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

[B. Kidd]

Posing a question to someone means the person asking does not know the answer? All your teachers were idiots?

Only if the teacher was Obama or C.ofHist..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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!

No, you tried to dress it up to prove you are independent. All wars are futile, and wrong. Some are necessary. The necessary ones rarely involve national defense.

 

[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?

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.

You have no rights then, so stop complaining when I stomp all over your non right not to here about my religion.

 

[Murf76]

...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!!!!

Wow. How did I miss this thread yesterday? Forgive me for just skimming now, but you appear to be having an Unalienable Rights emergency.

First things first... one needn't be a Christian to understand that certain rights are "unalienable". You can say they're from nature, you can say their from God. The question as to how human beings came about isn't necessarily pertinent to understanding that we ARE human. And as has been suggested to you, our founders took their philosophy on the subject of Natural Law from such notables as John Locke.

We are HUMAN animals. Dogs will be dogs. Cats will be cats. Monkeys will be monkeys. Humans will be human. And because we are human, some behaviors are innate to our nature. We speak, therefore we have a right to. We can build tools and protect ourselves and our belongings, therefore we have a right to do that, etc.

We are self-fruitful in the matter of our unalienable rights. They are that which we are BORN with as human beings. Not provided to us by other people or by governments.

In order to understand the importance of unalienable citizen rights and how they apply to governance, one needs to consider just what we're trying to accomplish. What is the goal? And obviously, the goal is that citizens should be able to live harmoniously together. Toward that end, we note that in order to avoid conflict, the innate nature of human beings must be considered. There is predictable tumult and strife when the natural, unalienable rights of citizens are abrogated. If your neighbor steals you car... some shit is going to go down unless there's a law in place that will restore justice to you. That's YOUR property. You have a "right" to what is yours. Your neighbor has offended that right.

Imagine an invisible bubble around every citizen. Each has the perfect right to engage in their own "pursuit of happiness" just so long as they don't molest anybody else's bubble. And this is the basis of our understanding of Liberty. As long as we're not fucking with anybody else, we get to do what we want. And if we DO mess with somebody else's bubble, predictable strife will ensue, so we make our laws in order to avoid that or, failing to avoid it, provide a lawful means of redressing it.

This understanding CREATES the means by which we can have the freedom which is our birthright and also have a civil society. Our Constitution sets out the guidelines for what we must give in exchange for that... things like paying enough taxes to provide for the 17 enumerated powers we've agreed to. Our state constitutions do the same. They're essentially contracts saying what we've agreed to.

As you can see... there IS "method to the madness". Things aren't as arbitrary as they might seem. Our Founders were learned men. They studied their history. They studied philosophy. And what they arrived upon is that times might change, but human beings will still be human beings.

You can also see that there's no room in the nature of "unalienable rights" to TAKE from other citizens, to invade their "bubble" as it were. Our Bill of Rights is a partial list of negative rights, saying what the government cannot do TO you. The positive rights that Democrats would like to see instated would say what the government must do FOR you. Obviously, the negative set and the positive set could not coexist. To embrace one, you must give up the other. To say one has a "right" to open-heart surgery would impede the rights of another to refuse to perform it, since one certainly would be hard-pressed to operate on his own heart. If we take a "positive" right to its most extreme conclusion, say there aren't enough heart surgeons to go around, we can't import any more, we can't entice any more to enter the training... if it's a "right", we must conscript citizens to provide it. Freedom itself is abrogated. Citizens are enslaved by the State. And as unlikely as that sounds, it's still the litmus test to see if we're going too far down that slippery slope. The "unalienable right" to not be enslaved is abrogated.

While it's true that slavery was a horrendous 'kicking of the can' when the Constitution was written, it's likewise true that through the rear-view mirror of time, an "unalienable right WAS abrogated and the predictable tumult and strife DID ensue. That's how it works. We're human beings and we will predictably fight against tyranny.

 

[GuyPinestra]

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!!!!

