Governments do not protect rights

[NYcarbineer]

The notion that because governments don't work perfectly to protect your rights, that it should not be the role of government to try to protect your rights is foolish.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are confusing individual rights with majority rule. Your individual right to vote is not subject to majority rule. You cannot be denied your individual right to vote just because a majority in your state decides that you lack a basic understanding of constitutional rights.

Yet, for some reason, people complain when the minority stand up and demand that they have rights. In fact, you specifically are complaining about the fact that some people do not want to be forced to give up their religious views simply because the majority disagrees with them.

Interesting, is your defense of the minority based solely on opportunity, or are you a hack?

You have even less understanding of the term individual rights than you do of the term straw man.

This should be interesting. The guy that insists that I said something I did not say is telling me I don't understand something. Tell me, what did I post that displayed an ignorance of either concept?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The notion that because governments don't work perfectly to protect your rights, that it should not be the role of government to try to protect your rights is foolish.

The notion that you should trust other people to protect your rights if they conflict with their desires is even more absurd.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Loving was about the legality of interracial marriage, was it not? ruling on the legality of a type of marriage is different from ruling on the "right" to marriage.

I did not say that civil rights should be voted on. I said that things like gay marriage, and polygamy should be left to the states and decided by the voters

I asked you specifically about Loving v Virginia. My question directly was:

"Should that have been put to a majority vote, yes or no?"

and your answer was:

Yes, I do believe that these issues should be put to a majority vote.

Which means you believe that Civil Rights should be a popularity contest based on how much "the folks" like ya or not. Blacks voting? Not until enough of the white folks think they should. Chicks voting? Not until enough of the menfolk think they should.

I don't see any inconsistency, if a majority of the voters wanted to ban interracial marriage, then that should be the law of that state, remember we are talking theory here, I don't think such a vote would ever be taken.

How about if a state voted that only people paying income tax to the state could vote? They are the ones funding the state's coffers, why shouldn't they be the ones deciding how the money is spent?

We are talking about freedom here, in theory. Why should the majority have to adopt a minority view of any issue? Isn't that why the founders left England?

You think freedom should include the freedom to take away someone else's freedom to marry solely on the basis of their skin color?

LOLOL. Best post of the week.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The notion that because governments don't work perfectly to protect your rights, that it should not be the role of government to try to protect your rights is foolish.

The notion that you should trust other people to protect your rights if they conflict with their desires is even more absurd.

Speak English.

Do you think the portions of the Constitution that deal with the government's role in protecting your rights should simply be removed,

because the government has no business in that regard?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yet, for some reason, people complain when the minority stand up and demand that they have rights. In fact, you specifically are complaining about the fact that some people do not want to be forced to give up their religious views simply because the majority disagrees with them.

Interesting, is your defense of the minority based solely on opportunity, or are you a hack?

You have even less understanding of the term individual rights than you do of the term straw man.

This should be interesting. The guy that insists that I said something I did not say is telling me I don't understand something. Tell me, what did I post that displayed an ignorance of either concept?

Can a majority take away your individual right to vote? Yes or no?

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't see any inconsistency, if a majority of the voters wanted to ban interracial marriage, then that should be the law of that state, remember we are talking theory here, I don't think such a vote would ever be taken.

How about if a state voted that only people paying income tax to the state could vote? They are the ones funding the state's coffers, why shouldn't they be the ones deciding how the money is spent?

We are talking about freedom here, in theory. Why should the majority have to adopt a minority view of any issue? Isn't that why the founders left England?

are you saying that the USA is not based on majority rule? does a majority elect the president? does a majority decide on local bond issues? can a majority change the constitution?

the problem that some of you libs have is that you don't like the majority view of some issues---------to that I say Tough Shit, if you don't like the way we choose to live, LEAVE.

Ah, now I see the problem. You seem to think that America is a democracy. Let me let you in on a little secret: we are not. America is a constitutional republic. IOW, we do not allow the majority to oppress the minority. That is a form of tyranny like any other form.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I asked you specifically about Loving v Virginia. My question directly was:

"Should that have been put to a majority vote, yes or no?"

and your answer was:

Yes, I do believe that these issues should be put to a majority vote.

