What "rights" does nature give us?

[Quantum Windbag]

here we go again....from natural rights to..........................

drum roll please.............................................
.............................................................
..........................................................
.........................................................
.......................................................
................................................

one word: Galileo

"Seqeunce" and "ordered set of steps" are synonymous.

Meanwhile, GG invents the telescope, which is cool because he can then track the movement of near-in planets, the moon and our sun, and from that determine, in contrast to astrological beliefs of the Catholic Chrich of the day, that the earth and planets revolve around the sun. Cool!!! Astrology be damned, we just created astronomy!!!

But due to distortion at the edges of the lenses, the maginfication was lame and distorted. Plus the scope had to get pretty fucking long for any decent magnification.

Then along comes a guy named Ike Newton, and bingo! Distortion be gone, and a short scope has gobs more magnification than GG's novel design, even long ones (reflector telescopes, still in use today).

The only mystery left, then, is WHAT IN THE FUCK DID GALILEO GALILEI have to do with what you quoted of mine?

Oops, my bad. I combined two posts thinking they were one. Sorry Que Dubya, just this:

"Seqeunce" and "ordered set of steps" are synonymous.

Since you are responding to me, care to point out where I said anything else?

 

[Koios]

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?

Simply abolish government schools and quit taxing people for them.

Doesn't increase competition. Folks who can afford private schooling are buying it already and competition is already high.

Eliminating public education would merely make for a less educated society, and disproportionately benefit GOP candidates, which I oppose.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have no fucking idea. Some do, some don't. But, and knock me over with a fucking feather, you missed the point, entirely, which is: folks born here have more freedom than those born in North Korea.

The point is that people born there have the exact same right to freedom as the ones born here.

you may believe that, but I doubt even the North Koreans all do. I may believe it on a philosophical level, but then reality kicks in

Doesn't matter, you already admitted I am right.

 

[Koios]

The point is that people born there have the exact same right to freedom as the ones born here.

You're welcome to believe that, which I do too. But the freedoms the NKs in fact have are WAY THE FUCK LESS THAN OURS.

Do you disagree?

If you believe that they have the same right to freedom we do then you have to admit that that right does not come from the government.

Correct; it comes from my belief.

But actual rights come from governments.

 

[Dreamy]

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?

Depends on where you are born, in what time period/age, and in what country, and what the societal norms/laws/philosophy said...unless of course you believe their exists a birthright of freedom that comes from outside the human mind?

I personally believe my natural rights come form God but for those who do not believe in God I would use the word "birthright" to make the claim that we naturally come into this world as free human creatures and only government can restrain and suppress us and sometimes do. Government is not my higher power. Some restraints are legally enforced by the use of a representative government but they onto themselves do not control my natural freedoms without review, thus why we elect government to represent out wishes and keep our natural freedoms as great and plentiful as possible. The direction our government is taking us is far away from the freedoms that come with birth, through God in my personal life.

ETA: Freedoms denied by anything less than a representative government is oppression and tyranny. Freedoms curtailed in excess by a representative government is a society heading into a potentially completely oppressive society.

Using our founders and our founding documents as guidelines of measurement are we in the US heading into a more oppressive society? I say yes.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nice to have you weasle into the conver, and with something even. Praise babyjesus, things are lookin' up.

Meanwhile, what you talk about are markets, which exploded when polities developed into fewer much larger organized societies -- with governments -- that CREATED RULES OF COMMERCE. (Not to menton units of trade: coins, then nat'l currencies)

Sorry to pop your bubble and send you hurdling back to reality.

As with most of what you post, the above is ignorant bullshit.

Governments created the rules of commerce?

BWAHAHAHAHA

What a fucktard...

Markets have bedeviled governments since the first caveman (who was more advanced evolutionary wise than a feral baboon such as you) clubbed his fellow tribesmen into submission. Despite his violence and imposition, the others snuck off to trade furs to other tribes for grain and other goods.

