"Rights are special privileges the government gives you."

[NYcarbineer]

I suppose you could argue that the right to an abortion predates most forms of government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So with no government we'd still hav= the right to vote?

Obviously.
Not sure why you're so set on on the idea that the government grants rights when you freely admit that there is no text to that effect in the constitution and/or federal law.

what would you vote for without a government?

Nothing. Wouldn't that be great?

And who would you turn to if you came home one day and all the possessions you had in your house were gone?

 

[Kosh]

I suppose you could argue that the right to an abortion predates most forms of government.

And once again the far left proves that they do not understand what "rights" truely are..

 

[bripat9643]

So with no government we'd still hav= the right to vote?

Obviously.
Not sure why you're so set on on the idea that the government grants rights when you freely admit that there is no text to that effect in the constitution and/or federal law.

what would you vote for without a government?

Nothing. Wouldn't that be great?

And who would you turn to if you came home one day and all the possessions you had in your house were gone?

I'd have insurance that provided security from theft. You don't actually believe the police will catch the culprit and return your possessions, do you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So with no government we'd still hav= the right to vote?

Obviously.
Not sure why you're so set on on the idea that the government grants rights when you freely admit that there is no text to that effect in the constitution and/or federal law.

what would you vote for without a government?

Nothing. Wouldn't that be great?

And who would you turn to if you came home one day and all the possessions you had in your house were gone?

I'd have insurance that provided security from theft. You don't actually believe the police will catch the culprit and return your possessions, do you?

Actually they wouldn't be your possessions, since only within a system of laws, which is de facto a government, can you legally have possessions.

 

[bripat9643]

Obviously.
Not sure why you're so set on on the idea that the government grants rights when you freely admit that there is no text to that effect in the constitution and/or federal law.

what would you vote for without a government?

Nothing. Wouldn't that be great?

And who would you turn to if you came home one day and all the possessions you had in your house were gone?

I'd have insurance that provided security from theft. You don't actually believe the police will catch the culprit and return your possessions, do you?

Actually they wouldn't be your possessions, since only within a system of laws, which is de facto a government, can you legally have possessions.

Actually, yes they would be my possessions. Who says you can't have laws without government? Did the Iroquois have private property? Private property existed in the region of Mesopotamia for thousands of years before government ever came into existence.

 

[NYcarbineer]

what would you vote for without a government?

Nothing. Wouldn't that be great?

And who would you turn to if you came home one day and all the possessions you had in your house were gone?

I'd have insurance that provided security from theft. You don't actually believe the police will catch the culprit and return your possessions, do you?

Actually they wouldn't be your possessions, since only within a system of laws, which is de facto a government, can you legally have possessions.

Actually, yes they would be my possessions. Who says you can't have laws without government? Did the Iroquois have private property? Private property existed in the region of Mesopotamia for thousands of years before government ever came into existence.

The Iroquois had a government.

 

[bripat9643]

Nothing. Wouldn't that be great?

And who would you turn to if you came home one day and all the possessions you had in your house were gone?

I'd have insurance that provided security from theft. You don't actually believe the police will catch the culprit and return your possessions, do you?

Actually they wouldn't be your possessions, since only within a system of laws, which is de facto a government, can you legally have possessions.

Actually, yes they would be my possessions. Who says you can't have laws without government? Did the Iroquois have private property? Private property existed in the region of Mesopotamia for thousands of years before government ever came into existence.

The Iroquois had a government.

No, they really didn't. They had a council of elders who could advise the tribe on what to do, but they didn't have any formal government, and they certainly didn't have police to enforce laws.

 

[Darkwind]

do people in north korea have the right to vote?

Point? Oh, you have none.

the point is that rights are given by governments. we have a right to free speech. not everyone country has that. freedom of religion/press/assembly? that's not universal. right to bear arms? nope. equal protection? please.

so what's the problem again?

Incorrect.

Government does not 'give' rights. They only take them. A right taken is not a right lost. Only a right not exercised.

