"Rights are special privileges the government gives you."

[ogibillm]

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.

rights only exist if you can assert them.
you may claim that you have the right to free speech at all times, but if someone with more power than you says you don't, you don't. your right to private property only exists so long as society allows you to own private property.

if a right is a moral or legal entitlement they only exist in the context of laws and morals. laws require government, morals require society. morals vary from culture to culture, time to time.
you might be able to say that rights exist outside of government, in society as part of the rules for civilization. enforcing those rules though involves a type of government, so I go back to without government there are no rights.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

rights only exist if you can assert them.
you may claim that you have the right to free speech at all times, but if someone with more power than you says you don't, you don't. your right to private property only exists so long as society allows you to own private property.

if a right is a moral or legal entitlement they only exist in the context of laws and morals. laws require government, morals require society. morals vary from culture to culture, time to time.
you might be able to say that rights exist outside of government, in society as part of the rules for civilization. enforcing those rules though involves a type of government, so I go back to without government there are no rights.

ROFL! It's amazing how virtually everything you say is wrong.

 

[ogibillm]

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.

rights only exist if you can assert them.
you may claim that you have the right to free speech at all times, but if someone with more power than you says you don't, you don't. your right to private property only exists so long as society allows you to own private property.

if a right is a moral or legal entitlement they only exist in the context of laws and morals. laws require government, morals require society. morals vary from culture to culture, time to time.
you might be able to say that rights exist outside of government, in society as part of the rules for civilization. enforcing those rules though involves a type of government, so I go back to without government there are no rights.

ROFL! It's amazing how virtually everything you say is wrong.

so what was wrong about it? do you have rights that you are unable to assert?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

rights only exist if you can assert them.
you may claim that you have the right to free speech at all times, but if someone with more power than you says you don't, you don't. your right to private property only exists so long as society allows you to own private property.

if a right is a moral or legal entitlement they only exist in the context of laws and morals. laws require government, morals require society. morals vary from culture to culture, time to time.
you might be able to say that rights exist outside of government, in society as part of the rules for civilization. enforcing those rules though involves a type of government, so I go back to without government there are no rights.

ROFL! It's amazing how virtually everything you say is wrong.

so what was wrong about it? do you have rights that you are unable to assert?

Of course you do. If you didn't, then the phrase "violate you rights" would be meaningless. Rights are not laws. Rights are the rules that allow you to distinguish between justice and injustice. Slavery was wrong because it violated the rights of slaves, but it was perfectly legal. According to your theory of rights, slaves didn't have any rights, so slavery was perfectly moral and just.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

rights only exist if you can assert them.
you may claim that you have the right to free speech at all times, but if someone with more power than you says you don't, you don't. your right to private property only exists so long as society allows you to own private property.

if a right is a moral or legal entitlement they only exist in the context of laws and morals. laws require government, morals require society. morals vary from culture to culture, time to time.
you might be able to say that rights exist outside of government, in society as part of the rules for civilization. enforcing those rules though involves a type of government, so I go back to without government there are no rights.

No, simply because you lose a physical struggle does not mean you have lost that right. It only means you need to fight harder to remove the impediment to your right.

The whole purpose of the discussion is to highlight that governments do not exist to provide rights, but to protect them. If, at any time, a government begins to deny existing rights to its citizens, the citizens have an obligation to dissolve that government.

Did you not read ANY part of our history and how we came to be?

 

[percysunshine]

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.

rights only exist if you can assert them.
you may claim that you have the right to free speech at all times, but if someone with more power than you says you don't, you don't. your right to private property only exists so long as society allows you to own private property.

if a right is a moral or legal entitlement they only exist in the context of laws and morals. laws require government, morals require society. morals vary from culture to culture, time to time.
you might be able to say that rights exist outside of government, in society as part of the rules for civilization. enforcing those rules though involves a type of government, so I go back to without government there are no rights.

Sooo....You, as an individual human being, have no rights unless other individuals grant them upon you?