Commerce arose from the realization of humans (who unlike feral baboons are intelligent creatures) that specialization of goods and service arise. Mediums of exchange also arose, precious metals and jewels. In order to TAX commerce, societies coin money, so that the state has a modicum of control on markets. But as the Fascist states of Germany and Stalin's USSR have demonstrated, even with iron fist policies, markets defy state controls with black and grey markets arising to meet needs.

Koios, you're an uneducated fool spouting idiocy in direct contradiction of fact. Such a dimwit are you that you've become fellow traveler with Dainty - the two of you make a perfect couple...

Serious question, do you think there is anyone here not openly laughing at you? Honestly bud, you are an ignorant fool making a complete ass of yourself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

You seem a trifle confused, the courts have no authority to declare any portion of the Constitution null and void simply because they don't like it, that is why there is still a death penalty despite massive efforts to wipe it out through the court system.

you and the other imbecile seen totally confused

you are confusing. the discussion is about an amendment negating a right. in that situation a person could go to court asking it to decide which right trumped the other. happens all the time.

don't make me help you look like a bigger fool than you are already.


---

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.

I am not confused, the Constitution is the highest law of the land. You might be able to file a case in court challenging an amendment to a state constitution, but it will not work in challenging the federal one. That is why they specifically passed an amendment to repeal prohibition, courts do not have authority to do so.

 

[bripat9643]

natural rights ... human construct

You're a mindless fucktard, Dainty.

True story.

Agreed. he obviously isn't capable of committing logic. He doesn't even understand the points you make. he just regurgitates the same old shit over and over again.

 

[Dreamy]

You're welcome to believe that, which I do too. But the freedoms the NKs in fact have are WAY THE FUCK LESS THAN OURS.

Do you disagree?

If you believe that they have the same right to freedom we do then you have to admit that that right does not come from the government.

Correct; it comes from my belief.

But actual rights come from governments.

We authorize government to PROTECT our natural rights. These rights are not afforded to us by the government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're welcome to believe that, which I do too. But the freedoms the NKs in fact have are WAY THE FUCK LESS THAN OURS.

Do you disagree?

If you believe that they have the same right to freedom we do then you have to admit that that right does not come from the government.

Correct; it comes from my belief.

But actual rights come from governments.

No they do not, something I have already proven.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

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.

right wing revisionist history where a fact is used with the whole context left out,

an example of right wingers being fed bogus history and passing it on

What "context" alters the fact that Lincoln endorsed an Amendment to the Constitution that would permanently legalize slavery?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

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.

You just posted the evidence that proves what I said.

Yeah, I know slavery was legal, but it wasn't enshrined in the Constitution. If it had been, then we would all have a constitutional right to own other people.

The Great Silence? The term slavery was not used in the Constitution, but Article 1 section 9:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

better a simple wiki answer:

Historians sometimes call this "The Great Silence." The US Constitution did not outlaw slavery. "Slavery" is not even mentioned in the US Constitution. The subject was so divisive between the southern and the northern states that any further debate on it had to be dropped for 20 years and left for another generation to figure out or the Constitution would never have been adopted. In the Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 states that the migration and importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808. Clause 4 permits a tax on the importation of such persons but limits it to $10 a person. Further, Article 5 allowed amendments to the Constitution, but specifically prohibited any amendment that would affect the first and fourth clauses of the ninth section of the first article before 1808. Note how carefully the words slave or slavery were kept out. Since slavery was in effect then, the Constitution did not abolish it.

Slave holders in effect had a constitutional right to own other people, since the 9th amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

You were totally wrong in your comments on Lincoln

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You forgot a key word in your definition of progression, sequence. Evolution is not sequential, it is random. If we reverse entropy and start over with the exact same parameters life on Earth will end up looking different because mutations are random.

On the other hand, if we rewind entropy and rerun the Solar System from the beginning we will end up with the exact same thing because planetary formation is sequential, or, if you prefer, progressive.

Maybe if you weren't trying to debate English on the assumption that your public school education actually taught you the language you might not end up feeling as dumb as you do reading this.

here we go again....from natural rights to..........................

drum roll please.............................................
.............................................................
..........................................................
.........................................................
.......................................................
................................................

one word: Galileo

I went back and reread that post three times and didn't see any mention of a specific person.

you bring almost every issue you can into the scientific sphere where you can spout your imbecilities on Galileo. I even used a google search to amuse myself on this one,. had to verify it was not my imagination

 

[Dreamy]

Okay; how do we do that sans government action?