Which means you believe that Civil Rights should be a popularity contest based on how much "the folks" like ya or not. Blacks voting? Not until enough of the white folks think they should. Chicks voting? Not until enough of the menfolk think they should.

I don't see any inconsistency, if a majority of the voters wanted to ban interracial marriage, then that should be the law of that state, remember we are talking theory here, I don't think such a vote would ever be taken.

How about if a state voted that only people paying income tax to the state could vote? They are the ones funding the state's coffers, why shouldn't they be the ones deciding how the money is spent?

We are talking about freedom here, in theory. Why should the majority have to adopt a minority view of any issue? Isn't that why the founders left England?

You think freedom should include the freedom to take away someone else's freedom to marry solely on the basis of their skin color?

LOLOL. Best post of the week.

Legal marriage is nothing more, or less, than government intrusion into the bedroom of consenting adults. Why would anyone support that at all?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The notion that because governments don't work perfectly to protect your rights, that it should not be the role of government to try to protect your rights is foolish.

The notion that you should trust other people to protect your rights if they conflict with their desires is even more absurd.

Speak English.

Do you think the portions of the Constitution that deal with the government's role in protecting your rights should simply be removed,

because the government has no business in that regard?

Please, be specific now, how does the Constitution, which says "Congress shall make no law" stop the government from making laws?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have even less understanding of the term individual rights than you do of the term straw man.

This should be interesting. The guy that insists that I said something I did not say is telling me I don't understand something. Tell me, what did I post that displayed an ignorance of either concept?

Can a majority take away your individual right to vote? Yes or no?

Hmm, can the majority tell an individual felon he has no right to vote. Do you want my gut answer, or one based on reality?

 

[FA_Q2]

Like I said, I understand that people that work in government are not perfect, and that, as a result, there will be mistakes. What I want is a government that, when people makes mistakes, admits it, and deals with it appropriately. If a police officer gets a bit overzealous the system should step up and protect the public, not the cop. Can you honestly tell me that is the way it works?

The government, first and foremost, protects itself from the prying eyes of the public.

I honestly can’t say that is how it works and have to agree that the government, first and foremost, does indeed protect itself. I simply do not see that such a fact excludes the possibility that government also protects our rights.

Hence my use of the qualifier consistently. It might not have been the best word to use, but I wanted to point out that governments, generally, see more of a need to ignore rights than defend them. We should always remember that, and refuse to give the government enough power to be able to get away with ignoring rights, and we should never accept any government that can read the words "Congress shall make no law" as a license to make laws.
I stated that because I believe it.

Less than ten years after the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts which made it illegal to criticize the government.

Governments do not protect rights. Occasionally they pay lip service to the concept, and sometimes accidently protect a specific individual, but they are much more interested in protecting power.

And again I think I have to agree. It seems that our views are not all that far off.

Lets try looking at this another way then:
What do you think is the purpose of governments then? Why do we even have one? Would we be better off without a government at all? I have seen places like this. Afghanistan is one such place where virtually no ‘formal’ government exists and as a function of that the people enjoy almost no rights at all. A government in that area like our own would indeed protect rights. There would be rights that were taken unjustly, cases of the government overstepping excreta BUT there would be many many people that would have far more rights because there would be an active government protecting those rights. I believe that it is folly to think that if there were a complete lack or government in America that we would enjoy a greater variety of rights. I believe that the exact opposite would be true and that other places have demonstrated this fact very well. IF that is the case, then it would follow that governments protected those rights.

If we have more rights with government then there are simply no other options: government provides rights with some protections. The only other possibility is that you believe that a lack of a government would lead to a greater degree of freedom. Is that the case here?

Agree again. The problem, as I see it, is that government does not tend to work twords perfection but rather works to the opposite.

Always have and always will. Which is why people need to be involved, informed, and keep the power themselves.

Well, this is extremely important and true. It is sad that most people are clamoring over themselves to cede that power.

Government only protects rights when it is small and too weak to take them itself. After we allow it to become monolithic, it takes those rights unto itself and away from the people.

It should be.

So glad we agree on that much.

By the way, thanks for making me think about, and actually defend, my position.

That is what we are here for after all and I enjoy a good debate. It is a good topic even if most refuse to focus here.

