right is to sit meekly by while I eat YOUR kill in hopes that I might leave you some scraps.

Nobody claims that our unalienable rights cannot be tresspassed upon.

then by definition, they are not unalienable.

Do not pass go, do not collect $200, go directly to 3rd grade and re-learn basic logic.

 

[konradv]

Whatever rights God may or may not have given us, it still takes a government to enforce them. Absent one, if I'm stronger than you, your only right is to sit meekly by while I eat YOUR kill in hopes that I might leave you some scraps.

Government doesn't enforce the natural rights of man, its purpose is to protect those rights instead.

You're puttting the cart before the horse. You haven't proved any such rights exist. Of course, the government is there to protect your rights. That's who guarantees them. I know of no instance where God has.

 

[Murf76]

The crux of murf's rant -

So, in other words, I have the same rights as, say, an Afghani, a Russian, a Chinese. I have the same rights as a trillionaire or a bowry bum. Women have the same rights as men - regardless of which country they live in.

And, we, in the US, had all these rights before the American Revolution.

The gun nuts say they need all those guns so they can be ready to fight their own government. Never mind that they're going up against the biggest weapons known to humankind and all they'll have is little pea-shooter by comparison. That's what many of these idiots say.

If what YOU say were true, they have no need of their pea-shooters.

IOW, you could not be more wrong.

Humans fight for every right they have and they will always fight for them. If they don't, some government just might take them all away.

How is it do you think that the human rights of other peoples can be violated if they don't have any innately? Why would it be wrong for Afghans to stone women to death for immodesty if they can only put such a law on the books, or for communist governments to deny free speech? WHY is slavery innately WRONG?

The problem you people are having with developing an understanding of "unalienable rights" is that you can't push your collectivist ideology on people who's rights as an INDIVIDUAL are guaranteed. No one is fooled by your apparent confusion. If you can deny the fact that people have innate rights, you can justify any arbitrary social engineering you want. You can rob and redistribute without feeling like you're doing something wrong. But you are. If you weren't, you wouldn't be in the unenviable position of defending human rights violations just so long as some government codifies them into law.

You misunderstanmd the very conversation we're having.

Nobody thinks they aren't "innate," they're saying "please offer a logical proof that they are "innate," please, and who gets to decide based on said reasoning, if you even have any.

Continuing to argue with what's not even being said is a waste of time. I'm not going to write off a discussion with you because you're trying, unlike sniper twat and soggy droors.

They're innate because in the context of peaceful civilization, we observe that when they are violated a predictable faction and tumult results. It's not any different that the scientific observation of other species. Put two equal bucks in rut with does on the scene, and there's gonna be a fight. That's the innate nature of deer. Enslave human beings and they will struggle for freedom. That's the nature of Man.

The reason the Ninth is open-ended is because we learn more about ourselves all the time. The idea that we can simply codify every natural right into law is ridiculous and unnecessary. When we leave citizens to exercise their freedom unmolested, just so long as they don't impede the like rights of other individuals, we've covered all our bases.

It's not necessary to believe in God in order to believe in unalienable rights. It doesn't hurt a thing when you do, but you don't have to. Whether God created Nature or not, doesn't mean Nature doesn't exist.

 

[there4eyeM]

So these rights are something you have decided to believe in.

 

[SniperFire]

Whatever rights God may or may not have given us, it still takes a government to enforce them. Absent one, if I'm stronger than you, your only right is to sit meekly by while I eat YOUR kill in hopes that I might leave you some scraps.

Nobody claims that our unalienable rights cannot be tresspassed upon.

Nobody can prove there's any such thing, either.

And 'Is there a God?' is not the OP premise, regardless of how much GSpot pretends it to be.

 

[whitehall]

Paul Ryan keeps saying our rights come from nature and God not the government. Actually, they come from "we the people" and we decide the rights that government puts foward through our representatives, referendums and so forth. Nature dictates some of our limitiations only. But we have been able to overcome a lot of those. God? If you believe in him, I thought he gave us free will to decide things for ourselves?

Let it go and move on lefties. The longer you split hairs the dumber you look.