Simply abolish government schools and quit taxing people for them.

Doesn't increase competition. Folks who can afford private schooling are buying it already and competition is already high.

Eliminating public education would merely make for a less educated society, and disproportionately benefit GOP candidates, which I oppose.

The same monies would be accrued by government. The difference in my new world is that the choice of education would be in play and we would end the money monopoly the government schools possess.

I would have education bucks to spend as I choose on the school of my choice. You do support choice in our personal lives, yes?

 

[Contumacious]

With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?

NATURAL RIGHTS

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

1) You? Liberal or Libertarian? More like an imbecilic ideologue no matter what label you hijack.

Liberalism would embrace things from both the left and the right. See? You truly are dumb

You know nothing of liberalism, Dainty.

Liberalism draws it's roots from John Locke, Thomas Payne, Thomas Jefferson, et al.

You draw your roots from Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, et al.

Liberalism embraces that which supports and promotes individual liberty, which you seek to crush under the boot of leftism.

People recognize rights claimed by ideologues who claim those same rights are somehow given by a creator...the validity of the rights being tied to the validity of this creator/

Yawn, incoherent blather without meaning.

Rights exist absent king or lord granting said rights. It is this which drives your leftists wild. You seek a world where all bend knee to you in acceptance of the rule and dominion of the left.

While it may be natural for man to desire freedom, and I believe it is mostly so, there is no proof, only a belief, that a creator is involved who doles out this freedom.

Without interference from the state, man is free. Ergo, the natural right of man is freedom.

Believing there is no creator, and that human constructs contribute to dictating our nature and how we evolve as a species, I can proudly demand the world recognize my right to freedom. Whether they do or not is another question

Your war against imaginary beings is a psychosis you will have to deal with on your own. If this is the cause of your hostility toward civil liberty, seek psychiatric help.

2) rantings and ravings of a mad person intoxicated by the thoughts scrambling around in your dis-eased mind

3) Denial, self-deception and the on-set of dementia?

You smoke a lot of meth each day, don't you?

 

[Koios]

If you believe that they have the same right to freedom we do then you have to admit that that right does not come from the government.

Correct; it comes from my belief.

But actual rights come from governments.

We authorize government to PROTECT our natural rights. These rights are not afforded to us by the government.

Google relativism.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

The Supreme Court cannot rule a legitimately ratified amendment to the Constitution to be invalid. That's what you're suggesting it would do.

Nope. There are court cases where conflicting rights were at issue. You do not know this? Dante never claimed the SCOTUS can rule an amendment invalid. What Dante wrote about was if an amendment on slavery was enacted a case would be brought by slaves asking the court to look at their rights under other amendments.

An amendment can conflict with another amendment. A new amendment does not negate rights enumerated in other amendments, unless otherwise specified as overturning rights recognized in a previous amendment.

You wrote asking if it was agreed "if an amendment passed saying slavery was allowed, then slaves would have no rights."

I wrote "An amendment like that could be added..." adding "but then it would be taken into the courts." because slaves would ask the Court to look at other rights retained, if any.

You were assuming under slavery, slaves have absolutely no rights at all?

 

[Dreamy]

Correct; it comes from my belief.

But actual rights come from governments.

We authorize government to PROTECT our natural rights. These rights are not afforded to us by the government.

Google relativism.

What is google relativism? You have no reply to trump this truth?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That explains why there was never a slave revolt in the entire history of the US, slaves knew they had no right to freedom.

Wait, I forgot about this one, and at least 240 others.

1811 German Coast Uprising - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

their forebears were captured and enslaved in Africa. They revolted to have a their right to freedom recognized...by the law of the land.

You just admitted that freedom does not come from government, people, or society.

I guess that makes me right.

their right to freedom comes out of their minds. In Africa, were they were first enslaved, there was no law to appeal to that I know of. They demanded a right recognized by the US Government