How the Government protects your rights

[NYcarbineer]

So they need to have access EVERY American's information, without probable cause?

Well you could petition the Court to intervene on constitutional grounds to stop such actions,

but then you'd be depending on the government, which people like Windbag say is not necessary.

The government sucks at protecting itself, why should I trust it to protect me?

Cisco IP Phones Vulnerable - IEEE Spectrum

Why don't you explain to us, in detail and with specifics, how you would propose to overturn unconstitutional laws without a Supreme Court having the power to do so?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Even the primates have the most basic understanding of rights. But we'll put religion aside for the moment.

Let us examine the right of self defense. It is exercised in every form of life found on this planet. It does not require a government to give this life the right to defend itself. Some life will even use deadly means to defend its own life. The puffer fish will inflate into a ball of deadly poisonous spines that will kill most things that try to eat it.

Fun Fact

Pufferfish are generally believed to be the second most poisonous vertebrates in the world, after the golden poison frog. Certain internal organs, such as liver, and sometimes the skin, are highly toxic to most animals when eaten; nevertheless, the meat of some species is considered a delicacy in Japan (as 河豚, pronounced as fugu), Korea (as bok), and China (as 河豚 hétún) when prepared by chefs who know which part is safe to eat and in what quantity.

Tetraodontidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, back to the topic. Contrary to some quarters of Libertarian belief of Democrat government construct for the betterment of all, the puffer fish too has no government, imaginary or otherwise. From whence do they derive these rights you may ask?

Well, that answer is simple. They are what is termed, "Natural Rights".

Now, before the rest of you get too confused -- do not confuse the fact that in a game of survival, if you happen to be eaten, then your rights cease to exist, or that is it somehow proof that the rights never existed to begin with. Failure to ensure the rights you have does not negate that they exist, or that you should not attempt to exercise those rights in the face of real threats to those rights. Threats such as an overreaching government that illicitly meddles in the affairs of citizens for the nefarious purpose of gaining more power.

Are we clear now?

Yes. You want the right to defend yourself and you want to get rid of any governmental entity that would defend you.

Fine. No police, no criminal justice system, no military. But you can have any gun you want.

You're an idiot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Even the primates have the most basic understanding of rights.

Most primates are social animals, which means they have a primitive form of government that establishes the structure of their groups and provides a set of rules. They depend on their government for their survival.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Even the primates have the most basic understanding of rights.

Most primates are social animals, which means they have a primitive form of government that establishes the structure of their groups and provides a set of rules. They depend on their government for their survival.

Very good response. Im in shock lol

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well you could petition the Court to intervene on constitutional grounds to stop such actions,

but then you'd be depending on the government, which people like Windbag say is not necessary.

The government sucks at protecting itself, why should I trust it to protect me?

Cisco IP Phones Vulnerable - IEEE Spectrum

Why don't you explain to us, in detail and with specifics, how you would propose to overturn unconstitutional laws without a Supreme Court having the power to do so?

Why don't you explain, in detail, why the fuck you keep asking me that question.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Even the primates have the most basic understanding of rights.

Most primates are social animals, which means they have a primitive form of government that establishes the structure of their groups and provides a set of rules. They depend on their government for their survival.

That would mean that rights are not a purely human concept, and that you are wrong, wouldn't it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Even the primates have the most basic understanding of rights.

Most primates are social animals, which means they have a primitive form of government that establishes the structure of their groups and provides a set of rules. They depend on their government for their survival.

That would mean that rights are not a purely human concept, and that you are wrong, wouldn't it?

No. It would mean that government, and the dependence on government, predates the human species.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The government sucks at protecting itself, why should I trust it to protect me?

Cisco IP Phones Vulnerable - IEEE Spectrum

Why don't you explain to us, in detail and with specifics, how you would propose to overturn unconstitutional laws without a Supreme Court having the power to do so?

Why don't you explain, in detail, why the fuck you keep asking me that question.

Because you won't answer it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Most primates are social animals, which means they have a primitive form of government that establishes the structure of their groups and provides a set of rules. They depend on their government for their survival.

That would mean that rights are not a purely human concept, and that you are wrong, wouldn't it?

No. It would mean that government, and the dependence on government, predates the human species.

Just cannot admit when you are wrong, can you? That is not an admirable quality.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why don't you explain to us, in detail and with specifics, how you would propose to overturn unconstitutional laws without a Supreme Court having the power to do so?

Why don't you explain, in detail, why the fuck you keep asking me that question.

Because you won't answer it.

You have three options right now.

1. Keep asking me a question I won't answer.
2. Find someplace where I said that the Supreme Court that.
3. Admit you were wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why don't you explain, in detail, why the fuck you keep asking me that question.

Because you won't answer it.

You have three options right now.

1. Keep asking me a question I won't answer.
2. Find someplace where I said that the Supreme Court that.
3. Admit you were wrong.