Wow. How did I miss this thread yesterday? Forgive me for just skimming now, but you appear to be having an Unalienable Rights emergency.

First things first... one needn't be a Christian to understand that certain rights are "unalienable". You can say they're from nature, you can say their from God. The question as to how human beings came about isn't necessarily pertinent to understanding that we ARE human. And as has been suggested to you, our founders took their philosophy on the subject of Natural Law from such notables as John Locke.

We are HUMAN animals. Dogs will be dogs. Cats will be cats. Monkeys will be monkeys. Humans will be human. And because we are human, some behaviors are innate to our nature. We speak, therefore we have a right to. We can build tools and protect ourselves and our belongings, therefore we have a right to do that, etc.

We are self-fruitful in the matter of our unalienable rights. They are that which we are BORN with as human beings. Not provided to us by other people or by governments.

In order to understand the importance of unalienable citizen rights and how they apply to governance, one needs to consider just what we're trying to accomplish. What is the goal? And obviously, the goal is that citizens should be able to live harmoniously together. Toward that end, we note that in order to avoid conflict, the innate nature of human beings must be considered. There is predictable tumult and strife when the natural, unalienable rights of citizens are abrogated. If your neighbor steals you car... some shit is going to go down unless there's a law in place that will restore justice to you. That's YOUR property. You have a "right" to what is yours. Your neighbor has offended that right.

Imagine an invisible bubble around every citizen. Each has the perfect right to engage in their own "pursuit of happiness" just so long as they don't molest anybody else's bubble. And this is the basis of our understanding of Liberty. As long as we're not fucking with anybody else, we get to do what we want. And if we DO mess with somebody else's bubble, predictable strife will ensue, so we make our laws in order to avoid that or, failing to avoid it, provide a lawful means of redressing it.

This understanding CREATES the means by which we can have the freedom which is our birthright and also have a civil society. Our Constitution sets out the guidelines for what we must give in exchange for that... things like paying enough taxes to provide for the 17 enumerated powers we've agreed to. Our state constitutions do the same. They're essentially contracts saying what we've agreed to.

As you can see... there IS "method to the madness". Things aren't as arbitrary as they might seem. Our Founders were learned men. They studied their history. They studied philosophy. And what they arrived upon is that times might change, but human beings will still be human beings.

You can also see that there's no room in the nature of "unalienable rights" to TAKE from other citizens, to invade their "bubble" as it were. Our Bill of Rights is a partial list of negative rights, saying what the government cannot do TO you. The positive rights that Democrats would like to see instated would say what the government must do FOR you. Obviously, the negative set and the positive set could not coexist. To embrace one, you must give up the other. To say one has a "right" to open-heart surgery would impede the rights of another to refuse to perform it, since one certainly would be hard-pressed to operate on his own heart. If we take a "positive" right to its most extreme conclusion, say there aren't enough heart surgeons to go around, we can't import any more, we can't entice any more to enter the training... if it's a "right", we must conscript citizens to provide it. Freedom itself is abrogated. Citizens are enslaved by the State. And as unlikely as that sounds, it's still the litmus test to see if we're going too far down that slippery slope. The "unalienable right" to not be enslaved is abrogated.

While it's true that slavery was a horrendous 'kicking of the can' when the Constitution was written, it's likewise true that through the rear-view mirror of time, an "unalienable right WAS abrogated and the predictable tumult and strife DID ensue. That's how it works. We're human beings and we will predictably fight against tyranny.

"You must spread some rep..." Great post!

 

[eflatminor]

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!!!!

Wow. How did I miss this thread yesterday? Forgive me for just skimming now, but you appear to be having an Unalienable Rights emergency.

First things first... one needn't be a Christian to understand that certain rights are "unalienable". You can say they're from nature, you can say their from God. The question as to how human beings came about isn't necessarily pertinent to understanding that we ARE human. And as has been suggested to you, our founders took their philosophy on the subject of Natural Law from such notables as John Locke.