Rights are preserved ONLY by the extent in which the individual is willing to defend them from an oppressive government.

Which is why we have not allowed all of our rights to be taken from us here.

Vigilance and a willingness to go to the wall in defense of rights is what it takes to keep them.

That is why you and your ilk have failed to take things from us like our guns, and our speech (so far), and our right to free association (so far)....and a host of other liberties you all want to limit or remove in the name of all powerful 'government'.

 

[ogibillm]

would a man on an island by himself still have rights?

 

[ogibillm]

do people in north korea have the right to vote?

Point? Oh, you have none.

the point is that rights are given by governments. we have a right to free speech. not everyone country has that. freedom of religion/press/assembly? that's not universal. right to bear arms? nope. equal protection? please.

so what's the problem again?

Incorrect.

Government does not 'give' rights. They only take them. A right taken is not a right lost. Only a right not exercised.

Rights are preserved ONLY by the extent in which the individual is willing to defend them from an oppressive government.

Which is why we have not allowed all of our rights to be taken from us here.

Vigilance and a willingness to go to the wall in defense of rights is what it takes to keep them.

That is why you and your ilk have failed to take things from us like our guns, and our speech (so far), and our right to free association (so far)....and a host of other liberties you all want to limit or remove in the name of all powerful 'government'.

i guess i should have said that rights do not exist without government.

 

[AmericanFirst]

do people in north korea have the right to vote?

Point? Oh, you have none.

the point is that rights are given by governments. we have a right to free speech. not everyone country has that. freedom of religion/press/assembly? that's not universal. right to bear arms? nope. equal protection? please.

so what's the problem again?

Incorrect.

Government does not 'give' rights. They only take them. A right taken is not a right lost. Only a right not exercised.

Rights are preserved ONLY by the extent in which the individual is willing to defend them from an oppressive government.

Which is why we have not allowed all of our rights to be taken from us here.

Vigilance and a willingness to go to the wall in defense of rights is what it takes to keep them.

That is why you and your ilk have failed to take things from us like our guns, and our speech (so far), and our right to free association (so far)....and a host of other liberties you all want to limit or remove in the name of all powerful 'government'.

i guess i should have said that rights do not exist without government.

Wrong again. Idiot.

 

[bripat9643]

would a man on an island by himself still have rights?

Of course he would

 

[bripat9643]

do people in north korea have the right to vote?

Point? Oh, you have none.

the point is that rights are given by governments. we have a right to free speech. not everyone country has that. freedom of religion/press/assembly? that's not universal. right to bear arms? nope. equal protection? please.

so what's the problem again?

Incorrect.

Government does not 'give' rights. They only take them. A right taken is not a right lost. Only a right not exercised.

Rights are preserved ONLY by the extent in which the individual is willing to defend them from an oppressive government.

Which is why we have not allowed all of our rights to be taken from us here.

Vigilance and a willingness to go to the wall in defense of rights is what it takes to keep them.

That is why you and your ilk have failed to take things from us like our guns, and our speech (so far), and our right to free association (so far)....and a host of other liberties you all want to limit or remove in the name of all powerful 'government'.

i guess i should have said that rights do not exist without government.

Wrong again.

 

[ogibillm]

do people in north korea have the right to vote?

Point? Oh, you have none.

the point is that rights are given by governments. we have a right to free speech. not everyone country has that. freedom of religion/press/assembly? that's not universal. right to bear arms? nope. equal protection? please.

so what's the problem again?

Incorrect.

Government does not 'give' rights. They only take them. A right taken is not a right lost. Only a right not exercised.

Rights are preserved ONLY by the extent in which the individual is willing to defend them from an oppressive government.

Which is why we have not allowed all of our rights to be taken from us here.

Vigilance and a willingness to go to the wall in defense of rights is what it takes to keep them.

