What "rights" does nature give us?

[Oddball]

No, it's not semantics.

The concept of natural rights

We created the government, the concept of government, the mode of government to protect us, AND WE DEFINED THE RIGHTS WE WANTED OUR GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT.

cool, we all agree natural rights are concepts: abstract ideas; general notions.

Natural rights = Self-ownership.

Are you a free individual or a meat puppet plaything of your corporate oligarch masters?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No, it's not semantics.

The concept of natural rights presumes that we all have our rights in precedence to lawful de jure government....And in fact it is the protection of those rights that is its primary (arguably only) role in our lives.

...

That the feds stuck their noses into the business of the people and outlawed alcohol is representative of what happens when they get out of their box...They create black markets, chaos and chaos.

from preamble Declaration of Independence


preamble of US Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence[sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Concept: An abstract idea; a general notion.

The protection of rights is the primary (arguably only) role of government in our lives? Read the preamble to the US Constitution.

Your grasp of American history concerning prohibition is at a grade school level (arguably lower). The Federal Government DID NOT seek to outlaw alcohol, US citizens did. Look up what it takes to get an amendment to the US Constitution to a successful conclusion.

American populists, progressives, conservatives, and Christians (as well as some of other faiths) campaigned all over America and the sacred "people" voted


Dante

dD

Prohibition is a prime example of what happens when you ignore the original intent of the republic to protect rights and use it to restrict rights.

Speaking of an understanding that is below grade school.

Prohibition was enacted using the process laid out in the US Constitution. Original intent? It is more than intent here :: the framers wrote into the document, and the ratifiers (the people) voted to have an amendment process to the US Constitution

 

[bripat9643]

Depends on which country you're born in.

So you believe that if you are born into slavery then your natural birthright to be free does not exist?

No. I think freedom is a construct of polities, and that it varies by country.

In other words, if your country allows slavery, then slaves have no rights.

How about homosexuals? Do they have the right to marry despite the fact that the voters have decided otherwise?

 

[Uncensored2008]

A smidge slow on the uptake, to the tune of 50+ years? (McCarhty was borderline insane and a clusterfuck)

No surprise, in your case.

MCarthy was factually correct - as proven in the Venona files, Herr Goebbels.

You piece of shit communists engaged in a war of personal destruction that would have made your mentor blush and succeeded in silencing fact with libel and slander.

It doesn't change the fact that McCarthy was right and that you are a complete scumbag. Another pampered rich child who will get Mumsy and Daddy back by becoming a Communist...

 

[Dreamy]

Yes indeed. Let's say you're a child of Bill and Melinda Gates; then imagine what freedoms you might have, such as great legal help if by chance caught with some dope, or school choice or where on the planet you'll summer this year.

Then contrast that with being a kid born in Somalia.

Have a ball, on your mental exercise.

Um I am not talking about fair and equal. I do not believe life is all equal and fair for everyone. That is what makes it a life.

I am addressing the right to be born free. Does it exist even when it is abused by the government?

Our freedoms are most certainly a right of birth and only an unchecked government can take that right away in a civil society.

Too many are making that an easy endeavor for this government.

Gee; really? Me either. Since we have so much in common, let's fuck.

Hahahahahahahaha. Goddamn you guys. I'm having trouble typing I'm laughing so hard.

I laugh lots on this forum. It's all good. This is entertainment in his basest form.

We are born free and we the people create a civil government to secure that birthright freedom not add layers of oppression as we do more and more over time.

In this country we are given a promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and much opportunity. What happens after your ass is slapped at the delivery table is up to you and of course can be affected by the uncertainty life brings.

Oh and no politics allowed while fucking, another birthright. lol

 

[Oddball]

from preamble Declaration of Independence


preamble of US Constitution


Concept: An abstract idea; a general notion.

The protection of rights is the primary (arguably only) role of government in our lives? Read the preamble to the US Constitution.