Is your life as a slave an enjoyable one?

.

 

[ogibillm]

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.

rights only exist if you can assert them.
you may claim that you have the right to free speech at all times, but if someone with more power than you says you don't, you don't. your right to private property only exists so long as society allows you to own private property.

if a right is a moral or legal entitlement they only exist in the context of laws and morals. laws require government, morals require society. morals vary from culture to culture, time to time.
you might be able to say that rights exist outside of government, in society as part of the rules for civilization. enforcing those rules though involves a type of government, so I go back to without government there are no rights.

ROFL! It's amazing how virtually everything you say is wrong.

so what was wrong about it? do you have rights that you are unable to assert?

Of course you do. If you didn't, then the phrase "violate you rights" would be meaningless. Rights are not laws. Rights are the rules that allow you to distinguish between justice and injustice. Slavery was wrong because it violated the rights of slaves, but it was perfectly legal. According to your theory of rights, slaves didn't have any rights, so slavery was perfectly moral and just.

the morals of the time allowed slavery. the laws of the time allowed slavery. slavery was a right.
the morals changed, the laws changed, slavery was no longer a right.

slaves didn't have the right to freedom until enough people decided that they should have it that the morals and laws changed.

 

[ogibillm]

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.

rights only exist if you can assert them.
you may claim that you have the right to free speech at all times, but if someone with more power than you says you don't, you don't. your right to private property only exists so long as society allows you to own private property.

if a right is a moral or legal entitlement they only exist in the context of laws and morals. laws require government, morals require society. morals vary from culture to culture, time to time.
you might be able to say that rights exist outside of government, in society as part of the rules for civilization. enforcing those rules though involves a type of government, so I go back to without government there are no rights.

Sooo....You, as an individual human being, have no rights unless other people grant them upon you?

Is your life as a slave an enjoyable one?

.

not just me. everyone.
this is why we form civilizations and governments. to establish and protect each other's rights.

 

[percysunshine]

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.

rights only exist if you can assert them.
you may claim that you have the right to free speech at all times, but if someone with more power than you says you don't, you don't. your right to private property only exists so long as society allows you to own private property.

if a right is a moral or legal entitlement they only exist in the context of laws and morals. laws require government, morals require society. morals vary from culture to culture, time to time.
you might be able to say that rights exist outside of government, in society as part of the rules for civilization. enforcing those rules though involves a type of government, so I go back to without government there are no rights.

Sooo....You, as an individual human being, have no rights unless other people grant them upon you?

Is your life as a slave an enjoyable one?

.

not just me. everyone.
this is why we form civilizations and governments. to establish and protect each other's rights.

So, by your constructs of what constitutes a right, slavery is an acceptable institution because it was defined by a government.

Are you sure you want to wander down this rabbit hole, Alice?

.

 

[ogibillm]

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.

rights only exist if you can assert them.
you may claim that you have the right to free speech at all times, but if someone with more power than you says you don't, you don't. your right to private property only exists so long as society allows you to own private property.

if a right is a moral or legal entitlement they only exist in the context of laws and morals. laws require government, morals require society. morals vary from culture to culture, time to time.
you might be able to say that rights exist outside of government, in society as part of the rules for civilization. enforcing those rules though involves a type of government, so I go back to without government there are no rights.

Sooo....You, as an individual human being, have no rights unless other people grant them upon you?

Is your life as a slave an enjoyable one?

.

not just me. everyone.
this is why we form civilizations and governments. to establish and protect each other's rights.

So, by your constructs of what constitutes a right, slavery is an acceptable institution because it was defined by a government.

Are you sure you want to wander down this rabbit hole, Alice?

.

you are the one equating rights with justice.

my morals says slavery was wrong. my morals are different from prevailing morals while slavery was a right.

in china, people don't have the right to free speech. i disagree, i think they should have that right. however, my wanting it doesn't change that they don't have the right to free speech.

