"Health is a right"

[RightyTighty]

The government the Founders founded granted you your rights. This isn't a difficult thing to understand. The reason why they could take away your right to drink (and give it back again later) is because - wait for it, they have the ability ti decide what is and isn't a - right.

And all rights have limitations BTW. Also not a hard thing to understand in a nation that can take your "right" to breath.

What nonsense. The CONSTITUTION upon which the gov't was founded SPECIFIES our rights, not the freakin' gov't. It isn't difficult thing to understand, but I'll spell it out in simple terms: THE US GOV'T CANNOT GRANT RIGHTS. ANY RIGHTS. IT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT BECAUSE THAT POWER IS NOT GRANTED TO THE US GOV'T UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. How much clearer can I be?

Let me see if I can help you get the horse before the cart. The Constitution, once ratified, established the nation, the state. The state then wrote the Bill of Rights (12 amendments) and when, two and a half years later ten of those were also ratified, the government had then established your rights, the rights you refer to when you say I have a right to ______. Since the state can and does modify those rights it's pretty damn obvious where your rights come from, the state.

Case in point - prohibition. They took a right away and then granted it back. The government in action.

Not sure I would classify getting wasted is a right, basically it was a product determined to be unhealthy and unwise to allow it's use. Just because people can take some action doesn't automatically mean they have a right to do it, it only means the gov't at whatever level hasn't yet decided whether it's a safe and healthy thing to allow. In any case it was a misuse of power that got rectified. And modifying a right to limit it's scope is not the same thing as granting a right, nor does ratifying the BoR for mean that the gov't granted those rights because they already existed. All they did was codify them.

There is a natural right to a firearm, a fair and speedy trial? Ah, no. But you have those rights here because liberals granted them to you. Next time think a bit don't just repeat what you've been told and can't understand.

They did that right after they created gravity and puppy dogs.

Those, unlike the government that granted you your rights, existed long before the Bill of Rights. Too bad for they didn't call it the Bill of what never needed to be said because Nature granted you the right to not have soldiers quartered in your home.

 

[Iceweasel]

What nonsense. The CONSTITUTION upon which the gov't was founded SPECIFIES our rights, not the freakin' gov't. It isn't difficult thing to understand, but I'll spell it out in simple terms: THE US GOV'T CANNOT GRANT RIGHTS. ANY RIGHTS. IT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT BECAUSE THAT POWER IS NOT GRANTED TO THE US GOV'T UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. How much clearer can I be?

Let me see if I can help you get the horse before the cart. The Constitution, once ratified, established the nation, the state. The state then wrote the Bill of Rights (12 amendments) and when, two and a half years later ten of those were also ratified, the government had then established your rights, the rights you refer to when you say I have a right to ______. Since the state can and does modify those rights it's pretty damn obvious where your rights come from, the state.

Case in point - prohibition. They took a right away and then granted it back. The government in action.

Not sure I would classify getting wasted is a right, basically it was a product determined to be unhealthy and unwise to allow it's use. Just because people can take some action doesn't automatically mean they have a right to do it, it only means the gov't at whatever level hasn't yet decided whether it's a safe and healthy thing to allow. In any case it was a misuse of power that got rectified. And modifying a right to limit it's scope is not the same thing as granting a right, nor does ratifying the BoR for mean that the gov't granted those rights because they already existed. All they did was codify them.

There is a natural right to a firearm, a fair and speedy trial? Ah, no. But you have those rights here because liberals granted them to you. Next time think a bit don't just repeat what you've been told and can't understand.

They did that right after they created gravity and puppy dogs.

Those, unlike the government that granted you your rights, existed long before the Bill of Rights. Too bad for they didn't call it the Bill of what never needed to be said because Nature granted you the right to not have soldiers quartered in your home.

Well, we have your opinion and then we have facts...

Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute
The Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power. For example, what the Founders saw as the natural right of individuals to speak and worship freely was protected by the First Amendment’s prohibitions on Congress from making laws establishing a religion or abridging freedom of speech. For another example, the natural right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion in one’s home was safeguarded by the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements.

