What are your rights?

I know. I was restating it in more candid terms.
No, you weren't.

Then what was I doing?
CR, I suggest you not bother feeding the trolls.

I've been a member of USMB for over seven years. In that time, I've put up slightly more than 2,000 posts. I try to make them thoughtful, relevant, and well-supported.

Little housepainter has been a member for less than a month... and has already put up more posts than I have.

His posts invariably support whatever big-govt theme is being discussed at the moment, usually contain insults, and mostly consist of less than one line each.

If you're looking for thoughtful discussion... you should probably keep looking.

See http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/paintmyhouse.html , click on "Statistics"
 
Last edited:
No, you weren't.

Then what was I doing?
CR, I suggest you not bother feeding the trolls.

I've been a member of USMB for over seven years. In that time, I've put up slightly more than 2,000 posts. I try to make them thoughtful, relevant, and well-supported.

Little housepainter has been a member for less than 30 days... and has already put up more posts than I have.

His posts invariably support whatever big-govt theme is being discussed at the moment, and mostly consist of less than one line each.

If you're looking for thoughtful discussion... you should probably keep looking.

See http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/paintmyhouse.html , click on "Statistics"
If he wants thoughtful discussion he should read a book. This is Internet Debate. Grab your balls and play, or take your ball and go home to mommy. Got it?
 
Something I wrote years ago. As valid today as it was then.... if not more.

What Are Our "Rights"?

You hear an awful lot about our "rights" these days. And justly so-- our rights, in this country, are our most valuable possession, outside of life itself. And some people say that our basic rights, are even more important than life. When Patrick Henry defiantly told the British government during colonial times, "Give me liberty or give me death!", he was stating that he considered a life without liberty, to be worse than no life at all (death).

So, what are our rights?

The Declaration of Independence mentions a few, and implies that there are others. So does the Constitution-- in fact, it names many, and categorically states that those aren't the only rights people have.

The Declaration says that among our rights, are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". It also says that these were given to us "by [our] Creator". Take that as you will, depending on whatever religious outlook you hold. But one of the implications is that, wherever our rights came from, they were NOT granted us by government, or by our fellow men at all. We had them long before government existed. And these various government documents simply say that government cannot take them away or interfere with them.

Here we refer, of course, only to normal law-abiding citizens. The Constitution contains the phrase "except by due course of law" in many places. If you rob someone, assault him, destroy his property, murder him etc., then you can legitimately be deprived of liberty (you go to jail), property (you get fined), or even life in some extreme cases (Death Penalty). Outside of such lawbreaking, your rights are held inviolate.

But today, our "rights" seem to be multiplying without end. This is not necessarily bad-- as we said, rights are extremely valuable. But, are we getting ahead of ourselves, granting to ourselves so many things under the name of "rights"?

"Old Rights"

Some are pretty indisputable, such as the ones mentioned in the Declaration. The ones mentioned in the Constitution, especially in the first ten Amendments (which was even called the "Bill of Rights" by its authors), are similarly vital... though they seem to be undergoing a methodical erosion. Freedom of religion, right to peaceably assemble, freedom of speech and of the press, the right to keep and bear arms, etc. all are very basic, and it is scary to think of trying to exist in a country in which any of these do not exist.

New "rights"

But lately we have heard about other "rights", such as the right to work, the right to decent medical treatment, the right to a decent standard of living. These all sound salutary-- what kind of society would we have, if working for a living were forbidden, decent health care were forbidden, etc.?

But there is a big gap between "forbidden" and "compulsory". The rights found in the country's founding documents, are compulsory, to the extent that we all have them whether we want them or not (who wouldn't want them?), and no one can take them away.

What about, say, the right to decent medical treatment? Those who favor this "right", point out that they don't necessarily mean the rare, exotic, super-expensive treatments; nor "elective" procedures such as cosmetic liposuction or a luxury suite in the hospital. They usually mean that, if you get sick or injured, you have the "right" to have a doctor look at you, make sure the problem isn't unusually dangerous, and administer the routine treatments needed to help you on the way back to good health. An absence of such routine treatment, could occasionally put your life in peril, obviously-- a simple broken bone could lead to infection if untreated, and possibly far more. But there are differences between the "Old Rights", as we've called the ones in the founding documents, and these "New 'Rights'".

Your "right to life" protects something that no man gave you-- you simply had it, from the day you were born. Nobody had to go to extraordinary effort to create it for you, outside of natural processes that move forward on their own without deliberate effort or guidance by humans, government, etc.

