Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
For the logically challenged:
If you must defend against a particular right being taken away, that presupposes that it can in fact be taken away and is therefore by definition, not unalienable.
These were thoughtful, studied menSpare me the gradeschool tactics.
I don't disagree with the Rights that they came up with.
The same people who decided we have unalienable rights decided that only whiteskinned males had them. So even the people who supposedly understood this ethereal concept of unalienable rights assigned them arbitrarily.
Where is there any founding document that gives rights only to whiteskinned males?
Are you being obtuse for any specific reason? Slavery and women's suffrage.
These were thoughtful, studied men
I don't disagree with the Rights that they came up with.
the term natural and the idea of inalienability is that which, indeed, elevates rights beyond our capacity to grant or rescind them. natural in the sense that gravity is natural. we could buck against them, but it doesnt strike them from fact. the idea that governments have no right to obstruct our access to certain 'natural', or as murph nicely termed them, 'sacrosanct', freedoms is what the enlightenment, existentialism the US revolution and our constitution is all about.
I dont know. I dont know what Murf's position is. He seems to be conflating "rights" with moral right and wrong. But I can't tell.
His position is that he agrees with the Founders that the Rights were granted by Nature.
These were thoughtful, studied men
I don't disagree with the Rights that they came up with.
the term natural and the idea of inalienability is that which, indeed, elevates rights beyond our capacity to grant or rescind them. natural in the sense that gravity is natural. we could buck against them, but it doesnt strike them from fact. the idea that governments have no right to obstruct our access to certain 'natural', or as murph nicely termed them, 'sacrosanct', freedoms is what the enlightenment, existentialism the US revolution and our constitution is all about.
The idea of education being a right, can not be a fact.
It is a law, none the less, that you must ATTEND (if under a certain age).
No one can force you to become educated. Public schooling is paid for with public taxes, so one could argue that taxation without appropriation would be the only thing at play in this sandbox. (that common good stuff is Communism).
The path to our future depends upon our children. Whether we decide to give them proper education for the new needs of the global economy remains to be seen. If they don’t finish high school then what about collage? No new Dr’s, chemists, engineers, architects, etc. These all have to be imported because we produce none.
No it’s not an inalienable right but the failure of our children, is the failure of our nation.
The grammar and syntax errors in this post are quite ironic in the face of its intended purpose.
taxation without appropriation
No one can claim a right if excercising that right imposes an obligation on someone else.
I dont know. I dont know what Murf's position is. He seems to be conflating "rights" with moral right and wrong. But I can't tell.
No one can claim a right if excercising that right imposes an obligation on someone else.
True. But in this case, the obligation is on the government.
Where is there any founding document that gives rights only to whiteskinned males?
Are you being obtuse for any specific reason? Slavery and women's suffrage.
Are you actually this stupid? Where is slavery limited to black people?
Are you being obtuse for any specific reason? Slavery and women's suffrage.
Are you actually this stupid? Where is slavery limited to black people?
In pre-emancipation America. The Constitution did not protect the unalienable rights of black people in America. The framers claimed that we are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights,
but not if you're black.
And a woman's right to vote had to be secured by Constitutional amendment.
In short, the founders and framers were full of shit with their unalienable god-given rights bullshit.
Frankly I'm astounded that anyone would not want education to be a right.
I dont know. I dont know what Murf's position is. He seems to be conflating "rights" with moral right and wrong. But I can't tell.
Okay. Let me see if I can clarify a bit....
Healthcare and education are NOT unalienable rights. They are not endowed upon us by God (or by Nature if you have no God). They are not things we were born with. We're human animals, so we can speak our opinion... therefore, we have a natural right to do so.
When unalienable rights are observed, and no one impedes upon the rights of other citizens... we can enjoy a peaceful, civilized way of life. This would be our natural state of grace (or being), when it is strictly adhered to.
The "human rights" argument is simply a transparent globalization effort which installs government as an enforcer of wealth redistribution. Government is FORCE. Redistribution is FORCE. It cannot result in peace, because it does not respect the unalienable rights of our humanity. It TAKES from us our labor or property.
The Bill of Rights does NOT endow us with rights. It simply guarantees that government will not impose upon our naturally existing rights as human beings.
It IS possible to do that... to impede these rights as a matter of tyranny. But it doesn't cause them not to exist, and it is a perversion of our Constitution to do so.
Healthcare and Education are laudable goals... but they are NOT rights. Each requires the labor and money (property) of other citizens. These are not something which we can fully acquire on our own. That said, the government does NOT have the right to stop us from acquiring it. And they do. In fact, they'll do even more of it if we don't step up to the plate and put the statists out of power.
An arbitrary "right", endowed by men... can just as easily be taken away, by men. An unalienable right is NOT an imposition upon others. It simply exists. And when it is impeded, the result is disharmony.
The fact that we have traditionally allowed certain impositions, like federally-funded healthcare or state-funded education, does not mean that they aren't in opposition with our natural rights. It simply means that we have been societally tolerant of them on the whole. But, on the other hand... look at the conflict they do in fact cause, because they are NOT the exception to the rule. They redistribute labor and property from one citizen to another and in so doing cause disharmony because the process is involuntary.
Unalienable rights were said to be unalienable, and made as such, by MEN. Nature does not provide these, neither does God. Men decided upon them, and put them onto paper.
Are you actually this stupid? Where is slavery limited to black people?
In pre-emancipation America. The Constitution did not protect the unalienable rights of black people in America. The framers claimed that we are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights,
but not if you're black.
And a woman's right to vote had to be secured by Constitutional amendment.
In short, the founders and framers were full of shit with their unalienable god-given rights bullshit.
Still though, it sure was one helluva damn good sales pitch.
People are still buying it today!
As an aside, the new Iraqi Constitution proclaims healthcare to be a RIGHT.
Would that be an unalienable right? A natural right? A phoney un-American right that no foreigner has any business calling a right because only Americans can decide what are and aren't rights?
eh??
Unalienable rights were said to be unalienable, and made as such, by MEN. Nature does not provide these, neither does God. Men decided upon them, and put them onto paper.
I only said that human beings are capable of a detailed thought process. I didn't say they all engage in it. Clearly... some don't.
