"Rights are special privileges the government gives you."

[percysunshine]

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.

Soo... the slave has a natural right not bestowed by the government.

We are making headway here, slowly but surely. The camels nose is in the tent now.

Since you have acknowledged that individual human rights exist apart from what a government grants. What are the limits to those rights?

.

 

[ogibillm]

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.

Soo... the slave has a natural right not bestowed by the government.

We are making headway here, slowly but surely. The camels nose is in the tent now.

Since you have acknowledged that individual human rights exist apart from what a government grants. What are the limits to those rights?

.

you said that. i did not.
a desire to be free perhaps, but not a right.

 

[BluesLegend]

I believe the founders of this nation having experienced tyranny had a pretty good idea the kind of crap puke liberals would pull in the future and fortified the Constitution to protect us from them.

 

[dblack]

Yay! When it comes to flushing out the dummies, natural rights works almost as well as minimum wage. But honestly, people here did better than I expected! Here are grades:

Mac1958 --- A
Mr. President --- A
Dont Taz Me Bro --- A
Clementine --- A
Darkwind --- A-
bripat9643 --- B
deltex1 --- B
percysunshine --- B
Stephanie --- C
saveliberty --- C
M14 Shooter --- C

Special recognition goes to g5000 for astutely (if trollishly) pointing out that the Republicans do NOT have the moral high ground on this issue.

EVERYONE ELSE IN THE THREAD FAILS! (Unless I just missed your post. Decide for yourself which it is. )

Notes:
-- bripat9643 lost a letter grade for the avatar.
-- most of the non "A" grades were docked either for being partisan tools or fixating on the religion aspect
-- ogibillm wins the "special" prize for showing the most persistence.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Incorrect.
You have rights. The fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights does not change this fact; the fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights is why we created government.

That is, government exists because we have rights.

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.

 

[HenryBHough]

Rights are bestowed by one's creator.

So, from the Democrat perspective Their Kenyan Emperor can remove any of the rights He so graciously bestowed upon them.

 

[bripat9643]

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 of them.

 

[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?

Who gets eaten for lunch.
Now, obviously, some rights cannot exercised outside the context of government, such as the right to a jury trial or the right to be free from self-incrimination by the state, but those rights are also not granted by the government.

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

There's no such thing as the Bill of Rights in the Constitution? lol

 

[westwall]

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?

No, rights are taken away by governments all the time. Thus, they are not "RIGHTS". Anything that can be taken away is not a "right". Understand?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rights are bestowed by one's creator.

So, from the Democrat perspective Their Kenyan Emperor can remove any of the rights He so graciously bestowed upon them.

How can rights come from the Creator when the existence of the Creator cannot even be verified?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

No, rights are taken away by governments all the time. Thus, they are not "RIGHTS". Anything that can be taken away is not a "right". Understand?

So when the right to own a gun is taken away from a convicted felon, it proves that gun ownership is not a right?

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

You people are severely challenged when it comes to the ability to distinguish between what you have and what you think you have.

God given rights are what you think you have. Rights recognized, acknowledged, and protected by the Government are what you have.

 

[Darkwind]

thing is that the origin of RIGHTS was taught in school and started in grade school plus parent told their kids about Rights , thing is that Rights were just recognized by every American . Gov would like to remove the concept of God given Rights as that would just make things easier for government !!

Well yeah except the American Slaves. Women and the poor didn't have too many rights until.........

Here is a classic example of what is being discussed.

Prior to the emancipation proclamation and the end of the Civil War, blacks had their rights suppressed and were enslaved to the oppressors of those rights.

Until the rights of suffrage were won for women, their right to vote was seriously curtailed, yet we see that the right was present. This is a case where government provides this right in context only because we have seen societies where there were no governments, yet each person in that society is entitled to a vote as a means of giving direction to the group.

In both cases, the rights of these groups was won through determination and a willingness to keep them over an oppressing force. The right was not created, for it already existed in truth. For the blacks, that right could be seen all about them by watching free men and women live their daily lives exercising these rights. If these rights did not already exist, then there would be, in truth, nothing to fight for because who would think to fight for something that cannot even be conceived. So, we see that in order for an idea such as fighting to be free, we have to have the concept of freedom to begin.

These rights, as a concept, exist outside of government and can only be taken if people lay down and give up their fight for them, or they die. Lets make no mistake about the concept of death as a loss of rights. The rights continue on even after death, as we have witnessed over these past 230+ years. Death is only the loss of the struggle for a single individual, but not for the group as a whole.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Again, you are wrong. They still have that right. There are consequences for exercising that right in that system and until they throw off that yoke of oppression, they will continue to suffer consequences for their turpitude. Take note that I use the word 'turpitude in the context that it is morally corrupt to allow yourself to be oppressed without a fight.

 

[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?

No, rights are taken away by governments all the time. Thus, they are not "RIGHTS". Anything that can be taken away is not a "right". Understand?

Governments don't take away rights. They violate rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[ This is a case where government provides this right in context only because we have seen societies where there were no governments, yet each person in that society is entitled to a vote as a means of giving direction to the group.

That IS government you imbecile.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives might blather about how their rights don't come from the government,

but they're just as quick as anyone to run TO the government when they think their rights are being violated.

 

[HenryBHough]

How can rights come from the Creator when the existence of the Creator cannot even be verified?

First denial I've encountered or the existence of Our Kenyan Emperor but, yeah, I guess you probably haven't seen Him for yo'self......

 

[bripat9643]

Conservatives might blather about how their rights don't come from the government,

but they're just as quick as anyone to run TO the government when they think their rights are being violated.

Government is supposed to protect your rights. In fact, that's the only legitimate function government has. If you can't run to government when your rights are being violated, then your government has no justification for existing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives might blather about how their rights don't come from the government,

but they're just as quick as anyone to run TO the government when they think their rights are being violated.

Government is supposed to protect your rights. In fact, that's the only legitimate function government has. If you can't run to government when your rights are being violated, then your government has no justification for existing.

Since you don't want any government, you're in a fix then .