Same with the "right to liberty". You were your own man, as it were, the day you were born. Nobody had to go to special effort to create that status for you. In fact, they would have had to go to considerable effort to take those things away, by deliberately coming to you and killing you; or by building a jail and imprisoning you etc. If they leave you alone, you have life and liberty, and can pursue happiness. They have to work at it to deprive you of those things.

The Difference in the "New 'Rights'"

But this isn't the case with what we've called "New 'Rights'". In order for you to get the kind of routine medical treatment its advocates describe, somebody has to stop what he is doing and perform work for you-- the doctor who examines you, the clerk who sets up your appointment, the people who built the office or hospital where you get treatment.

If this routine medical treatment is to be called a "right" on par with our "Old Rights", doesn't that mean that you must be given it when needed? And doesn't it follow, then, that others must be compelled to do the normal things needed to treat you?

Uh-oh.

How does this compulsion upon those others (doctors, clerks etc.) fit in with THEIR rights? They "have" to treat you? What if their schedules are full-- do they have to bump another patient to make room for you? What if they were spending precious quality time with their families-- do they have to abandon their own kids, to fulfill your "right" to treatment that only they can give? Doesn't this fit the description of "involuntary servitude"?

This is an important difference between the rights envisioned by the country's founders, and the new "rights" advocated by more modern pundits. In order to secure your "old rights", people merely had to leave you alone... do nothing to bother you. in fact, they were required to. But these new so-called "rights", required that people go out of their way to actively contribute to you.

And that "requirement", in fact violates THEIR rights-- specifically, their right to liberty. They must be left free to live their lives as THEY chose-- free from compulsion to come and help you out. If they want to help you, that's fine-- often it's the decent and moral thing to do. But they cannot be forced to help you, no matter how much you need the help.

These new "rights", are in fact not rights at all. They are obligations upon others, imposed on them without their agreement or consent.

Beware of announcements that you have the "right" to this or that. Ask yourself if this "right", forces someone else to do something for you, that he didn't previously agree to. If it does, it's not a "right" possessed by you. It's an attempt by the announcer, to force others into servitude... an attempt, in fact, to violate the others' rights.
 
Then what was I doing?
CR, I suggest you not bother feeding the trolls.

I've been a member of USMB for over seven years. In that time, I've put up slightly more than 2,000 posts. I try to make them thoughtful, relevant, and well-supported.

Little housepainter has been a member for less than 30 days... and has already put up more posts than I have.

His posts invariably support whatever big-govt theme is being discussed at the moment, usually contain insults, and mostly consist of less than one line each.

If you're looking for thoughtful discussion... you should probably keep looking.

See http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/paintmyhouse.html , click on "Statistics"
If he wants thoughtful discussion he should read a book. This is Internet Debate. Grab your balls and play, or take your ball and go home to mommy. Got it?

See?
 
Last edited:
CR, I suggest you not bother feeding the trolls.

I've been a member of USMB for over seven years. In that time, I've put up slightly more than 2,000 posts. I try to make them thoughtful, relevant, and well-supported.

Little housepainter has been a member for less than 30 days... and has already put up more posts than I have.

His posts invariably support whatever big-govt theme is being discussed at the moment, usually contain insults, and mostly consist of less than one line each.

If you're looking for thoughtful discussion... you should probably keep looking.

See http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/paintmyhouse.html , click on "Statistics"
If he wants thoughtful discussion he should read a book. This is Internet Debate. Grab your balls and play, or take your ball and go home to mommy. Got it?

See?
What he should see is honesty, something you lack.
 
You never really own your property if it can be taken away for not paying taxes....

It figures. Once a lib gets hold of a simple concept, they are duty bound by ideology to complicate the matter.
And of course you would be wrong.
Part of the agreement made in the purchase of real property is made with the community in which the property is located.
Failure to adhere to those terms could result in civil penalties.
Now, where does that state the real property ownership does not exist? No it does not.
Government cannot "take" property for non payment of taxes without due process.
 
As I pointed out, "rights" are something you had simply by being human. They aren't something anybody has to work to give you. In fact, they only "work" other people find they have to do, is when they try to violate your rights.

If someone has to do work to "provide you your right" to something, then it probably wasn't a real "right" in the first place.

A notable exception, is the right to trial by jury. There, when you are accused of something, others have to come and sit in judgment of you. This is done so that a remote and uncaring government (the only kind there is) won't have a monopoly on judging you. While criminal pursuit and prosecution is a legitimate government function, final judgment in any important matter is reserved to "We the People", not the government.

But that aside, all people need to do to "provide you your rights", is leave you alone. Anything they "must" participate in, probably isn't a right in the first place.
 
Last edited:
An important question with an easy answer. Your Rights, regardless of what is written down on paper, are what you can get enforced, period. Nothing more, and nothing less.