 

[percysunshine]

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.

rights only exist if you can assert them.
you may claim that you have the right to free speech at all times, but if someone with more power than you says you don't, you don't. your right to private property only exists so long as society allows you to own private property.

if a right is a moral or legal entitlement they only exist in the context of laws and morals. laws require government, morals require society. morals vary from culture to culture, time to time.
you might be able to say that rights exist outside of government, in society as part of the rules for civilization. enforcing those rules though involves a type of government, so I go back to without government there are no rights.

Sooo....You, as an individual human being, have no rights unless other people grant them upon you?

Is your life as a slave an enjoyable one?

.

not just me. everyone.
this is why we form civilizations and governments. to establish and protect each other's rights.

So, by your constructs of what constitutes a right, slavery is an acceptable institution because it was defined by a government.

Are you sure you want to wander down this rabbit hole, Alice?

.

you are the one equating rights with justice.

my morals says slavery was wrong. my morals are different from prevailing morals while slavery was a right.

in china, people don't have the right to free speech. i disagree, i think they should have that right. however, my wanting it doesn't change that they don't have the right to free speech.

I never equated anything. It was a simple proposition. If your assertion that governments define rights is true, and governments allow slavery, owning slaves must be a right.

Of course, this is silly at face value. Which limits your assertion of Government given rights.

There are natural rights proprietary to the individual. You obviously recognize this based on your post. You keep referring to 'my' morals, and not the morals of a group.

You are almost there sport. Keep thinking about this for a bit.

.

 

[ogibillm]

rights only exist if you can assert them.
you may claim that you have the right to free speech at all times, but if someone with more power than you says you don't, you don't. your right to private property only exists so long as society allows you to own private property.

if a right is a moral or legal entitlement they only exist in the context of laws and morals. laws require government, morals require society. morals vary from culture to culture, time to time.
you might be able to say that rights exist outside of government, in society as part of the rules for civilization. enforcing those rules though involves a type of government, so I go back to without government there are no rights.

Sooo....You, as an individual human being, have no rights unless other people grant them upon you?

Is your life as a slave an enjoyable one?

.

not just me. everyone.
this is why we form civilizations and governments. to establish and protect each other's rights.

So, by your constructs of what constitutes a right, slavery is an acceptable institution because it was defined by a government.

Are you sure you want to wander down this rabbit hole, Alice?

.

you are the one equating rights with justice.

my morals says slavery was wrong. my morals are different from prevailing morals while slavery was a right.

in china, people don't have the right to free speech. i disagree, i think they should have that right. however, my wanting it doesn't change that they don't have the right to free speech.

I never equated anything. It was a simple proposition. If your assertion that governments define rights is true, and governments allow slavery, owning slaves must be a right.

Of course, this is silly at face value. Which limits your assertion of Government given rights.

There are natural rights proprietary to the individual. You obviously recognize this based on your post. You keep referring to 'my' morals, and not the morals of a group.

You are almost there sport. Keep thinking about this for a bit.

.

i think it's useful if we define what a right is.
"a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way."
i also feel that a right only exists if it can be asserted. if it can't be asserted, how can it be claimed to exist?

anyhow, yes, if the government of a people makes slavery a right, for those people it is in fact a right.

 

[dcraelin]

While trying to make something resembling a point, Affleck stated the following: “If you want to be liberals, believe in liberal principles, like freedom of speech, like— you know, we are endowed by our Cr—”
And right there he had to stop and “correct” himself.
You see, he almost accurately quoted the Declaration of Independence. And he clearly didn’t want to do that.
Here’s the relevant text from our nation’s founding document: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

After the above line are these words, so often forgotten. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

and the same guy who said that said need to obey will of the majority. as in picture I'll try to post below, (otherwise see my pic gallery)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/data/photos/l/2/2480-1378315917-ae01c96fbc1d7f92f67d6e6e2e04c65b.jpg

 

[BluesLegend]

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?

Nope. The founding Fathers said it, our rights are given by God. Whether or not libtards socialists say otherwise makes no difference.

That's like acid rain to the left.