We are HUMAN animals. Dogs will be dogs. Cats will be cats. Monkeys will be monkeys. Humans will be human. And because we are human, some behaviors are innate to our nature. We speak, therefore we have a right to. We can build tools and protect ourselves and our belongings, therefore we have a right to do that, etc.

We are self-fruitful in the matter of our unalienable rights. They are that which we are BORN with as human beings. Not provided to us by other people or by governments.

In order to understand the importance of unalienable citizen rights and how they apply to governance, one needs to consider just what we're trying to accomplish. What is the goal? And obviously, the goal is that citizens should be able to live harmoniously together. Toward that end, we note that in order to avoid conflict, the innate nature of human beings must be considered. There is predictable tumult and strife when the natural, unalienable rights of citizens are abrogated. If your neighbor steals you car... some shit is going to go down unless there's a law in place that will restore justice to you. That's YOUR property. You have a "right" to what is yours. Your neighbor has offended that right.

Imagine an invisible bubble around every citizen. Each has the perfect right to engage in their own "pursuit of happiness" just so long as they don't molest anybody else's bubble. And this is the basis of our understanding of Liberty. As long as we're not fucking with anybody else, we get to do what we want. And if we DO mess with somebody else's bubble, predictable strife will ensue, so we make our laws in order to avoid that or, failing to avoid it, provide a lawful means of redressing it.

This understanding CREATES the means by which we can have the freedom which is our birthright and also have a civil society. Our Constitution sets out the guidelines for what we must give in exchange for that... things like paying enough taxes to provide for the 17 enumerated powers we've agreed to. Our state constitutions do the same. They're essentially contracts saying what we've agreed to.

As you can see... there IS "method to the madness". Things aren't as arbitrary as they might seem. Our Founders were learned men. They studied their history. They studied philosophy. And what they arrived upon is that times might change, but human beings will still be human beings.

You can also see that there's no room in the nature of "unalienable rights" to TAKE from other citizens, to invade their "bubble" as it were. Our Bill of Rights is a partial list of negative rights, saying what the government cannot do TO you. The positive rights that Democrats would like to see instated would say what the government must do FOR you. Obviously, the negative set and the positive set could not coexist. To embrace one, you must give up the other. To say one has a "right" to open-heart surgery would impede the rights of another to refuse to perform it, since one certainly would be hard-pressed to operate on his own heart. If we take a "positive" right to its most extreme conclusion, say there aren't enough heart surgeons to go around, we can't import any more, we can't entice any more to enter the training... if it's a "right", we must conscript citizens to provide it. Freedom itself is abrogated. Citizens are enslaved by the State. And as unlikely as that sounds, it's still the litmus test to see if we're going too far down that slippery slope. The "unalienable right" to not be enslaved is abrogated.

While it's true that slavery was a horrendous 'kicking of the can' when the Constitution was written, it's likewise true that through the rear-view mirror of time, an "unalienable right WAS abrogated and the predictable tumult and strife DID ensue. That's how it works. We're human beings and we will predictably fight against tyranny.

Someone gets it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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!!!!

Wow. How did I miss this thread yesterday? Forgive me for just skimming now, but you appear to be having an Unalienable Rights emergency.

First things first... one needn't be a Christian to understand that certain rights are "unalienable". You can say they're from nature, you can say their from God. The question as to how human beings came about isn't necessarily pertinent to understanding that we ARE human. And as has been suggested to you, our founders took their philosophy on the subject of Natural Law from such notables as John Locke.

We are HUMAN animals. Dogs will be dogs. Cats will be cats. Monkeys will be monkeys. Humans will be human. And because we are human, some behaviors are innate to our nature. We speak, therefore we have a right to. We can build tools and protect ourselves and our belongings, therefore we have a right to do that, etc.

We are self-fruitful in the matter of our unalienable rights. They are that which we are BORN with as human beings. Not provided to us by other people or by governments.

