What "rights" does nature give us?

[Quantum Windbag]

Although rights are inalienable, they are not absolute.

Government may restrict or preempt rights in accordance with Constitutional case law. For the most part, disagreement exists as to where the boundaries are drawn with regard to the extent the state may restrict or preempt a given right.

For example, we all agree there is a 4th Amendment right “of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” we disagree, however, as to what extent. We all agree that the 4th Amendment right to privacy is inalienable, but we disagree as to its comprehensive application. Does one have an expectation of privacy when communicating on his wireless device or when communicating online?

There are those who wish the state greater access to our private information for reasons of security and combating crime, and those who reject that premise fearing a loss of individual liberty and personal privacy, although both factions agree the fundamental right to privacy nonetheless exists.

I have a challenge for you, tell me what possible restrictions and/or limitations you can put on my right to pursue happiness.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

None.

Really? There are no rights inherent to each person which cannot be abrogated by the government without rendering that government unjust and illegitimate?

Yes really. The question was about nature not government.

The answer was wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I still say that step one is to define 'God'.

The only thing worse than Christians pushing their social agenda and defining list of God given rights and responsibilities is Sharia Law. What a social pain in the ass THAT would be. I'd be fracturing a few of those bad boys...

And I am still waiting for a definition of life.

Why? What's the context, here in this thread?

It is to prove that the fact that you cannot define something is not proof of anything other than the limitations of language.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Define "rights".

The way I define them, "rights" is just a nice way of saying "this is what society allows you to do".

Society allows me to live?

You're ass-u-me-ing you have a 'right' to life.

In order for me to be assuming that I would have to be a complete idiot that doesn't understand that government does not grant me life. I would also have to assume that government has the ability to take my life and give it to another person if they lost their life. Since I don't assume either of those things, I know for a fact that I have a right to life, and I know for a fact that anyone who says I do not is assuming things that they cannot demonstrate happening in the real world.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Really? There are no rights inherent to each person which cannot be abrogated by the government without rendering that government unjust and illegitimate?

THIS is exactly what I'm talking about. Everyone will have different criteria as to what is "unjust" and "illegitimate", making the definition of "rights" in this context meaningless.

That only makes sense if the government can control our thoughts.

You and I have already agreed that the life and thought are inalienable. I don't believe that is what Cecilie is talking about - I believe she's talking about "legal rights" - she is after all the one who brought up "government".

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No one ever said there was 100% unanimous agreement as to what our natural rights are. Where in my definition did you see THAT as a criteria? And no, it doesn't make the definition meaningless. The day that something stops existing just because human beings don't know about it, or because they don't all agree about it down to the last man, is the day the universe itself just disappears and takes us with it. Please try to think a little more outside the box of your square little head.

But the whole idea of a "right" is that it's an absolute thing, not a subjective thing.

If people don't agree as to what a "right" is, how is it anything more than a construct of society?

I find it strange that the only people that think rights is a subjective term are the ones that are trying to redefine it in such a way that they all come from man. Humans are not the source of life, therefore humans are not the source of my right to life.

I agree. But humans are the source of your "right" to free speech, or your "right" to own a gun.

 

[bripat9643]

No one ever said there was 100% unanimous agreement as to what our natural rights are. Where in my definition did you see THAT as a criteria? And no, it doesn't make the definition meaningless. The day that something stops existing just because human beings don't know about it, or because they don't all agree about it down to the last man, is the day the universe itself just disappears and takes us with it. Please try to think a little more outside the box of your square little head.

But the whole idea of a "right" is that it's an absolute thing, not a subjective thing.

If people don't agree as to what a "right" is, how is it anything more than a construct of society?

I find it strange that the only people that think rights is a subjective term are the ones that are trying to redefine it in such a way that they all come from man. Humans are not the source of life, therefore humans are not the source of my right to life.

What I find ironic is that the same people who claim rights are purely the creation of society are always screaming that government is violating the rights of this group or that group, like homosexuals or women. If rights are whatever the government decides they are, then how can it violate anyone's rights? If the voters decide homosexuals don't have a right to marry, then what argument does the pro-homosexual marriage lobby have for demanding such a right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But the whole idea of a "right" is that it's an absolute thing, not a subjective thing.

