What "rights" does nature give us?

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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

The definition of "unalienable rights," is those rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else - the government, for example, or another person. Some people refer to these as "natural" or "God-given" rights


It is self evident that we are all equal in that we are human,

We do not have the right to define others’ happiness based on our own. Our rights are protected by government and while we are free to pursue our goals we don't have the right to infringe on someone else.
 
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.
Piss off, Uncle Joe.
 
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.
Piss off, Uncle Joe.

Nah; I'm having fun, pissing you off.
 
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.

An amendment like that could be added, but then it would be taken into the courts. Why do you have such difficulty understanding the system we have?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. --The Ninth Amendment
 
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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

The definition of "unalienable rights," is those rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else - the government, for example, or another person. Some people refer to these as "natural" or "God-given" rights


It is self evident that we are all equal in that we are human,

We do not have the right to define others’ happiness based on our own. Our rights are protected by government and while we are free to pursue our goals we don't have the right to infringe on someone else.

Hmmm? Seems some disparate items are being confused.

1. Statement of fact, i.e., your rights are these, as enumerated in the BoR and follow-on Amednments.

2. Lofty ideas, beautifully put, which endeavors to morally justify telling a monarch to go jump.
 
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.

Your opinions are noted. The court will take them under consideration. :eusa_clap:

Please, 'the people' will always fuck up, it's why the framers debated so fiercely on how to slow down the populist urge. We do not have a direct democracy, we have a representative democracy with a government structure that has checks and balances built in.

The right of self-ownership is an ideological concept that is not self evident to many people around the world. I don't see those words in the Declaration or the Constitution. I do believe in it on some level, but not being an ideological purist...
 
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.

An amendment like that could be added, but then it would be taken into the courts. Why do you have such difficulty understanding the system we have?

Wrong. The courts don't decide whether the Constitution or its amendments are "valid." By definition, they are the standard of what's valid. If an amendment to the Constitution allowing slavery was passed in 1861, which is what Lincoln proposed, then slaves would never have had any rights, and according to you that would be perfectly OK.

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

Later amendments take precedence over earlier amendments. Otherwise, we'd still have prohibition.
 
Last edited:
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.

Your opinions are noted. The court will take them under consideration. :eusa_clap:

Please, 'the people' will always fuck up, it's why the framers debated so fiercely on how to slow down the populist urge. We do not have a direct democracy, we have a representative democracy with a government structure that has checks and balances built in.

The right of self-ownership is an ideological concept that is not self evident to many people around the world. I don't see those words in the Declaration or the Constitution. I do believe in it on some level, but not being an ideological purist...
That you've misused a tool/concept does not invalidate it.

But it's quite instructive that such a useful idiot toady for the corporate oligarchy as yourself, would cower behind them for cover when it suits him.

Way ta go, comrade. :thup:
 
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.

Ok Sergeant Schultz. There is no straw man. Self-ownership comes out of a demented utopian dream of people admired by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, who is criticized for romanticizing agricultural man living in an Anglo Saxon time of bliss before repressive governments came along :lol:
 
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.

Your opinions are noted. The court will take them under consideration. :eusa_clap:

Please, 'the people' will always fuck up, it's why the framers debated so fiercely on how to slow down the populist urge. We do not have a direct democracy, we have a representative democracy with a government structure that has checks and balances built in.

The right of self-ownership is an ideological concept that is not self evident to many people around the world. I don't see those words in the Declaration or the Constitution. I do believe in it on some level, but not being an ideological purist...

The law of gravity isn't evident to the large mass of numskulls that comprise the American electorate. Does that make it a matter of opinion?

Nope.

The so-called "checks and balances" in our system are mostly illusions. When the same party controls all three branches of government, their power is virtually unlimited.
 
Last edited:
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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

The definition of "unalienable rights," is those rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else - the government, for example, or another person. Some people refer to these as "natural" or "God-given" rights


It is self evident that we are all equal in that we are human,

We do not have the right to define others’ happiness based on our own. Our rights are protected by government and while we are free to pursue our goals we don't have the right to infringe on someone else.