In order to understand the importance of unalienable citizen rights and how they apply to governance, one needs to consider just what we're trying to accomplish. What is the goal? And obviously, the goal is that citizens should be able to live harmoniously together. Toward that end, we note that in order to avoid conflict, the innate nature of human beings must be considered. There is predictable tumult and strife when the natural, unalienable rights of citizens are abrogated. If your neighbor steals you car... some shit is going to go down unless there's a law in place that will restore justice to you. That's YOUR property. You have a "right" to what is yours. Your neighbor has offended that right.

Imagine an invisible bubble around every citizen. Each has the perfect right to engage in their own "pursuit of happiness" just so long as they don't molest anybody else's bubble. And this is the basis of our understanding of Liberty. As long as we're not fucking with anybody else, we get to do what we want. And if we DO mess with somebody else's bubble, predictable strife will ensue, so we make our laws in order to avoid that or, failing to avoid it, provide a lawful means of redressing it.

This understanding CREATES the means by which we can have the freedom which is our birthright and also have a civil society. Our Constitution sets out the guidelines for what we must give in exchange for that... things like paying enough taxes to provide for the 17 enumerated powers we've agreed to. Our state constitutions do the same. They're essentially contracts saying what we've agreed to.

As you can see... there IS "method to the madness". Things aren't as arbitrary as they might seem. Our Founders were learned men. They studied their history. They studied philosophy. And what they arrived upon is that times might change, but human beings will still be human beings.

You can also see that there's no room in the nature of "unalienable rights" to TAKE from other citizens, to invade their "bubble" as it were. Our Bill of Rights is a partial list of negative rights, saying what the government cannot do TO you. The positive rights that Democrats would like to see instated would say what the government must do FOR you. Obviously, the negative set and the positive set could not coexist. To embrace one, you must give up the other. To say one has a "right" to open-heart surgery would impede the rights of another to refuse to perform it, since one certainly would be hard-pressed to operate on his own heart. If we take a "positive" right to its most extreme conclusion, say there aren't enough heart surgeons to go around, we can't import any more, we can't entice any more to enter the training... if it's a "right", we must conscript citizens to provide it. Freedom itself is abrogated. Citizens are enslaved by the State. And as unlikely as that sounds, it's still the litmus test to see if we're going too far down that slippery slope. The "unalienable right" to not be enslaved is abrogated.

While it's true that slavery was a horrendous 'kicking of the can' when the Constitution was written, it's likewise true that through the rear-view mirror of time, an "unalienable right WAS abrogated and the predictable tumult and strife DID ensue. That's how it works. We're human beings and we will predictably fight against tyranny.

You were doing more or less OK until you got to the bolded, then fell into the partisan abyss.

There is no American political party or philosophy which advocates the government ‘do’ anything ‘for’ anyone.

The Bill of Rights codifies the fundamental tenets of individual liberty, rendered inalienable and applicable to the states and other jurisdictions by the 14th Amendment. These rights are not absolute, and the Constitution’s case law defines the limits of these rights with regard to their expression – what the individual may and many not do, and what government may or may not do.

There is no such thing as ‘negative’ or ‘positive’ rights, and references to a ‘right’ to open-heart surgery is nonsensical and meaningless; Congress is authorized to enact legislation pursuant to a legitimate end, provided it’s not offensive to the Constitution, including regulatory authority. That some perceive Federal regulation, and the laws that enforce that regulation, as some sort of ‘infringement’ upon a right is an example of ignorance of, or contempt for, Constitutional case law on the issue.

The individual right in the context of ‘pursuit of happiness’ is not the right to own a business that pollutes the environment, markets unsafe goods or services, or endangers the health or safety of one’s employees; nor is it a right to function in a manner detrimental to commerce overall.

 

[there4eyeM]

"We speak, therefore we have a right to. We can build tools and protect ourselves and our belongings, therefore we have a right to do that, etc."

Capacity is synonymous with right? Why have two words, then?