^^^^

that.


also, individual rights end at the nose of the next person.

Not so, but the next person's rights apply equally. I have a right to protect my person and property as does he. When our rights are in conflict, there is nearly always a legal, or at least moral high ground.
 
Good to know. Make sure say that, loud and clear, as they pull the lever that hangs you.

Your stupidity doesn't change reality. You clearly have no capacity to discuss philosophical concepts. Perhaps you shouldn't interject in adult conversations.
Perhaps you shouldn't live in Fantasyland? Reality is on my side little one, not yours.

When will you start adding posts of substance to our discussions?
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8]George Carlin -Rights and Privileges - YouTube[/ame]
 
Rights be it man law or natural law are all products of the human mind and nothing else. The reality of the matter is you dont matter. You never will matter, and people tend to have a problem with that. These wars, these political fights over gay marriage and abortion dont matter.

sadly our priorities are very short sighted and mostly selfish. This whole concept that god loves one country over another is one the biggest petty, self jerk offs ive ever seen. Trust me if there is a god, it doesnt favor one or the other.

Rights are a theory, they're a way of looking at life, a philosophy too.

Just like religion. Which is why many religious people seem to have a problem, they're being pulled in two directions, first having rights where you can do what you like as long as you don't hurt or harm others, and the other which tells them that some things are bad that don't hurt or harm others, and so they then go and try and hurt ot harm others who support these things.

People often use rights to back themselves up, and ignore them when they don't.

You talk guns, the 2A protects them and they will quote it as many times as they can.

You talk gay marriage and they will deny that it protects in any way at all.

Picking and choosing.

Rights are a human invention just like religion, but people feel the need to believe that somehow they are inate, part of us, when they're only a part of us because we allow it.

Rights are a theory I like because it protects me from those who will try and stop me doing what I like.

Humans are social beings and need rules, otherwise we'll just p*** each other off immensly. hence why we have so much war.
 
An important question with an easy answer. Your Rights, regardless of what is written down on paper, are what you can get enforced, period. Nothing more, and nothing less.

^^^^

that.


also, individual rights end at the nose of the next person.

hmmm... seems like PaintMyHouse might even insist that an individual's rights extend up into the next person's nose... sorta like the finger in my avie... :)
 
As I pointed out, "rights" are something you had simply by being human. They aren't something anybody has to work to give you. In fact, they only "work" other people find they have to do, is when they try to violate your rights.

If someone has to do work to "provide you your right" to something, then it probably wasn't a real "right" in the first place.

A notable exception, is the right to trial by jury. There, when you are accused of something, others have to come and sit in judgment of you. This is done so that a remote and uncaring government (the only kind there is) won't have a monopoly on judging you. While criminal pursuit and prosecution is a legitimate government function, final judgment in any important matter is reserved to "We the People", not the government.

But that aside, all people need to do to "provide you your rights", is leave you alone. Anything they "must" participate in, probably isn't a right in the first place.

All rights that US citizens have, have been fought for. Firstly by the English over a long period of time, the Magna Carta through the English Bill of Rights, through the revolution in 1776,

So, does that mean none of them are rights because they had to be fought for?
 
Your stupidity doesn't change reality. You clearly have no capacity to discuss philosophical concepts. Perhaps you shouldn't interject in adult conversations.
Perhaps you shouldn't live in Fantasyland? Reality is on my side little one, not yours.

When will you start adding posts of substance to our discussions?
What I've added you are too stupid too comprehend. You can "discuss" rights all you like. It's the same as "discussing" the weather. That's as much as I will spoon-feed you. I'm not a babysitter.
 
An important question with an easy answer. Your Rights, regardless of what is written down on paper, are what you can get enforced, period. Nothing more, and nothing less.

With or without "enforcement," I have the right to eat food. If I can't afford it I can trap it, grow it, pluck it from a tree, shoot it, etc.
I have the right to drink water. If I can't afford it I can collect it in rain barrels; drink from a stream; or collect in any means possible in order to sustain life.
I have the right to protect my life. I can use my fists, rocks, knives, guns, clubs or whatever is necessary to defend myself from real threats.
I have the right to travel if I need to find food and water for the purpose of life sustenance.
I have the right to shelter. If I can't afford it then I have the right to build it from the resources at my disposal: tree branches, cardboard boxes, tents, tarps, etc.
I have the right to clothing. If I can't afford it then I have the right to kill game and use the hide to make clothing. Or I have the right to use whatever other material I'm able to find as long as I don't steal from someone else.

Any government that prohibits my ability to sustain my life is violating my rights.

$rubbers.jpg

Don't forget the right to rubbers.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top