Your grasp of American history concerning prohibition is at a grade school level (arguably lower). The Federal Government DID NOT seek to outlaw alcohol, US citizens did. Look up what it takes to get an amendment to the US Constitution to a successful conclusion.

American populists, progressives, conservatives, and Christians (as well as some of other faiths) campaigned all over America and the sacred "people" voted


Dante

dD

Prohibition is a prime example of what happens when you ignore the original intent of the republic to protect rights and use it to restrict rights.

Speaking of an understanding that is below grade school.

Prohibition was enacted using the process laid out in the US Constitution. Original intent? It is more than intent here :: the framers wrote into the document, and the ratifiers (the people) voted to have an amendment process to the US Constitution

Regardless, prohibition is an example of what happens when people forget -or plain old ignore- the proper role of de jure governance to protect their rights, rather than restrict them.

How the right of self-ownership was transgressed is irrelevant to the fact that it has been and continues to be.

 

[bripat9643]

from preamble Declaration of Independence


preamble of US Constitution


Concept: An abstract idea; a general notion.

The protection of rights is the primary (arguably only) role of government in our lives? Read the preamble to the US Constitution.

Your grasp of American history concerning prohibition is at a grade school level (arguably lower). The Federal Government DID NOT seek to outlaw alcohol, US citizens did. Look up what it takes to get an amendment to the US Constitution to a successful conclusion.

American populists, progressives, conservatives, and Christians (as well as some of other faiths) campaigned all over America and the sacred "people" voted


Dante

dD

Prohibition is a prime example of what happens when you ignore the original intent of the republic to protect rights and use it to restrict rights.

Speaking of an understanding that is below grade school.

Prohibition was enacted using the process laid out in the US Constitution. Original intent? It is more than intent here :: the framers wrote into the document, and the ratifiers (the people) voted to have an amendment process to the US Constitution

In other words, your rights are whatever the Constitution says. So if an amendment passed saying slavery was allowed, then slaves would have no rights.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So you believe that if you are born into slavery then your natural birthright to be free does not exist?

Liberals claim rights are purely man made creations, but they still get upset when voters turn down ballot issues to allow homosexuals to marry. What are they whining about? According to them, if society says homosexuals don't have the right to marry, then they don't have the right to marry.

actually, it is conservative libertarians who also support the concept of same-sex marriage as a right

ballot initiatives are subject to judicial review. sorry. it's that damn Constitution that gets in your way every time. A Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage would be something to look to. Then we'd have a battle of conflicting amendments as we do in many Supreme Court cases and one side -- conservative/liberal would have to take an activist stand on the court



you're such a tool .. you should hang out with the USMB Oddball Dude

 

[Koios]

Prohibition is a prime example of what happens when you ignore the original intent of the republic to protect rights and use it to restrict rights.

Speaking of an understanding that is below grade school.

Prohibition was enacted using the process laid out in the US Constitution. Original intent? It is more than intent here :: the framers wrote into the document, and the ratifiers (the people) voted to have an amendment process to the US Constitution

In other words, your rights are whatever the Constitution says. So if an amendment passed saying slavery was allowed, then slaves would have no rights.

Yes! Tell him what he's won, Johnny!!!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sure; makes prefect sense. You're a fucking idiot who couldn't keep up in your wildest fucking wetdreams. So I'm huffin' paint.

Good "thinking," moron.

Keep up with what, sparky?

You're a mental midget who has offered nothing worth considering, much less any sort of topic that would lose any audience. Do you think your little act of superiority impresses anyone? Really?

ROFL..

 

[Koios]

So you believe that if you are born into slavery then your natural birthright to be free does not exist?

No. I think freedom is a construct of polities, and that it varies by country.

In other words, if your country allows slavery, then slaves have no rights.

How about homosexuals? Do they have the right to marry despite the fact that the voters have decided otherwise?

Not in all states. Should they be allowed in all 50 states plus DC? Of course.

