What "rights" does nature give us?

[Koios]

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?

I am on a phone at present and thus cannot fully address the depth of your ignorance on the economics of what you proposed.

So check back in a couple hours.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Google relativism.

Sparky, put down the spray paint can and LEARN something. Dreamy posted a truth that could help you grasp what is going on around you.

 

[Dreamy]

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

Representative governments are born from the intense desire to keep our natural birthrights and freedoms. This is truly the fight between good and evil albeit I do understand those who believe this is a Godless world often reject good versus evil and the fight they often put forth in various forms.

We are clearly discussing representative government versus non-representative tyranny. No sane, intelligent man or woman chooses to elect a government to further curtail his or her freedoms or rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

In Africa slavery was a way of life. Tribes often captured members of other tribes and enslaved them, and a major portion of the slave trade was founded upon tribes capturing members of other tribes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

I am on a phone at present and thus cannot fully address the depth of your ignorance on the economics of what you proposed.

So check back in a couple hours.

Come back and try later, I would love to educate you.

 

[Dreamy]

Google relativism.

Sparky, put down the spray paint can and LEARN something. Dreamy posted a truth that could help you grasp what is going on around you.

Did he go soft on me?

Koios get off the phone!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Did he go soft on me?

Koios get off the phone!

Let him finish the call; it's his parole officer...

 

[Dreamy]

”The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!”

^^William Pitt in a speech to the British Parliament basically describing that great American principle that every man is his own King. This principle of ownership and property rights is one of the reasons that the US became the greatest and most powerful country on Earth. Freedom=power.

 

[Dreamy]

Did he go soft on me?

Koios get off the phone!

Let him finish the call; it's his parole officer...

I always suspect when people on these forums "get busy" they are pouring another stiff one or checking in with their PO.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

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 evidence to the large mass of numskulls the compromise 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.

we have an representative form of democracy where our ('the people'), elected representatives, govern in our name.

Party politics is another thing. It is our founders who gave us the two party system.

how does that prove the right of self ownership is not true?

---------------------------------------

We were discussing prohibition and original intent and amendments. The USMB Oddball Dude introduced self-ownership into the discussion, and Dante commented upon it.

You britpat, introduced a law of science into a discussion of abstract concepts like natural law, self-ownership. Dante never addressed your imbecilic notion of comparing a scientific fact with an abstract concept. His reply addressed the 'peoples' right to pass the prohibition amendment.

self-ownership? We give up things in order to live in a free society. It's in teh text to the 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 defense, 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.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

stop being an idiot. saying it is in some people's nature to demand freedom is not the same as saying there is a natural right to freedom.

To say I believe people should be free, is not akin to saying people have to be free because nature demands it.


Man's nature versus Nature. get IT yet?

 

[Contumacious]

”The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!”

^^William Pitt in a speech to the British Parliament basically describing that great American principle that every man is his own King. This principle of ownership and property rights is one of the reasons that the US became the greatest and most powerful country on Earth. Freedom=power.

Pure fiction..


The poorest man is now a former public school student indoctrinated in parasitism. He is also aware that we are being governed by a continuing criminal enterprise which has no qualms about incinerating him , his cottage, his family and pets alive . Ask the Davidians.

.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.



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.

See? Dante never said one could challenge a federal amendment.

What he said was a slave could ask the court to look at rights under conflicting amendments

 

[Dreamy]

”The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!”

^^William Pitt in a speech to the British Parliament basically describing that great American principle that every man is his own King. This principle of ownership and property rights is one of the reasons that the US became the greatest and most powerful country on Earth. Freedom=power.

Pure fiction..


The poorest man is now a former public school student indoctrinated in parasitism. He is also aware that we are being governed by a continuing criminal enterprise which has no qualms about incinerating him , his cottage, his family and pets alive . Ask the Davidians.

.

Huh? We are not talking about wealth. We are talking about freedoms and the power that those freedoms offer. The fact that this country is on the wrong track today and has been for many years is a given.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Slavery was legal.

Lincoln did not propose allowing slavery in 1861. Where do you get this shit? FOX News? Glenn Beck? WND?

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?

Fool, you stated that Lincoln proposed it. He did not. He did not even endorse it. What he did was in order to avoid a civil war, he stated he would not fight it, then he recognize the legitimacy of the amendment and the process.

Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, said of the Corwin Amendment:[14][15] Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"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."

Just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln sent a letter to each state's governor transmitting the proposed amendment,[16][17] without taking a position on it, and noting that Buchanan had approved it.[18]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[...

you're an idiot with a poor grasp of history and facts. you live in an ideological bubble.

take your meds

 

[Contumacious]

”The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!”

^^William Pitt in a speech to the British Parliament basically describing that great American principle that every man is his own King. This principle of ownership and property rights is one of the reasons that the US became the greatest and most powerful country on Earth. Freedom=power.

Pure fiction..


The poorest man is now a former public school student indoctrinated in parasitism. He is also aware that we are being governed by a continuing criminal enterprise which has no qualms about incinerating him , his cottage, his family and pets alive . Ask the Davidians.

.

Huh? We are not talking about wealth. We are talking about freedoms and the power that those freedoms offer. The fact that this country is on the wrong track today and has been for many years is a given.

Freedoms?

At the Davidians Trial the government could not identify the gestapo agent who had the warrant nor the reason for the warrant.

82 individuals women and children incinerated alive - their natural right to live ignored - none of the stormtroopers was ever suggested to a Nuremberg type trial.

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[...

you're an idiot with a poor grasp of history and facts. you live in an ideological bubble.

take your meds

The issue you have Dainty, is that your IQ is a bit below 30.

 

[Murf76]

I can't believe this thread is still going. So many so-called "liberals" in such a big hurry to become powerless peasants without rights.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Did you not pass 8th grade civics?

Natural rights are those that do not depend on the existence of government.

Government is not necessary for you to exercise a great number of your rights - as examples, that of free speech, self-defense, self-determination, the ownership of property, to freely practice your religion -- and are therefore all examples of natural rights.