 

[Murf76]

Whatever rights God may or may not have given us, it still takes a government to enforce them. Absent one, if I'm stronger than you, your only right is to sit meekly by while I eat YOUR kill in hopes that I might leave you some scraps.

Nobody claims that our unalienable rights cannot be tresspassed upon.

Nobody can prove there's any such thing, either.

It's demonstratively provable by simple observation. American slavery. Was it innately wrong or not?

 

[G.T.]

How is it do you think that the human rights of other peoples can be violated if they don't have any innately? Why would it be wrong for Afghans to stone women to death for immodesty if they can only put such a law on the books, or for communist governments to deny free speech? WHY is slavery innately WRONG?

The problem you people are having with developing an understanding of "unalienable rights" is that you can't push your collectivist ideology on people who's rights as an INDIVIDUAL are guaranteed. No one is fooled by your apparent confusion. If you can deny the fact that people have innate rights, you can justify any arbitrary social engineering you want. You can rob and redistribute without feeling like you're doing something wrong. But you are. If you weren't, you wouldn't be in the unenviable position of defending human rights violations just so long as some government codifies them into law.

You misunderstanmd the very conversation we're having.

Nobody thinks they aren't "innate," they're saying "please offer a logical proof that they are "innate," please, and who gets to decide based on said reasoning, if you even have any.

Continuing to argue with what's not even being said is a waste of time. I'm not going to write off a discussion with you because you're trying, unlike sniper twat and soggy droors.

They're innate because in the context of peaceful civilization, we observe that when they are violated a predictable faction and tumult results. It's not any different that the scientific observation of other species. Put two equal bucks in rut with does on the scene, and there's gonna be a fight. That's the innate nature of deer. Enslave human beings and they will struggle for freedom. That's the nature of Man.

The reason the Ninth is open-ended is because we learn more about ourselves all the time. The idea that we can simply codify every natural right into law is ridiculous and unnecessary. When we leave citizens to exercise their freedom unmolested, just so long as they don't impede the like rights of other individuals, we've covered all our bases.

It's not necessary to believe in God in order to believe in unalienable rights. It doesn't hurt a thing when you do, but you don't have to. Whether God created Nature or not, doesn't mean Nature doesn't exist.

This all doesn't logically prove they are inborn.

All it says is that - humans have learned and continue to learn through thought and reason how to best co-exist as A unified Nation or (maybe one day) world.

That doesn't mean rights ARE inborn.

It means we have determined they SHOULD BE CONSIDERED inborn, as it's currently the most sentient way forward.

 

[Pho_King]

This is hyperbole.

If you believe in God, you obviously think that he is above Government.

If you don't believe in God, your hyperbolic statement doesn't even apply.

More childish shit.

If you believe in god, you probably believe your inalienable rights come from Him. As did the framers of our constitution. Those are rights we believe cannot be abridged. And if you believe our inalienable rights come from government, or that they are man made, there is no right that cannot be abridged. And that is where we are headed. Much of the population does not believe in god, but in government, where our rights originate. And they coincidentally also believe in a massive, ever expanding government. And those are governments to be feared. That was my point, which went right over your pointy little egghead.

The view of ou OWS parasites is prevailing. Congratulations.

Maybe instead of you saying what happens if we don't "BELIEVE" rights are somehow inborn, you should tell how, and why with justified logic they are inborn........................

The rest is hyperbole, dishonesty and demagoguery.

Christ you are a fucking douchebag.
What government creates, government can destroy. Will it? Who knows. But if a population believes those rights come from god, they are less likely to allow government to trample on those rights.

And how does one prove an article of faith? That's why you are a douchebag. One cannot prove an article of faith anymore than one can disprove it.

 

[Murf76]

So these rights are something you have decided to believe in.

Just because you can't SEE gravity, doesn't mean there isn't any. Jump off a cliff and you'll find out fast that it's there.

 

[SniperFire]

So these rights are something you have decided to believe in.

Fortunately for you, no. What matters is that our system is based on them being unalienable because they are issued from God.

You don't have to believe, but go out and violate your neighbors right to life with hammer and see what happens.

 

[Wiseacre]

There's a difference between these two. The right to life, free speech, to be free to choose your own path, to believe whatever you decide to believe, every human being should have these rights and others. These rights may be denied by a gov't, but in so doing defines itself as illegitimate. Because a govt's basic function should be to protect these rights for the people it governs.