However, some states are kinda behind the times, and thus NO SAME SEX COUPLES HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE MARRIED IN THEM!!!!

 

[Koios]

Sure; makes prefect sense. You're a fucking idiot who couldn't keep up in your wildest fucking wetdreams. So I'm huffin' paint.

Good "thinking," moron.

Keep up with what, sparky?

You're a mental midget who has offered nothing worth considering, much less any sort of topic that would lose any audience. Do you think your little act of superiority impresses anyone? Really?

ROFL..

Me. You know it; I know it. So live with it or don't.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Me. You know it; I know it. So live with it or don't.

So, nothing to keep up with, then?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Too many on the left apparently believe the answer is government.

The answer should rarely be government. Government in its worst form seeks to exercise power over the lives of others. A civil government is formed by the people to restrain those people who would use power to restrain the other people. But that government should not become the oppression itself that we seek to prevent and it has in many ways.

The left does have that belief, but most liberals do not. Imagine that, a distinction with a difference

The moralistic right also has the belief that government needs to step in.

read the preamble to the US Constitution. It appears our civil government was formed by 'the people' to do more than the simplistic bumper sticker bullshit you spew

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence[sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[Koios]

Me. You know it; I know it. So live with it or don't.

So, nothing to keep up with, then?

Sure; if that works for ya, have a ball.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We created the government, the concept of government, the mode of government to protect us, AND WE DEFINED THE RIGHTS WE WANTED OUR GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT.

cool, we all agree natural rights are concepts: abstract ideas; general notions.

Natural rights = Self-ownership.

Are you a free individual or a meat puppet plaything of your corporate oligarch masters?

I am a free individual because I say so, but living in the real world and not in an abstract utopian dream world I know my the freedoms I demand are subject to societal restrictions.

Considering I want to tax the super wealthy much more and penalize their spawn, I am hardly a friend of an Oligarchy

 

[Koios]

Too many on the left apparently believe the answer is government.

Okay; let's play along, Dreamy. What answers have you for problems facing our people which does not involve government?

 

[Oddball]

cool, we all agree natural rights are concepts: abstract ideas; general notions.

Natural rights = Self-ownership.

Are you a free individual or a meat puppet plaything of your corporate oligarch masters?

I am a free individual because I say so, but living in the real world and not in an abstract utopian dream world I know my the freedoms I demand are subject to societal restrictions.

Considering I want to tax the super wealthy much more and penalize their spawn, I am hardly a friend of an Oligarchy

Nobody said anything about Utopia, Captain Strawman.

That you want to use the oligarchy to tax the super wealthy much more and penalize their spawn makes you not just its friend, but it makes you one of its willing useful idiot accomplices.

Better you than me.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So you believe that if you are born into slavery then your natural birthright to be free does not exist?

No. I think freedom is a construct of polities, and that it varies by country.

In other words, if your country allows slavery, then slaves have no rights.

How about homosexuals? Do they have the right to marry despite the fact that the voters have decided otherwise?

Voters can vote into law anything they want, but citizens then get to seek redress from their government for laws that violate their rights.

Certain 'rights' people believe they have can be restricted or taken away by constitutional amendments that pass muster, but even then there is the 9th amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. --The Ninth Amendment

 

[Koios]

Natural rights = Self-ownership.

Are you a free individual or a meat puppet plaything of your corporate oligarch masters?

I am a free individual because I say so, but living in the real world and not in an abstract utopian dream world I know my the freedoms I demand are subject to societal restrictions.

Considering I want to tax the super wealthy much more and penalize their spawn, I am hardly a friend of an Oligarchy

Nobody said anything about Utopia, Captain Strawman.

That you want to use the oligarchy to tax the super wealthy much more and penalize their spawn makes you not just tits friend, but it makes you one of their willing useful idiot accomplices.

Better you than me.

Time for English class: Utopia and utopian dream (lower case u oughta clue you in) are different.