Words are symbols, similar to thoughts but expressible and transferable (within sometimes severe limits).

Rights are a concept of the human mind.

You have the right to do anything you want and can. The consequences are as much yours as the choice.

You have the right to believe that your choices and your rights devolve from outside you.

You also have the right to assume authority over your existence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not the Constitution. End of story.

Irony:

"Prove our Government doesn't provide our rights."

"Our Government's founding documents say so!"

Double entendre of irony, actually. wow.

Wrong.

Our founding documents acknowledge that our unalienable rights supersede government. They do not 'grant' rights.

 

[there4eyeM]

Is it too scary to assume responsibility? If so, sorry, but that's what it is.

(post not directed at anyone in particular, just interjected for general consumption)

 

[Murf76]

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!!!!

Wow. How did I miss this thread yesterday? Forgive me for just skimming now, but you appear to be having an Unalienable Rights emergency.

First things first... one needn't be a Christian to understand that certain rights are "unalienable". You can say they're from nature, you can say their from God. The question as to how human beings came about isn't necessarily pertinent to understanding that we ARE human. And as has been suggested to you, our founders took their philosophy on the subject of Natural Law from such notables as John Locke.

We are HUMAN animals. Dogs will be dogs. Cats will be cats. Monkeys will be monkeys. Humans will be human. And because we are human, some behaviors are innate to our nature. We speak, therefore we have a right to. We can build tools and protect ourselves and our belongings, therefore we have a right to do that, etc.

We are self-fruitful in the matter of our unalienable rights. They are that which we are BORN with as human beings. Not provided to us by other people or by governments.

In order to understand the importance of unalienable citizen rights and how they apply to governance, one needs to consider just what we're trying to accomplish. What is the goal? And obviously, the goal is that citizens should be able to live harmoniously together. Toward that end, we note that in order to avoid conflict, the innate nature of human beings must be considered. There is predictable tumult and strife when the natural, unalienable rights of citizens are abrogated. If your neighbor steals you car... some shit is going to go down unless there's a law in place that will restore justice to you. That's YOUR property. You have a "right" to what is yours. Your neighbor has offended that right.

Imagine an invisible bubble around every citizen. Each has the perfect right to engage in their own "pursuit of happiness" just so long as they don't molest anybody else's bubble. And this is the basis of our understanding of Liberty. As long as we're not fucking with anybody else, we get to do what we want. And if we DO mess with somebody else's bubble, predictable strife will ensue, so we make our laws in order to avoid that or, failing to avoid it, provide a lawful means of redressing it.

This understanding CREATES the means by which we can have the freedom which is our birthright and also have a civil society. Our Constitution sets out the guidelines for what we must give in exchange for that... things like paying enough taxes to provide for the 17 enumerated powers we've agreed to. Our state constitutions do the same. They're essentially contracts saying what we've agreed to.

As you can see... there IS "method to the madness". Things aren't as arbitrary as they might seem. Our Founders were learned men. They studied their history. They studied philosophy. And what they arrived upon is that times might change, but human beings will still be human beings.

You can also see that there's no room in the nature of "unalienable rights" to TAKE from other citizens, to invade their "bubble" as it were. Our Bill of Rights is a partial list of negative rights, saying what the government cannot do TO you. The positive rights that Democrats would like to see instated would say what the government must do FOR you. Obviously, the negative set and the positive set could not coexist. To embrace one, you must give up the other. To say one has a "right" to open-heart surgery would impede the rights of another to refuse to perform it, since one certainly would be hard-pressed to operate on his own heart. If we take a "positive" right to its most extreme conclusion, say there aren't enough heart surgeons to go around, we can't import any more, we can't entice any more to enter the training... if it's a "right", we must conscript citizens to provide it. Freedom itself is abrogated. Citizens are enslaved by the State. And as unlikely as that sounds, it's still the litmus test to see if we're going too far down that slippery slope. The "unalienable right" to not be enslaved is abrogated.