 

[Derideo_Te]

This should be interesting. The guy that insists that I said something I did not say is telling me I don't understand something. Tell me, what did I post that displayed an ignorance of either concept?

Can a majority take away your individual right to vote? Yes or no?

Hmm, can the majority tell an individual felon he has no right to vote. Do you want my gut answer, or one based on reality?

Your inability to provide a yes or no answer indicates that you do not understand individual rights. Thank you for tacitly conceding the point. Have a nice day.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Like I said, I understand that people that work in government are not perfect, and that, as a result, there will be mistakes. What I want is a government that, when people makes mistakes, admits it, and deals with it appropriately. If a police officer gets a bit overzealous the system should step up and protect the public, not the cop. Can you honestly tell me that is the way it works?

The government, first and foremost, protects itself from the prying eyes of the public.

I honestly can’t say that is how it works and have to agree that the government, first and foremost, does indeed protect itself. I simply do not see that such a fact excludes the possibility that government also protects our rights.

Hence my use of the qualifier consistently. It might not have been the best word to use, but I wanted to point out that governments, generally, see more of a need to ignore rights than defend them. We should always remember that, and refuse to give the government enough power to be able to get away with ignoring rights, and we should never accept any government that can read the words "Congress shall make no law" as a license to make laws.
I stated that because I believe it.

Less than ten years after the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts which made it illegal to criticize the government.

Governments do not protect rights. Occasionally they pay lip service to the concept, and sometimes accidently protect a specific individual, but they are much more interested in protecting power.

And again I think I have to agree. It seems that our views are not all that far off.

Lets try looking at this another way then:
What do you think is the purpose of governments then? Why do we even have one? Would we be better off without a government at all? I have seen places like this. Afghanistan is one such place where virtually no ‘formal’ government exists and as a function of that the people enjoy almost no rights at all. A government in that area like our own would indeed protect rights. There would be rights that were taken unjustly, cases of the government overstepping excreta BUT there would be many many people that would have far more rights because there would be an active government protecting those rights. I believe that it is folly to think that if there were a complete lack or government in America that we would enjoy a greater variety of rights. I believe that the exact opposite would be true and that other places have demonstrated this fact very well. IF that is the case, then it would follow that governments protected those rights.

If we have more rights with government then there are simply no other options: government provides rights with some protections. The only other possibility is that you believe that a lack of a government would lead to a greater degree of freedom. Is that the case here?

Well, this is extremely important and true. It is sad that most people are clamoring over themselves to cede that power.

Government only protects rights when it is small and too weak to take them itself. After we allow it to become monolithic, it takes those rights unto itself and away from the people.

It should be.

So glad we agree on that much.

By the way, thanks for making me think about, and actually defend, my position.

That is what we are here for after all and I enjoy a good debate. It is a good topic even if most refuse to focus here.

I tend to agree with Jefferson, Governments are instituted to protect rights, and they gain their powers from the consent of the governed. I am beginning to wonder if that is the only way to do that though, because governments tend to worry more about power than they do rights. We really need to find another system that actually protects rights, and then build a government around it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can a majority take away your individual right to vote? Yes or no?

Hmm, can the majority tell an individual felon he has no right to vote. Do you want my gut answer, or one based on reality?

Your inability to provide a yes or no answer indicates that you do not understand individual rights. Thank you for tacitly conceding the point. Have a nice day.

Fact: The majority do tell individuals they cannot vote. This is based on all sorts of things, including where they live, were they were born, and their own individual actions.

Another fact: Voting is an outgrowth of government, not a natural right. Therefore, I do not consider it an individual right.

Reality, you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. If you did you would not use voting to make your point. You cannot vote in the United States unless you are a citizen. You can, however, live without giving the government the power to kill you even if you are not a citizen.

Come back when you educate yourself.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Hmm, can the majority tell an individual felon he has no right to vote. Do you want my gut answer, or one based on reality?

Your inability to provide a yes or no answer indicates that you do not understand individual rights. Thank you for tacitly conceding the point. Have a nice day.

Fact: The majority do tell individuals they cannot vote. This is based on all sorts of things, including where they live, were they were born, and their own individual actions.

Another fact: Voting is an outgrowth of government, not a natural right. Therefore, I do not consider it an individual right.