If people don't agree as to what a "right" is, how is it anything more than a construct of society?

I find it strange that the only people that think rights is a subjective term are the ones that are trying to redefine it in such a way that they all come from man. Humans are not the source of life, therefore humans are not the source of my right to life.

I agree. But humans are the source of your "right" to free speech, or your "right" to own a gun.

The government cannot stop people from talking. I can prove that by pointing to the fact that governments have actually tried that in the past, and failed, and that other governments are trying it now, and failing. I guess that makes free speech another natural, and inalienable, right.

 

[bripat9643]

I agree. But humans are the source of your "right" to free speech, or your "right" to own a gun.

wrong.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I find it strange that the only people that think rights is a subjective term are the ones that are trying to redefine it in such a way that they all come from man. Humans are not the source of life, therefore humans are not the source of my right to life.

I agree. But humans are the source of your "right" to free speech, or your "right" to own a gun.

The government cannot stop people from talking. I can prove that by pointing to the fact that governments have actually tried that in the past, and failed, and that other governments are trying it now, and failing. I guess that makes free speech another natural, and inalienable, right.

Ok, I can agree with that. But my statement stands for the "right" to own a gun, and the "right" to vote, and all those other "rights".

 

[AVG-JOE]

An interesting thought I had last night that made me think of this thread.

Why is it that our government officials are sworn into office using this:

I, ____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

And the same is done in courts of law. So the question I have is, if the constitution doesn't refer to God directly, and since natural rights in the context of the OP refer to rights granted inalienable by nature, why do we swear our allegiance to the constitution before god?

What does god have to do with any of this natural rights business? The constitution?

Not a lot. Much as I, an atheist, might say goddamn, OMG, or pray to God this or that happens, it's become part of the lexicon and is not always speaking to a diety above.

So, "so help me god" is kinda like "come hell or high water" or "to the best of my ability."

Merely a figure of speech that affirms total commitment.

As long as nobody defines God, everyone is perfectly happy with "... so help me God."

Start asking Americans to define the god they're swearing by and their lips become tighter, their answers more vague and their body language becomes nervous.

 

[AVG-JOE]

And I am still waiting for a definition of life.

Why? What's the context, here in this thread?

It is to prove that the fact that you cannot define something is not proof of anything other than the limitations of language.

With regards to the American 'System', which, save the right to breathe, is the practical source for all rights and responsibilities enjoyed by Citizens and guests alike, the definition of life is anything with a Social Security Number, Tax ID Number or foreign passport, and the rights granted and the responsibilities expected vary based on Citizen -vs- guest -vs business entity status.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I find it strange that the only people that think rights is a subjective term are the ones that are trying to redefine it in such a way that they all come from man. Humans are not the source of life, therefore humans are not the source of my right to life.

I agree. But humans are the source of your "right" to free speech, or your "right" to own a gun.

The government cannot stop people from talking. I can prove that by pointing to the fact that governments have actually tried that in the past, and failed, and that other governments are trying it now, and failing. I guess that makes free speech another natural, and inalienable, right.

Try yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there isn't one and see how far your natural right to express yourself goes past the right of The People (government) to put your ass in jail for speaking your mind.

All rights, except the right to breathe, are subjective and granted by "the authorities", whatever and whoever "the authorities" may be at any given moment in history.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I find it strange that the only people that think rights is a subjective term are the ones that are trying to redefine it in such a way that they all come from man. Humans are not the source of life, therefore humans are not the source of my right to life.

I agree. But humans are the source of your "right" to free speech, or your "right" to own a gun.

The government cannot stop people from talking. I can prove that by pointing to the fact that governments have actually tried that in the past, and failed, and that other governments are trying it now, and failing. I guess that makes free speech another natural, and inalienable, right.

Although inalienable, the right to speak freely is not absolute.

Government may not be able to stop people from ‘talking,’ but persons can be subject to punitive measures if that speech is not considered protected, such as time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech, obscenity, and libel/defamation.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

An interesting thought I had last night that made me think of this thread.

