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

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution provides for the legal abolition of virtually any so-called inalienable right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

"We the people" are nature.

 

[Amazed]

The Constitution provides for the legal abolition of virtually any so-called inalienable right.

Go for it and watch what happens sweetcheeks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I put that forward as an example of how I think Ryan is out of touch and I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent moderate who has voted for a lot of different candidates of different parties. I'm not grasping at straws or anything else. I just wanted to hear discussion on it not one liner talking points!

In trying to prove that Ryan is out of touch and subsequently claiming you are not a liberal, you have managed to prove that you are both out of touch and a liar.

 

[Amazed]

Anyone who thinks Ryan is out of touch is an idiot and I would point out Wisconsin....we're coming again....better get ready.

2010 was a preview.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

...we decide the rights that government puts foward through our representatives, referendums and so forth.

You could not be more wrong. The ENTIRE idea behind the founding of America, which is codified in the Constitution, is that no government nor any person can grant or take certain rights without due process. You and everyone is born with these rights. It matters not if you believe in God, you get the rights no matter what.

That doesn't really refute the point of the OP that rights are established and secured through social consensus. The fact that you can point to the importance of a foundational idea sewn into the fabric of American culture as the source of America's (not always uniformly sterling) dedication to the protection of human rights doesn't contradict the point being made at all.

If rights come from social consensus, and I manage to get a social consensus that it is OK to beat the crap out of people who defend Obamacare, would that prove that it is OK to beat the crap out of you?

Would you subsequently insist that rights come from some other source?

Guess where my money comes down on your opinion on social consensus in those circumstances.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

...we decide the rights that government puts foward through our representatives, referendums and so forth.

You could not be more wrong. The ENTIRE idea behind the founding of America, which is codified in the Constitution, is that no government nor any person can grant or take certain rights without due process. You and everyone is born with these rights. It matters not if you believe in God, you get the rights no matter what.

That is what differentiated the USA from previous societies in which some rights could be granted by government and others taken without due process (it's good the be the King!). America was the first to say your rights are yours at birth. Nobody need grant them. And, if a right is to be taken away, it must be through due process (warrants, trial by peers, etc).

Read up on history. You're missing the idea behind the American experiment...the very heart of it.

You are wrong. We the people, not god, not nature decide on rights and freedoms which are implemented by the government through the Constitution, amendments, laws, etc. God has influenced some of this as well as nature (I mentioned limitations nature imposes upon us) but the real determinants are the people!!! I never said government can take away rights or that government is autonomous and can dictate them. It is WE THE PEOPLE!!!!

We do not decide on rights, we either recognize that all humans have innate rights, or we live in a world where I get to argue that you do not have any rights simply because I don't like you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I love the way people jump to conclusions based on one thought a person puts forward. Unlike dogmantic libs and repubs, I'm generally in the middle agreeing with some cons. policies and some liberal.

Why do people feel a need to insist that labels apply to others, but not to themselves? My suggestion to you is simply argue with whoever says something you disagree with, and defend people you agree with. If you are what you claim people will see it without you having to insist that is what you are.

Example:

I'm against the continued futile wars we are involved in now but I am a hawk on some other issues regarding foreign policy (if the war is necessary and justified due to our national defense)

You are are against what you call futile wars, but support what you believe to be non futile wars. Believe it or not, you just made yourself look really stupid.

All wars are, ultimately, futile. Some, however, are necessary.

I'm against illegal immigration and think we should build a wall, deport millions, etc. yet give citizenship to children brought here by their parents (between the ages of 0 and 20) through a predetermined date in perhaps 2013. The rest have to go and apply for legal citizenship.

I bet you think this proves you are not a liberal. Are you aware that your position is almost identical to that of Cesar Chavez?

I am pro women't rights but personally would advise against abortion (but would not want it made illegal)

Can you tell me, specifically, what rights women have that men do not have?

I am for welfare to work for those who can work but I think we go about it wrong and people need more training on how to be self-sufficient

Wow, color me unimpressed.

I'm for most social programs such as disablility for those who are truly disabled, social security (I don't object to changes if they are done gradually for future generations only), etc.

Let me guess, you don't object to changes, but you are unwilling to actually discuss them.

I am for getting rid of many departments in the US government but some that Romney wants to eliminate or reduce I disagree with

Specifics, or are we supposed to simply take your uninformed word for it?

I think people should take personal responsiblity but I also think many need to be taught these skills since they weren't brought up with them so they can be self sufficient and not dependent on government

Personal responsibility is not a skill.

There is a lot more on both sides but this is a small example. So quit labeling me as something I'm not!

It is just enough to show you really don't know enough to actually understand what you are saying.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

...rights are established and secured through social consensus.

That is simply not true. Rights may be restricted through the legislative process, but the rights we're talking about, you're born with. We can debate on what is and what isn't an inherent right, but you are very wrong that rights come through democracy or through social consensus. Just flat out wrong.

I am amazed that there is this much ignorance on this subject. It is the very founding principal that differentiated the USA from all previous societies.

You're essentially arguing "we all believe this, so it's true."

I'm agreeing with you. That's how rights work.

And I disagree with you, which means you have no rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ryan is correct to the extent one’s inalienable rights can be taken by neither man nor government.

It’s on the ‘follow through’ where he fails, however.

His opposition to privacy rights with regard to abortion, for example, is offensive to the Constitution, and inconsistent as a conservative regarding limiting governments’ authority.