 

[regent]

Europe, the America colonies, and a few other parts of the world were going through The Age of Enlightenment at this time; the concept that natural rights were from nature. The age was also the beginning of an impact on religion, science, governments and brought forth our Declaration, our Constitution and the reason America is America.

 

[RightyTighty]

Let me see if I can help you get the horse before the cart. The Constitution, once ratified, established the nation, the state. The state then wrote the Bill of Rights (12 amendments) and when, two and a half years later ten of those were also ratified, the government had then established your rights, the rights you refer to when you say I have a right to ______. Since the state can and does modify those rights it's pretty damn obvious where your rights come from, the state.

Case in point - prohibition. They took a right away and then granted it back. The government in action.

Not sure I would classify getting wasted is a right, basically it was a product determined to be unhealthy and unwise to allow it's use. Just because people can take some action doesn't automatically mean they have a right to do it, it only means the gov't at whatever level hasn't yet decided whether it's a safe and healthy thing to allow. In any case it was a misuse of power that got rectified. And modifying a right to limit it's scope is not the same thing as granting a right, nor does ratifying the BoR for mean that the gov't granted those rights because they already existed. All they did was codify them.

There is a natural right to a firearm, a fair and speedy trial? Ah, no. But you have those rights here because liberals granted them to you. Next time think a bit don't just repeat what you've been told and can't understand.

They did that right after they created gravity and puppy dogs.

Those, unlike the government that granted you your rights, existed long before the Bill of Rights. Too bad for they didn't call it the Bill of what never needed to be said because Nature granted you the right to not have soldiers quartered in your home.

Well, we have your opinion and then we have facts...

Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute
The Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power. For example, what the Founders saw as the natural right of individuals to speak and worship freely was protected by the First Amendment’s prohibitions on Congress from making laws establishing a religion or abridging freedom of speech. For another example, the natural right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion in one’s home was safeguarded by the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements.

Natural rights is an utterly stupid concept. Nature doesn't even acknowledge a right for any life to exist here. When Nature says, herself, you have a right to a fair and speedy trial then I'lll consider Natural rights, a concept created by, as usual, the minds of men.

 

[dblack]

Nobody has answered yet. Who decided what our 'inalienable rights' are?

Your question is based in the incorrect assumption that inalienable rights are 'decided'. It sounds like you just don't understand what the term means, or perhaps reject it because it doesn't fit your politics. In any case, our 'inalienable rights', are simple those rights which are inalienable. An "inalienable" freedom is an intrinsic part of human existence. The freedom to think for yourself, for example, is an inalienable right. You can't take that right away from a person.

Apparently you CAN take inalienable rights away from people, because,

why else would the authors of the D of I continue by saying that governments are formed to secure those rights?

That's the subtlety you can't quite grasp. Inalienable rights can be violated, but that can't taken away. They are innate to free will. As long as you are conscious, you have all of your inalienable rights at your disposal. The most important point here, to the founders, was that this basic, innate state of freedom isn't granted to people by the king, nor government. It's what we have by default unless someone comes along and interferes. Of course, someone will almost certainly, eventually, come along and interfere, which is why we have government.

 

[Redfish]

What kind of right is it?

The kind of a right John McCain has to health care for his brain tumor, only, common folk won't have as much of a right to such great health care as he.

good point, and one that most on the left fail to understand. The elites have the "right" to medical care at virtually no cost to them.

Bullshit. Nobody has a right to health care. It is a service which is supposed to be paid for by somebody. The fact that the gov't has authorized programs and policies to help people pay for health care does not mean it is a right.

you missed my point, the elites have created a "right" the only applies to them.

I am disputing your point, the elites did NOT create a right that only applies to them. No such right exists, with respect to health care or anything else.

playing word games. No, they did not "create a right", they passed legislation the gives them access to a different, much cheaper plan than is available to the rest of us.

 

[Redfish]

I think I'll quit working and demand my rights to food, housing, healthcare. Is sex on the list yet or should I hold out?

Would it make you feel better if people said not that it's a right (it isn't), it's just a really really really good and decent thing for a society to do? It's also very cost-effective. A well nation is a productive and even a secure nation. Sick people don't work or fight well.

but that begs the real question-----------who pays for it?