We do not have the right to = moralistic

rights are abstract ideas. we can and do believe in them, but let us not forget it is we humans that construct the very ideas, our natures do, but nature does not
 
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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

The definition of "unalienable rights," is those rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else - the government, for example, or another person. Some people refer to these as "natural" or "God-given" rights


It is self evident that we are all equal in that we are human,

We do not have the right to define others’ happiness based on our own. Our rights are protected by government and while we are free to pursue our goals we don't have the right to infringe on someone else.

We do not have the right to = moralistic

rights are abstract ideas. we can and do believe in them, but let us not forget it is we humans that construct the very ideas, nature does not

Abstract like our "creator" :badgrin: what a shit stirrer that guy was.
 
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?

More competition in the private sector beats out government both in cost and quality.

US Education. Could improve in quality with less government involvement and more private sector competition. If I choose to send my child to a private school instead of a public school the monies normally allotted to the public school should follow my child to the school of our choice.
 
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?

More competition in the private sector beats out government both in cost and quality.

US Education. Could improve in quality with less government involvement and more private sector competition. If I choose to send my child to a private school instead of a public school the monies normally allotted to the public school should follow my child to the school of our choice.

Okay; how do we do that sans government action?
 
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?

More competition in the private sector beats out government both in cost and quality.

US Education. Could improve in quality with less government involvement and more private sector competition. If I choose to send my child to a private school instead of a public school the monies normally allotted to the public school should follow my child to the school of our choice.

Okay; how do we do that at a national level, when states and local government are also involved. And it is pure marketplace-driven? Any guidelines or oversight? If so, who pays for the new government oversight and guidelines development?
 
Last edited:
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?

More competition in the private sector beats out government both in cost and quality.

US Education. Could improve in quality with less government involvement and more private sector competition. If I choose to send my child to a private school instead of a public school the monies normally allotted to the public school should follow my child to the school of our choice.

So government should pay for your child's private schooling? That's more government, not less.
 
read John Locke

I have.

He's wrong about "natural rights".

Nature..as we define it..is pretty different from human constructs.

In nature, rights are defined by groups of animals banding together.

And by the animals in that group.

Sound familiar?

:eusa_eh:

Natural Rights sound like survival of the fittest to me.

If you can't cut it then your prey for something or someone who can.

Sure would be a lot of fit folks out there and no weak, ill or elderly if this were the case.
 
read John Locke

I have.

He's wrong about "natural rights".

Nature..as we define it..is pretty different from human constructs.

In nature, rights are defined by groups of animals banding together.

And by the animals in that group.

Sound familiar?

:eusa_eh:

Natural Rights sound like survival of the fittest to me.

If you can't cut it then your prey for something or someone who can.

Sure would be a lot of fit folks out there and no weak, ill or elderly if this were the case.

The Government's job is to protect you.:cool:
 
If an amendment to the Constitution allowing slavery was passed in 1861, which is what Lincoln proposed, then slaves would never have had any rights, and according to you that would be perfectly OK.
Slavery was legal.

Lincoln did not propose allowing slavery in 1861. Where do you get this shit? FOX News? Glenn Beck? WND?
Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Corwin Amendment was passed by the House on March 1, 1861 and the Senate on March 3, 1861. President Buchanan signed it the same day, his last full day in office; it was ratified by three states: Ohio, Maryland and Illinois.[28] This proposed amendment would have forbidden the adopting of any constitutional amendment abolishing or restricting slavery, or permitting the Congress to do so. This proposal was an unsuccessful attempt to persuade the Southern states not to secede from the Union.
Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, said of the Corwin Amendment:[14][15]

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service....[H]olding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
 
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.

An amendment like that could be added, but then it would be taken into the courts. Why do you have such difficulty understanding the system we have?

Wrong. The courts don't decide whether the Constitution or its amendments are "valid." By definition, they are the standard of what's valid. If an amendment to the Constitution allowing slavery was passed in 1861, which is what Lincoln proposed, then slaves would never have had any rights, and according to you that would be perfectly OK.

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

Later amendments take precedence over earlier amendments. Otherwise, we'd still have prohibition.

What I said was:
"An amendment like that could be added, but then it would be taken into the courts. Why do you have such difficulty understanding the system we have??" -- I did not say the court would decide the validity of the amendment. The Supreme Court has decided cases where conflicting rights/issues/amendments were before them.
 

Forum List

Back
Top