It's a question. If you wish to state that my question contains an incorrect premise, then identify the incorrect premise, and explain in detail why it is wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That would mean that rights are not a purely human concept, and that you are wrong, wouldn't it?

No. It would mean that government, and the dependence on government, predates the human species.

Just cannot admit when you are wrong, can you? That is not an admirable quality.

I can when I'm proven wrong. Someone saying you're wrong!!!!! is not proof.

If you want to argue that since I correctly demonstrated that many lower species of animals depend on forms of government, as do humans,

if you are acknowledging that fact, and then want to show how that somehow proves there are natural rights, then by all means go ahead.

 

[bucs90]

Yep. All living things will be "ruled" or governed by something.

Just look at the food chain. Certain animals wont go out at night because there are other animals that will eat them. They are "governed", in a way. The lead ape in a primate community is in charge of that group. In the absence of a formal government, a drug cartel, or religious authority, then living creatures will have their lives governed by the rules of the wild- Survival and Power to the Fittest!

"Statism" has some wild ideas about how the world should work. He is just wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because you won't answer it.

You have three options right now.

1. Keep asking me a question I won't answer.
2. Find someplace where I said that the Supreme Court that.
3. Admit you were wrong.

It's a question. If you wish to state that my question contains an incorrect premise, then identify the incorrect premise, and explain in detail why it is wrong.

Newsflash, moron, when I asked you why you keep asking me that question I was pointing out that you were making an assumption, If you had a brain that you actually used you would heave got the message.

 

[Darkwind]

Even the primates have the most basic understanding of rights.

Most primates are social animals, which means they have a primitive form of government that establishes the structure of their groups and provides a set of rules. They depend on their government for their survival.

That would mean that rights are not a purely human concept, and that you are wrong, wouldn't it?

It would also mean that he failed to grasp the concept of what I meant by primates.

Since My example of 'Natural Rights' had nothing to do with the primates, I guess he must have failed to note the context of not discussing religion immediately following the reference.

However, you are correct. Even the primates (in this case, we are referring to actual primates, and not those who have nothing but the most basic of animal self-awareness) can grasp the concepts of Natural Rights. They even use them in accordance to their basic strictures, and do not rely upon their primitive form of social constructs.

 

[Darkwind]

Yep. All living things will be "ruled" or governed by something.

Just look at the food chain. Certain animals wont go out at night because there are other animals that will eat them. They are "governed", in a way. The lead ape in a primate community is in charge of that group. In the absence of a formal government, a drug cartel, or religious authority, then living creatures will have their lives governed by the rules of the wild- Survival and Power to the Fittest!

"Statism" has some wild ideas about how the world should work. He is just wrong.

Please tell Me you are brighter than that.

Government and governed in the manner you are using them are two wholly separate concepts. Yet, you do manage to agree that Rights are natural and therefore, beyond the simple parameters you seem to want to pigeonhole them into.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You have three options right now.

1. Keep asking me a question I won't answer.
2. Find someplace where I said that the Supreme Court that.
3. Admit you were wrong.

It's a question. If you wish to state that my question contains an incorrect premise, then identify the incorrect premise, and explain in detail why it is wrong.

Newsflash, moron, when I asked you why you keep asking me that question I was pointing out that you were making an assumption, If you had a brain that you actually used you would heave got the message.

You are so scared of simply stating your position it's fucking hilarious.

Tell me what wrong assumption I made. Be specific.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yep. All living things will be "ruled" or governed by something.

Just look at the food chain. Certain animals wont go out at night because there are other animals that will eat them. They are "governed", in a way. The lead ape in a primate community is in charge of that group. In the absence of a formal government, a drug cartel, or religious authority, then living creatures will have their lives governed by the rules of the wild- Survival and Power to the Fittest!

"Statism" has some wild ideas about how the world should work. He is just wrong.

The Founders had any number of opportunities to err on the side of small decentralized government. They could have opted to let the states each go their own way. They could have stuck with the Articles of Confederation, or something of that sort of weak central government.

They didn't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the Government doesn't protect our rights, why do we have a huge military/defense department, composed of thousands of government employees,

with the primary purpose of protecting us?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's a question. If you wish to state that my question contains an incorrect premise, then identify the incorrect premise, and explain in detail why it is wrong.

Newsflash, moron, when I asked you why you keep asking me that question I was pointing out that you were making an assumption, If you had a brain that you actually used you would heave got the message.

You are so scared of simply stating your position it's fucking hilarious.

Tell me what wrong assumption I made. Be specific.

I remember arguing with you about why the Supreme Court was wrong about Obamacare.

I remember arguing with you about why they were right about Citizen's united.

I even remember explaining what, exactly, judicial activism is the the cretins who think that judicial review is legislating from the bench.

Yet, for some obscure reason, you keep asking me how an unconstitutional law could be struck down if the courts don't have the power to review them.

Guess what, it still doesn't make any sense.

I know for a fact I never argued that the Supreme Court cannot say a law is unconstitutional.

Just admit you were wrong.