While it's true that slavery was a horrendous 'kicking of the can' when the Constitution was written, it's likewise true that through the rear-view mirror of time, an "unalienable right WAS abrogated and the predictable tumult and strife DID ensue. That's how it works. We're human beings and we will predictably fight against tyranny.

You were doing more or less OK until you got to the bolded, then fell into the partisan abyss.

There is no American political party or philosophy which advocates the government ‘do’ anything ‘for’ anyone.

The Bill of Rights codifies the fundamental tenets of individual liberty, rendered inalienable and applicable to the states and other jurisdictions by the 14th Amendment. These rights are not absolute, and the Constitution’s case law defines the limits of these rights with regard to their expression – what the individual may and many not do, and what government may or may not do.

There is no such thing as ‘negative’ or ‘positive’ rights, and references to a ‘right’ to open-heart surgery is nonsensical and meaningless; Congress is authorized to enact legislation pursuant to a legitimate end, provided it’s not offensive to the Constitution, including regulatory authority. That some perceive Federal regulation, and the laws that enforce that regulation, as some sort of ‘infringement’ upon a right is an example of ignorance of, or contempt for, Constitutional case law on the issue.

The individual right in the context of ‘pursuit of happiness’ is not the right to own a business that pollutes the environment, markets unsafe goods or services, or endangers the health or safety of one’s employees; nor is it a right to function in a manner detrimental to commerce overall.

There's no "partisan abyss". If you were to look at FDR's Second Bill of Rights or listen to all these liberal wieners squealing about "the right to healthcare" or the right to education", that's exactly what they're talking about... "what the government must do FOR you". Problem is, the government can't give to one citizen without first taking from another. We are not self-fruitful in open-heart surgery. That depends on someone else's labor or maybe even property (money).

And no... you don't have a "right" to pollute the environment or endanger others... BECAUSE those kind of actions will predictably violate the unalienable rights of other individual citizens. If you're dumping chemicals into a stream, there's another citizen downstream of you.

The fact that our government can find new and interesting ways to twist the meaning of the Constitution through case law does not make it right. John Roberts recent ruling that citizens can be taxed for economic inactivity springs to mind. He's wrong, but his twisted conclusion will stand as law even so, not by virtue of a superior understanding of the philosophy, but rather by right of the government's might to enforce its whims. Tyranny.

Our Constitution and our "unalienable rights" are a philosophical question which should be answered in the spirit of Individual Liberty whenever some modern issue needs sorted out. It's not about social engineering or what the political class believes the proper chute to push the cattle through should be. You can't macromanage society without micromanaging lives. Each and every citizen has that little "bubble" around them which was guaranteed to be left intact by our ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Depredations through "case law" are no more valid in philosophical terms than any other depredation, and our agreement to enter the constitutional contract is the only real authority this government has over us. All else is manipulation by virtue of unauthorized force. The fact that they get away with it doesn't make it right.

The U.S. Constitution was meant to be the referee on the field. It was meant to keep us from faction and tumult in our understanding that the unalienable rights of the Individual were not to be violated. As we see through examples of attempted social engineering on both the left and the right, when its philosophical spirit is ignored, predictable strife ensues. The left would have us involuntarily pool our resources into some top-down socialist medicine scheme, depriving citizens, both doctors and patients, of their right to choose what sort of transactions they'll enter into. And they support that for the sake of social engineering, the good of society. The right would have us issue marriage licenses, a legal recognition by the state of domestic partnership, to heterosexual couples but not to homosexual couples. Again, social engineering for the good of society. It's easy enough to see what these two examples have in common. They both ignore the freedom on Individual citizens to engage in their own pursuit of happiness, without interference so long as they're not impeding the like rights of others, and equal in the eyes of the law. Thus, faction and tumult.