Everyone who can. Pretty simple. It sure works for the Armed Services. They are always well-funded.

who decides "who can" ? Do we disband the military in order to give everyone free medical care? There is only so much govt income and we annually overspend and are currently 20 trillion in debt because of it.

We already have the money, already spend the money, we just don't get a good bang for our buck. Works like this, when you see the doc you hand him your national healthcare card and we'll send him a check. Simple and don't be clogging up the ER unless it's an emergency. Common fucking sense.

that the medical industry overcharges is the real problem. ACA did nothing to address that and as long as medical industry lobbyists bribe congressmen, nothing will be done about it. single payer would do nothing but make that problem worse.

 

[Redfish]

Nobody has answered yet. Who decided what our 'inalienable rights' are?

Your question is based in the incorrect assumption that inalienable rights are 'decided'. It sounds like you just don't understand what the term means, or perhaps reject it because it doesn't fit your politics. In any case, our 'inalienable rights', are simple those rights which are inalienable. An "inalienable" freedom is an intrinsic part of human existence. The freedom to think for yourself, for example, is an inalienable right. You can't take that right away from a person.

Apparently you CAN take inalienable rights away from people, because,

why else would the authors of the D of I continue by saying that governments are formed to secure those rights?

Yes, inalienable rights can be taken away. They are taken away today in North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran (just to name 3). The constitution protects us from losing those rights, that's the point, fool.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nobody has answered yet. Who decided what our 'inalienable rights' are?

Your question is based in the incorrect assumption that inalienable rights are 'decided'. It sounds like you just don't understand what the term means, or perhaps reject it because it doesn't fit your politics. In any case, our 'inalienable rights', are simple those rights which are inalienable. An "inalienable" freedom is an intrinsic part of human existence. The freedom to think for yourself, for example, is an inalienable right. You can't take that right away from a person.

Apparently you CAN take inalienable rights away from people, because,

why else would the authors of the D of I continue by saying that governments are formed to secure those rights?

Yes, inalienable rights can be taken away. They are taken away today in North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran (just to name 3). The constitution protects us from losing those rights, that's the point, fool.

So you agree, it's the government that defines and protects your rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nobody has answered yet. Who decided what our 'inalienable rights' are?

Your question is based in the incorrect assumption that inalienable rights are 'decided'. It sounds like you just don't understand what the term means, or perhaps reject it because it doesn't fit your politics. In any case, our 'inalienable rights', are simple those rights which are inalienable. An "inalienable" freedom is an intrinsic part of human existence. The freedom to think for yourself, for example, is an inalienable right. You can't take that right away from a person.

Apparently you CAN take inalienable rights away from people, because,

why else would the authors of the D of I continue by saying that governments are formed to secure those rights?

Yes, inalienable rights can be taken away. They are taken away today in North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran (just to name 3). The constitution protects us from losing those rights, that's the point, fool.

The constitution was amended to give women the right to vote.

1. Was that an 'inalienable right' that already existed, that the government finally chose to secure, or,

2. Was that right invented by the government?

 

[Redfish]

Nobody has answered yet. Who decided what our 'inalienable rights' are?

Your question is based in the incorrect assumption that inalienable rights are 'decided'. It sounds like you just don't understand what the term means, or perhaps reject it because it doesn't fit your politics. In any case, our 'inalienable rights', are simple those rights which are inalienable. An "inalienable" freedom is an intrinsic part of human existence. The freedom to think for yourself, for example, is an inalienable right. You can't take that right away from a person.

Apparently you CAN take inalienable rights away from people, because,

why else would the authors of the D of I continue by saying that governments are formed to secure those rights?

Yes, inalienable rights can be taken away. They are taken away today in North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran (just to name 3). The constitution protects us from losing those rights, that's the point, fool.

So you agree, it's the government that defines and protects your rights.

NO, protects, but does not define. The constitution makes that clear. Basic human rights do not come from governments.

 

[Redfish]

Nobody has answered yet. Who decided what our 'inalienable rights' are?