 

[LeftofLeft]

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?

Nope. The founding Fathers said it, our rights are given by God. Whether or not libtards socialists say otherwise makes no difference.

I guess God hates those other countries...

Nope.....Countries that defy their citizens Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness clearly hate God.

 

[ogibillm]

]
Nope. The founding Fathers said it, our rights are given by God. Whether or not libtards socialists say otherwise makes no difference.

That's like acid rain to the left.

so do you believe that the founders of this nation spoke for god?

 

[percysunshine]

Sooo....You, as an individual human being, have no rights unless other people grant them upon you?

Is your life as a slave an enjoyable one?

.

not just me. everyone.
this is why we form civilizations and governments. to establish and protect each other's rights.

So, by your constructs of what constitutes a right, slavery is an acceptable institution because it was defined by a government.

Are you sure you want to wander down this rabbit hole, Alice?

.

you are the one equating rights with justice.

my morals says slavery was wrong. my morals are different from prevailing morals while slavery was a right.

in china, people don't have the right to free speech. i disagree, i think they should have that right. however, my wanting it doesn't change that they don't have the right to free speech.

I never equated anything. It was a simple proposition. If your assertion that governments define rights is true, and governments allow slavery, owning slaves must be a right.

Of course, this is silly at face value. Which limits your assertion of Government given rights.

There are natural rights proprietary to the individual. You obviously recognize this based on your post. You keep referring to 'my' morals, and not the morals of a group.

You are almost there sport. Keep thinking about this for a bit.

.

i think it's useful if we define what a right is.
"a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way."
i also feel that a right only exists if it can be asserted. if it can't be asserted, how can it be claimed to exist?

anyhow, yes, if the government of a people makes slavery a right, for those people it is in fact a right.

A right which you personally would object to based on your individual morals. What are you, as an individual, going to do about that? Suppose you are the slave?

Slavery is OK?

.

 

[BluesLegend]

]
Nope. The founding Fathers said it, our rights are given by God. Whether or not libtards socialists say otherwise makes no difference.

That's like acid rain to the left.

so do you believe that the founders of this nation spoke for god?

Define "God"

 

[ogibillm]

not just me. everyone.
this is why we form civilizations and governments. to establish and protect each other's rights.

So, by your constructs of what constitutes a right, slavery is an acceptable institution because it was defined by a government.

Are you sure you want to wander down this rabbit hole, Alice?

.

you are the one equating rights with justice.

my morals says slavery was wrong. my morals are different from prevailing morals while slavery was a right.

in china, people don't have the right to free speech. i disagree, i think they should have that right. however, my wanting it doesn't change that they don't have the right to free speech.

I never equated anything. It was a simple proposition. If your assertion that governments define rights is true, and governments allow slavery, owning slaves must be a right.

Of course, this is silly at face value. Which limits your assertion of Government given rights.

There are natural rights proprietary to the individual. You obviously recognize this based on your post. You keep referring to 'my' morals, and not the morals of a group.

You are almost there sport. Keep thinking about this for a bit.

.

i think it's useful if we define what a right is.
"a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way."
i also feel that a right only exists if it can be asserted. if it can't be asserted, how can it be claimed to exist?

anyhow, yes, if the government of a people makes slavery a right, for those people it is in fact a right.

A right which you personally would object to based on your individual morals. What are you, as an individual, going to do about that? Suppose you are the slave?

Slavery is OK?

.

again, you're equating me saying that a legal right exists with me saying that i find it morally acceptable or morally justifiable. i do not believe that is the case.

but, in your scenario, were i the slave, i would believe that i should have the right to be free, and would do what i could to gain that right.

 

[ogibillm]

]
Nope. The founding Fathers said it, our rights are given by God. Whether or not libtards socialists say otherwise makes no difference.

That's like acid rain to the left.

so do you believe that the founders of this nation spoke for god?

Define "God"

lol. way above my pay grade.
but for our purposes let's call him the divine super-natural creator of the world and its people.