Why is it that our government officials are sworn into office using this:

I, ____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

And the same is done in courts of law. So the question I have is, if the constitution doesn't refer to God directly, and since natural rights in the context of the OP refer to rights granted inalienable by nature, why do we swear our allegiance to the constitution before god?

What does god have to do with any of this natural rights business? The constitution?

Not a lot. Much as I, an atheist, might say goddamn, OMG, or pray to God this or that happens, it's become part of the lexicon and is not always speaking to a diety above.

So, "so help me god" is kinda like "come hell or high water" or "to the best of my ability."

Merely a figure of speech that affirms total commitment.

Then why must this be done over the bible? Why not a copy of the US constitution and Declaration of I?

Why the Bible? Why "so help me god."?

 

[dblack]

An interesting thought I had last night that made me think of this thread.

Why is it that our government officials are sworn into office using this:

I, ____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

And the same is done in courts of law. So the question I have is, if the constitution doesn't refer to God directly, and since natural rights in the context of the OP refer to rights granted inalienable by nature, why do we swear our allegiance to the constitution before god?

What does god have to do with any of this natural rights business? The constitution?

Not a lot. Much as I, an atheist, might say goddamn, OMG, or pray to God this or that happens, it's become part of the lexicon and is not always speaking to a diety above.

So, "so help me god" is kinda like "come hell or high water" or "to the best of my ability."

Merely a figure of speech that affirms total commitment.

Then why must this be done over the bible? Why not a copy of the US constitution and Declaration of I?

Why the Bible? Why "so help me god."?

Because some people take it more seriously, as a real religious oath. But all this evades the real point. The framers weren't making a statement about the religious nature of our rights and government. In fact, in the context of their time in history, they were making a radical statement to the contrary.

 

[dblack]

Although inalienable, the right to speak freely is not absolute.

Yep. I think conflating the term 'inalienable' and 'absolute' is behind a great deal of (pointless) disagreement in this thread. They're not the same thing.

 

[Koios]

An interesting thought I had last night that made me think of this thread.

Why is it that our government officials are sworn into office using this:

I, ____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

And the same is done in courts of law. So the question I have is, if the constitution doesn't refer to God directly, and since natural rights in the context of the OP refer to rights granted inalienable by nature, why do we swear our allegiance to the constitution before god?

What does god have to do with any of this natural rights business? The constitution?

Not a lot. Much as I, an atheist, might say goddamn, OMG, or pray to God this or that happens, it's become part of the lexicon and is not always speaking to a diety above.

So, "so help me god" is kinda like "come hell or high water" or "to the best of my ability."

Merely a figure of speech that affirms total commitment.

Then why must this be done over the bible? Why not a copy of the US constitution and Declaration of I?

Why the Bible? Why "so help me god."?

It mustn't. Indeed that's optional, as the Supreme holding it knows due to certain language in the 1A.

But then, the Christies need reassurin' So whether a pol buys into the nonsense or not, it's just good politics to play along with the foolish. Case in point, current prez: "found" Jesus almost exactly the same time he entered politics. Shouldn't be too tough to parse, I'd think.

Yeah?

 

[regent]

An interesting post in that it shows our ignorance of our own basic rights.
Do Americans still believe in the rights Jefferson put in the Declaration, the framers, and later generations, put into the constitution? Apparently most of us do not even know, or are unable to define these rights as were intended, and worse, we change the definition to fit our politics or beliefs. Perhaps historians and political scientists need to come up with the definitions as intended by the writers and Americans need to learn them. The predictable thing is probably that not all of us would approve of our rights as intended.

 

[Koios]

An interesting post in that it shows our ignorance of our own basic rights.
Do Americans still believe in the rights Jefferson put in the Declaration, the framers, and later generations, put into the constitution? Apparently most of us do not even know, or are unable to define these rights as were intended, and worse, we change the definition to fit our politics or beliefs. Perhaps historians and political scientists need to come up with the definitions as intended by the writers and Americans need to learn them. The predictable thing is probably that not all of us would approve of our rights as intended.

"Rights" of TJ is smidge relative. Indeed, I do like the whole separation of Church and State thingy, albeit, that's about the beginning and end of Tom's input on the BoR. Pretty-much busted his pick on that one item, albeit successfully. Then he left the other items up to other folks, mostly.