Your question is based in the incorrect assumption that inalienable rights are 'decided'. It sounds like you just don't understand what the term means, or perhaps reject it because it doesn't fit your politics. In any case, our 'inalienable rights', are simple those rights which are inalienable. An "inalienable" freedom is an intrinsic part of human existence. The freedom to think for yourself, for example, is an inalienable right. You can't take that right away from a person.

Apparently you CAN take inalienable rights away from people, because,

why else would the authors of the D of I continue by saying that governments are formed to secure those rights?

Yes, inalienable rights can be taken away. They are taken away today in North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran (just to name 3). The constitution protects us from losing those rights, that's the point, fool.

The constitution was amended to give women the right to vote.

1. Was that an 'inalienable right' that already existed, that the government finally chose to secure, or,

2. Was that right invented by the government?

Voting is not a basic human right. You are confused, as usual.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nobody has answered yet. Who decided what our 'inalienable rights' are?

Your question is based in the incorrect assumption that inalienable rights are 'decided'. It sounds like you just don't understand what the term means, or perhaps reject it because it doesn't fit your politics. In any case, our 'inalienable rights', are simple those rights which are inalienable. An "inalienable" freedom is an intrinsic part of human existence. The freedom to think for yourself, for example, is an inalienable right. You can't take that right away from a person.

Apparently you CAN take inalienable rights away from people, because,

why else would the authors of the D of I continue by saying that governments are formed to secure those rights?

Yes, inalienable rights can be taken away. They are taken away today in North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran (just to name 3). The constitution protects us from losing those rights, that's the point, fool.

So you agree, it's the government that defines and protects your rights.

NO, protects, but does not define. The constitution makes that clear. Basic human rights do not come from governments.

Then who decided what is or isn't a basic human right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nobody has answered yet. Who decided what our 'inalienable rights' are?

Your question is based in the incorrect assumption that inalienable rights are 'decided'. It sounds like you just don't understand what the term means, or perhaps reject it because it doesn't fit your politics. In any case, our 'inalienable rights', are simple those rights which are inalienable. An "inalienable" freedom is an intrinsic part of human existence. The freedom to think for yourself, for example, is an inalienable right. You can't take that right away from a person.

Apparently you CAN take inalienable rights away from people, because,

why else would the authors of the D of I continue by saying that governments are formed to secure those rights?

Yes, inalienable rights can be taken away. They are taken away today in North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran (just to name 3). The constitution protects us from losing those rights, that's the point, fool.

The constitution was amended to give women the right to vote.

1. Was that an 'inalienable right' that already existed, that the government finally chose to secure, or,

2. Was that right invented by the government?

Voting is not a basic human right. You are confused, as usual.

How do you know?

btw, you're now conceding that, yes, rights CAN come from the government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nobody has answered yet. Who decided what our 'inalienable rights' are?

Your question is based in the incorrect assumption that inalienable rights are 'decided'. It sounds like you just don't understand what the term means, or perhaps reject it because it doesn't fit your politics. In any case, our 'inalienable rights', are simple those rights which are inalienable. An "inalienable" freedom is an intrinsic part of human existence. The freedom to think for yourself, for example, is an inalienable right. You can't take that right away from a person.

Apparently you CAN take inalienable rights away from people, because,

why else would the authors of the D of I continue by saying that governments are formed to secure those rights?

Yes, inalienable rights can be taken away. They are taken away today in North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran (just to name 3). The constitution protects us from losing those rights, that's the point, fool.

The constitution was amended to give women the right to vote.

1. Was that an 'inalienable right' that already existed, that the government finally chose to secure, or,

2. Was that right invented by the government?

Voting is not a basic human right. You are confused, as usual.

List the basic human rights then, in detail, and then cite the authority that verifies your list AS basic human rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nobody has answered yet. Who decided what our 'inalienable rights' are?

Your question is based in the incorrect assumption that inalienable rights are 'decided'. It sounds like you just don't understand what the term means, or perhaps reject it because it doesn't fit your politics. In any case, our 'inalienable rights', are simple those rights which are inalienable. An "inalienable" freedom is an intrinsic part of human existence. The freedom to think for yourself, for example, is an inalienable right. You can't take that right away from a person.