Civil rights are those that a society determines to exist for it's citizens: voting, property, etc. These may be different from one culture to another, and I think the line gets a little blurred between the two sometimes. But I'd say that civil rights can change over time, but human rights should be constant.

BTW, neither come from gov't; human rights are yours by birth. Some say at the moment of conception. Civil rights should be decided by society, through referendums mainly.

 

[Pho_King]

You misunderstanmd the very conversation we're having.

Nobody thinks they aren't "innate," they're saying "please offer a logical proof that they are "innate," please, and who gets to decide based on said reasoning, if you even have any.

Continuing to argue with what's not even being said is a waste of time. I'm not going to write off a discussion with you because you're trying, unlike sniper twat and soggy droors.

They're innate because in the context of peaceful civilization, we observe that when they are violated a predictable faction and tumult results. It's not any different that the scientific observation of other species. Put two equal bucks in rut with does on the scene, and there's gonna be a fight. That's the innate nature of deer. Enslave human beings and they will struggle for freedom. That's the nature of Man.

The reason the Ninth is open-ended is because we learn more about ourselves all the time. The idea that we can simply codify every natural right into law is ridiculous and unnecessary. When we leave citizens to exercise their freedom unmolested, just so long as they don't impede the like rights of other individuals, we've covered all our bases.

It's not necessary to believe in God in order to believe in unalienable rights. It doesn't hurt a thing when you do, but you don't have to. Whether God created Nature or not, doesn't mean Nature doesn't exist.

This all doesn't logically prove they are inborn.

All it says is that - humans have learned and continue to learn through thought and reason how to best co-exist as A unified Nation or (maybe one day) world.

That doesn't mean rights ARE inborn.

It means we have determined they SHOULD BE CONSIDERED inborn, as it's currently the most sentient way forward.

You are like a dog chasing its tail, equal parts amusing and retarded.

 

[G.T.]

They're innate because in the context of peaceful civilization, we observe that when they are violated a predictable faction and tumult results. It's not any different that the scientific observation of other species. Put two equal bucks in rut with does on the scene, and there's gonna be a fight. That's the innate nature of deer. Enslave human beings and they will struggle for freedom. That's the nature of Man.

The reason the Ninth is open-ended is because we learn more about ourselves all the time. The idea that we can simply codify every natural right into law is ridiculous and unnecessary. When we leave citizens to exercise their freedom unmolested, just so long as they don't impede the like rights of other individuals, we've covered all our bases.

It's not necessary to believe in God in order to believe in unalienable rights. It doesn't hurt a thing when you do, but you don't have to. Whether God created Nature or not, doesn't mean Nature doesn't exist.

This all doesn't logically prove they are inborn.

All it says is that - humans have learned and continue to learn through thought and reason how to best co-exist as A unified Nation or (maybe one day) world.

That doesn't mean rights ARE inborn.

It means we have determined they SHOULD BE CONSIDERED inborn, as it's currently the most sentient way forward.

You are like a dog chasing its tail, equal parts amusing and retarded.

Yea, I'm sure you're self amused with your douchebagging on people for the day. Your god would be proud, my so humble and endearing.

 

[G.T.]

I'll posit what I said from the beginning:

Rights are created through our sentience: our ability to read and determine the best scenarios to co-exist and relay that into practice.

This in no way is a disagreement with the rights we've come up with, or embrace.

 

[Intense]

The right to due process, yup, handed down by God as well.

Or was it?

The Right of due process, is to better ensure the establishment and service of Justice. We, not being perfect, nor all knowing, take every opportunity to review and search what we do know, to reach a fair Judgement. We even allow room for Appeal. You doubt that is based on something of more value than form or process. There is a Principle, or denial of, which is the basis of every rule or law. We construct, at least in Theory, to serve the Higher Cause.

 

[konradv]

Nobody claims that our unalienable rights cannot be tresspassed upon.

Nobody can prove there's any such thing, either.

It's demonstratively provable by simple observation. American slavery. Was it innately wrong or not?

That's not the question. Is it innately wrong because God said so or because laws were passed that said so.