Ryan’s opposition to abortion is personal and subjective, and relevant only to that extent.

The Constitution provides for the legal abolition of virtually any so-called inalienable right.

As noted in the other thread concerning the same topic, no right is absolute, there are appropriate limitations on our rights, where the state has a legitimate interest, can support that motive with objective documentation, and is free of animus toward a given class of persons whose rights are being limited.

 

[SniperFire]

Ryan is correct to the extent one’s inalienable rights can be taken by neither man nor government.

It’s on the ‘follow through’ where he fails, however.

His opposition to privacy rights with regard to abortion, for example, is offensive to the Constitution, and inconsistent as a conservative regarding limiting governments’ authority.

Ryan’s opposition to abortion is personal and subjective, and relevant only to that extent.

The Constitution provides for the legal abolition of virtually any so-called inalienable right.

As noted in the other thread concerning the same topic, no right is absolute, there are appropriate limitations on our rights, where the state has a legitimate interest, can support that motive with objective documentation, and is free of animus toward a given class of persons whose rights are being limited.

Only if you are of the opinion that abortion is not the murder of another human being.

If one is of the opinion that abortion is murder, then nothing is more Constitutional than their position.

 

[Dr Grump]

Paul Ryan keeps saying our rights come from nature and God not the government.

Nope, they don't...

 

[Political Junky]

And yet Ryan is a huge fan of Ayn Rand ... lifelong atheist.

 

[there4eyeM]

If objective reality exists, it has to do with gravity, quarks and black holes, perhaps.

Concepts are human, not part of physics.
Concepts are totally subjective and mean what people take them to mean.
What meaning is there to the proposition that you have the right to liberty of movement if you are in a bank that is being held up and have a gun pointed at you?
What you can both conceive of as a right and can exercise is a right.

 

[courseofhistory]

I put that forward as an example of how I think Ryan is out of touch and I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent moderate who has voted for a lot of different candidates of different parties. I'm not grasping at straws or anything else. I just wanted to hear discussion on it not one liner talking points!

In trying to prove that Ryan is out of touch and subsequently claiming you are not a liberal, you have managed to prove that you are both out of touch and a liar.

In subsequently claiming you know anything (about me or anything else), you have manged to prove that you are out of touch and stupid. I am an independent and I agree with some dem policies and some republican polices. I do realize though that you can't understand that because you are a far right wingnut!

 

[courseofhistory]

Quote: Originally Posted by courseofhistory
Example:

I'm against the continued futile wars we are involved in now but I am a hawk on some other issues regarding foreign policy (if the war is necessary and justified due to our national defense)
You are are against what you call futile wars, but support what you believe to be non futile wars. Believe it or not, you just made yourself look really stupid.

Quantum Windbag's response:

All wars are, ultimately, futile. Some, however, are necessary.

Me:

That's what I just said, Sherlock!

 

[Ravi]

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?

God doesn't give us any rights aside from the right of free will.

What the founding fathers meant was that we have rights because we exist. In reality, only we as people can grant rights to the nation as a whole. And these rights have always been unequally applied as our early history shows we didn't grant them to women, blacks, or Indians.

And if we believed that all people had the same rights we wouldn't be beholden to geopolitical boundries, instead we would try to grant these rights to all people of all nations or at the very least accept anyone that wanted to become an American citizen into our country.

 

[there4eyeM]

What the FF said was that they held these things existed and were apparent to anyone who looked. They were sharing with the world their view of reality in order to explain their reasoning and conclusions.
They did not create the 'rights'. They did not give them to us.
If the FF were correct, then all humans do share these and all humans should support them. They are extra-territorial, as is human existence. Territory and state mean nothing of themselves, but only what humans attribute to them.
When we are well served by the state/nation, it is appropriate.
When we are ill served, it is time for a change, at least of attitude, consciousness and/or obedience.

 

[SniperFire]

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?

God doesn't give us any rights aside from the right of free will.

What the founding fathers meant was that we have rights because we exist. In reality, only we as people can grant rights to the nation as a whole. And these rights have always been unequally applied as our early history shows we didn't grant them to women, blacks, or Indians.

And if we believed that all people had the same rights we wouldn't be beholden to geopolitical boundries, instead we would try to grant these rights to all people of all nations or at the very least accept anyone that wanted to become an American citizen into our country.

While it is idiotic to bring up USA citizenship under unalienable rights, you are in fact making the case for America proactively defending and spreading the cause of freedom throughout the world.

Those days are probably gone, however, as the pendulum seems ready to swing back toward your favored totalitarianism.

 

[Ravi]

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?

God doesn't give us any rights aside from the right of free will.

What the founding fathers meant was that we have rights because we exist. In reality, only we as people can grant rights to the nation as a whole. And these rights have always been unequally applied as our early history shows we didn't grant them to women, blacks, or Indians.

And if we believed that all people had the same rights we wouldn't be beholden to geopolitical boundries, instead we would try to grant these rights to all people of all nations or at the very least accept anyone that wanted to become an American citizen into our country.

While it is idiotic to bring up USA citizenship under unalienable rights, you are in fact making the case for America proactively defending and spreading the cause of freedom throughout the world.

Those days are probably gone, however, as the pendulum seems ready to swing back toward your favored totalitarianism.

Yes, I am making that case and the way the constitution is written that is what we should be doing. Not that I think we can afford to do it, hence my second option.

I will now neg you for being a dick. I have no interest in totalitarianism nor does anything in my post suggest it.