Apparently you CAN take inalienable rights away from people, because,

why else would the authors of the D of I continue by saying that governments are formed to secure those rights?

Yes, inalienable rights can be taken away. They are taken away today in North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran (just to name 3). The constitution protects us from losing those rights, that's the point, fool.

So you agree, it's the government that defines and protects your rights.

NO, protects, but does not define. The constitution makes that clear. Basic human rights do not come from governments.

Then how and why do we have the right to vote if the right to vote is not a basic human right, according to you?

The government DEFINED voting as a right and then proceeded to secure that right by law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nobody has answered yet. Who decided what our 'inalienable rights' are?

Your question is based in the incorrect assumption that inalienable rights are 'decided'. It sounds like you just don't understand what the term means, or perhaps reject it because it doesn't fit your politics. In any case, our 'inalienable rights', are simple those rights which are inalienable. An "inalienable" freedom is an intrinsic part of human existence. The freedom to think for yourself, for example, is an inalienable right. You can't take that right away from a person.

Apparently you CAN take inalienable rights away from people, because,

why else would the authors of the D of I continue by saying that governments are formed to secure those rights?

Yes, inalienable rights can be taken away. They are taken away today in North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran (just to name 3). The constitution protects us from losing those rights, that's the point, fool.

The constitution was amended to give women the right to vote.

1. Was that an 'inalienable right' that already existed, that the government finally chose to secure, or,

2. Was that right invented by the government?

Voting is not a basic human right. You are confused, as usual.

Voting IS a constitutional right.

 

[dblack]

Our inalienable rights are infinite. They are a natural by-product of free will. Government doesn't grant them to us, it merely decides which of those inalienable rights to respect, and which to violate. Constructs liking voting, or the promise of a jury trial, aren't inalienable rights. They are mechanisms put in place to protect our inalienable rights.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'basic human rights'. It sounds like, for you, it just means stuff government should provide, is that correct?

 

[Redfish]

Your question is based in the incorrect assumption that inalienable rights are 'decided'. It sounds like you just don't understand what the term means, or perhaps reject it because it doesn't fit your politics. In any case, our 'inalienable rights', are simple those rights which are inalienable. An "inalienable" freedom is an intrinsic part of human existence. The freedom to think for yourself, for example, is an inalienable right. You can't take that right away from a person.

Apparently you CAN take inalienable rights away from people, because,

why else would the authors of the D of I continue by saying that governments are formed to secure those rights?

Yes, inalienable rights can be taken away. They are taken away today in North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran (just to name 3). The constitution protects us from losing those rights, that's the point, fool.

So you agree, it's the government that defines and protects your rights.

NO, protects, but does not define. The constitution makes that clear. Basic human rights do not come from governments.

Then how and why do we have the right to vote if the right to vote is not a basic human right, according to you?

The government DEFINED voting as a right and then proceeded to secure that right by law.

voting is a legal right based on our body of federal and state law. Life, liberty, and happiness cannot be legislated, they are basic human rights. They can be taken away, and are in many places today, but they remain inalienable.

I know that's a difficult thought process for liberals since you believe that everything comes from government, but the founders got it right and wrote it down.

 

[Redfish]

Your question is based in the incorrect assumption that inalienable rights are 'decided'. It sounds like you just don't understand what the term means, or perhaps reject it because it doesn't fit your politics. In any case, our 'inalienable rights', are simple those rights which are inalienable. An "inalienable" freedom is an intrinsic part of human existence. The freedom to think for yourself, for example, is an inalienable right. You can't take that right away from a person.

Apparently you CAN take inalienable rights away from people, because,

why else would the authors of the D of I continue by saying that governments are formed to secure those rights?

Yes, inalienable rights can be taken away. They are taken away today in North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran (just to name 3). The constitution protects us from losing those rights, that's the point, fool.

The constitution was amended to give women the right to vote.

1. Was that an 'inalienable right' that already existed, that the government finally chose to secure, or,

2. Was that right invented by the government?

Voting is not a basic human right. You are confused, as usual.

Voting IS a constitutional right.

you just don't get it. its kind of like talking physics to your cat.