The Founders, for all that they kicked the can down the road on slavery, were wise in their observance of human nature. When Obamacare came to the Supreme Court, it should've been punted out of building. It shouldn't even have got that far. Our political leaders and our lower courts should have caught it before then. And the FIRST gay couple who sued over their right to equal treatment under the law should have prevailed, changing everything. Because nothing they do abrogates the unalienable rights of any other INDIVIDUAL.

It's normal for people to want what they want. Normal to band together into faction to get it too. But when we strictly obey, in letter as well as spirit, the edicts of our supreme law... these issues are settled with little fanfare or conflict. Acrimony dissipates because we're all just living by the rules of the game, the agreement we made and are bound to. And honestly, if the majority of citizens would access their inner Libertarian, understand that the division we've lived with for decades is about whether we're going to continue to prioritize the unalienable rights of the Individual citizen or not, I still think the majority of people would choose Liberty.

 

[Murf76]

"We speak, therefore we have a right to. We can build tools and protect ourselves and our belongings, therefore we have a right to do that, etc."

Capacity is synonymous with right? Why have two words, then?

Words are symbols, similar to thoughts but expressible and transferable (within sometimes severe limits).

Rights are a concept of the human mind.

You have the right to do anything you want and can. The consequences are as much yours as the choice.

You have the right to believe that your choices and your rights devolve from outside you.

You also have the right to assume authority over your existence.

What we're talking about though is how human nature can be utilized to create a peaceful society. For the sake of governance and the creation of law, it's not simply about the natural condition of man. Murder and theft are "capabilities". They don't result in harmonious living though. It's not enough to say, "this is man's nature". Man is as greedy as he is compassionate, as cruel as he is kind. The question is how we form our laws to minimize conflict by looking at them through the prism of Man's nature and harnessing it to create peace.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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?

He says that because conservatives for some inexplicable reason like to say it, and like to hear it.

The question they won't answer is which rights came from God.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

Taken from the Declaration of Independence. The founders had written that certain unalienable rights were endowed by their Creator to begin with. They then continue by adding that government serves the will of the people, not the other way around as Obama and the left would suggest. Government works for the people, the people who succeed in the American dream don't pay "homage" to the government, nor do individuals who work hard to CREATE their own success, owe that success to the government.

 

[manifold]

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?

"Rights" have always been and always will be whatever we say they are.

If they came from God, then how come marijuana is illegal but alcohol and tobacco are not?

Show me where that's laid out in any religious text.

 

[Conservative]

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?

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Rights from God, not man.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Again, rights from God, not man. Power to secure the rights which were given by God, is derived by man.

 

[LilOlLady]

Sad as it seems our right come from the law of the land we are in at the time. When in Spain, do as the Spanish do. Simple as that. Some of our rights are taken from GOD's laws. We are not yet living in the Kingdom of GOD so his rights do not yet apply. Man is governing himself at the time.

 

[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?

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Rights from God, not man.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Again, rights from God, not man. Power to secure the rights which were given by God, is derived by man.

The constitution is not the bible and the founding fathers weren't infallible, just creatures of their time. Not to mention that "the creator" is not necessarily God.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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 hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Questions?

What a dumbfuck thread....

 

[G.T.]

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 hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Questions?

What a dumbfuck thread....

Not dumb at all, this was an immature assholish answer, though.

If rights are "self evident," that is a subjective statement thus open for discussion.

 

[Murf76]

Sad as it seems our right come from the law of the land we are in at the time. When in Spain, do as the Spanish do. Simple as that. Some of our rights are taken from GOD's laws. We are not yet living in the Kingdom of GOD so his rights do not yet apply. Man is governing himself at the time.

How is it that you guys don't get this? Unalienable rights exist even when they're not recognized and even when they're violated. It's what made slavery WRONG, what made it a predictable cause of faction and tumult, and why we had war instead of peace in those days.

Ask yourself... just because history is full of examples of people being enslaved, are there some people who simply deserved it? Or... were human beings meant to be free? Call it God, call it nature, the issue isn't so much about how we came to be human but rather an observance that we ARE.