That is why you and your ilk have failed to take things from us like our guns, and our speech (so far), and our right to free association (so far)....and a host of other liberties you all want to limit or remove in the name of all powerful 'government'.

i guess i should have said that rights do not exist without government.

Wrong again.

what rights do you have without government?

 

[M14 Shooter]

would a man on an island by himself still have rights?

Obviously.
Not sure why you're so set on on the idea that the government grants rights when you freely admit that there is no text to that effect in the constitution and/or federal law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

do people in north korea have the right to vote?

Point? Oh, you have none.

the point is that rights are given by governments. we have a right to free speech. not everyone country has that. freedom of religion/press/assembly? that's not universal. right to bear arms? nope. equal protection? please.

so what's the problem again?

Incorrect.

Government does not 'give' rights. They only take them. A right taken is not a right lost. Only a right not exercised.

Rights are preserved ONLY by the extent in which the individual is willing to defend them from an oppressive government.

Which is why we have not allowed all of our rights to be taken from us here.

Vigilance and a willingness to go to the wall in defense of rights is what it takes to keep them.

That is why you and your ilk have failed to take things from us like our guns, and our speech (so far), and our right to free association (so far)....and a host of other liberties you all want to limit or remove in the name of all powerful 'government'.

i guess i should have said that rights do not exist without government.

You freely admit that there is no text that grants us our rights in the constitution and/or federal law, and that the constitution protects pre-existing rights.
Therefore it is not only possible, but necessary, that rights exist w/o government.

 

[Darkwind]

Point? Oh, you have none.

the point is that rights are given by governments. we have a right to free speech. not everyone country has that. freedom of religion/press/assembly? that's not universal. right to bear arms? nope. equal protection? please.

so what's the problem again?

Incorrect.

Government does not 'give' rights. They only take them. A right taken is not a right lost. Only a right not exercised.

Rights are preserved ONLY by the extent in which the individual is willing to defend them from an oppressive government.

Which is why we have not allowed all of our rights to be taken from us here.

Vigilance and a willingness to go to the wall in defense of rights is what it takes to keep them.

That is why you and your ilk have failed to take things from us like our guns, and our speech (so far), and our right to free association (so far)....and a host of other liberties you all want to limit or remove in the name of all powerful 'government'.

i guess i should have said that rights do not exist without government.

Wrong again.

what rights do you have without government?

All the rights listed in the Bill of Rights, along with a few thousand others.

Governments are instituted by men to protect their rights. Not to receive them from government.

The Constitution, and specifically, The Bill of Rights, are limitations and shackles placed (deliberately) on government to prevent them from taking away rights. If we are preventing government from the taking of rights, then it falls into place that the rights exist outside of government. Logic isn't that difficult to apply to real world situations.

 

[SwimExpert]

This has nothing to do with education....Whoever wrote this believes that our rights are not inalienable, as it states in the constitution

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The next generation might have an entirely different idea of what rights are all about. They are being taught the liberal way, which means students are taught that everything you have, including rights, are merely gifts from government. This has nothing to do with education and everything to do with political ideology being crammed down the throats of our youth.

From the link:

"Rights are special privileges the government gives you."

"Because the government gives us rights, we have a duty to be good citizens."

"Someday, you will be given the right to vote."

All of the above are on worksheets and taught to students.

Whoever wrote this believes that our rights are not inalienable, as it states in the constitution, rather that government "gives" us rights. If government can give you something, it can take it back. It infers that we must be good citizens to keep the rights that government allows us to have.

This is crap and it gives students the impression that we only have rights and freedom because government generously allowed us to. It's backwards. We have rights that government is not allowed to infringe upon and those rights and liberties guaranteed by our constitution are supposed to keep government in check. How many students now believe that government allows those rights as long as you obey them and behave like their definition of a good citizen? Some apparently believe that rights are how government keeps the people in check.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/11/205408-422-new-ohio-parent-calls-school-districts-horribly-mistaken-government-gives-us-rights-citizenship-handout/

I guess it is possible to be intellectually smart but stupid