Reality, you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. If you did you would not use voting to make your point. You cannot vote in the United States unless you are a citizen. You can, however, live without giving the government the power to kill you even if you are not a citizen.

Come back when you educate yourself.

Ironic!



Thank you for disqualifying yourself as a serious poster. Your future posts will be treated accordingly. Have a nice day.

 

[FA_Q2]

I tend to agree with Jefferson, Governments are instituted to protect rights, and they gain their powers from the consent of the governed.

Now that’s something I can get behind also. The sole purpose of government IMHO is the protection of rights.

I am beginning to wonder if that is the only way to do that though, because governments tend to worry more about power than they do rights. We really need to find another system that actually protects rights, and then build a government around it.

That is an interesting idea and deserving of its own thread if you can come up with something. I am not sure if that is possible though. Communism actually tries this but fails utterly in its execution. Anything else would be a government essentially. Really, what we have in this country would be perfect for this idea IF people actually cared and stayed engaged with their own government and the cared for their own rights. We run into the same fundamental problem that communism ran into: human nature. It is in human nature to cede rights to the government so that the government can do shit for you. That really is the bottom line. While a constitutional republic is the best we have so far, I am not sure that anything is ever going to be able to overcome the problem of basic human nature.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This should be interesting. The guy that insists that I said something I did not say is telling me I don't understand something. Tell me, what did I post that displayed an ignorance of either concept?

Can a majority take away your individual right to vote? Yes or no?

Hmm, can the majority tell an individual felon he has no right to vote. Do you want my gut answer, or one based on reality?

Hmmm, you once said rights cannot be limited, so, I guess your own wrong answer to your own question would be 'no'.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't see any inconsistency, if a majority of the voters wanted to ban interracial marriage, then that should be the law of that state, remember we are talking theory here, I don't think such a vote would ever be taken.

How about if a state voted that only people paying income tax to the state could vote? They are the ones funding the state's coffers, why shouldn't they be the ones deciding how the money is spent?

We are talking about freedom here, in theory. Why should the majority have to adopt a minority view of any issue? Isn't that why the founders left England?

You think freedom should include the freedom to take away someone else's freedom to marry solely on the basis of their skin color?

LOLOL. Best post of the week.

Legal marriage is nothing more, or less, than government intrusion into the bedroom of consenting adults. Why would anyone support that at all?

Nonsense.

Marriage is contract law, as written by the states and administered by state courts. The 14th Amendment requires all citizens have access to state laws, including marriage law, absent a compelling reason predicated on fact.

Many on the right seem to incorrectly perceive marriage as an independent entity misappropriated by the state, when in fact contractual marriage law is a creation of the state, and is indeed a contract between and among the state and the couple entering into the marriage partnership.

Religious marriage as conceived and administered by private religious organizations is not part of the issue, as equal protection jurisprudence applies only to lawmaking bodies.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't see any inconsistency, if a majority of the voters wanted to ban interracial marriage, then that should be the law of that state, remember we are talking theory here, I don't think such a vote would ever be taken.

How about if a state voted that only people paying income tax to the state could vote? They are the ones funding the state's coffers, why shouldn't they be the ones deciding how the money is spent?

We are talking about freedom here, in theory. Why should the majority have to adopt a minority view of any issue? Isn't that why the founders left England?

are you saying that the USA is not based on majority rule? does a majority elect the president? does a majority decide on local bond issues? can a majority change the constitution?

the problem that some of you libs have is that you don't like the majority view of some issues---------to that I say Tough Shit, if you don't like the way we choose to live, LEAVE.

Ah, now I see the problem. You seem to think that America is a democracy. Let me let you in on a little secret: we are not. America is a constitutional republic. IOW, we do not allow the majority to oppress the minority. That is a form of tyranny like any other form.

Correct.

One does not forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence; and one’s civil liberties are not subject to majority rule.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can a majority take away your individual right to vote? Yes or no?

Hmm, can the majority tell an individual felon he has no right to vote. Do you want my gut answer, or one based on reality?

Hmmm, you once said rights cannot be limited, so, I guess your own wrong answer to your own question would be 'no'.

As I have pointed out to you, more than once, there is a difference between rights and entitlements. Voting is an entitlement, not a right.