Where do your rights come from?

a reply to: Stevenmonet

Close enough.

a reply to: darkbake

Ok you say our rights come from god but you lean left. Ok I'm leaning towards outlier, but then you say

"We do form a pact with our government to give them control over us, but it is justified because the government is run by the people in a Democracy.

In the end, if the people don't think the government is honoring the pact, they can rebel. The government can't control the people unless they have a legitimate pact with the people, who agreed to it of their own free will.

In some cases, the government gains control through totalitarian means like armed police and surveillance. But they don't automatically have this control they have to work for it."

So I believe the confusion may be with how I define my political spectrum may be different then what you are used to.

In practice I have found it does not matter where you think yourself or government currently reside on any conventional political scale that would be and is highly contested.

I define left as anyone regardless of their current form of government or political affiliation who advocates for or feels that more governmental/societal oversight/control over their daily activities is preferable/waranted, and right would be anyone regardless of their current form of government or political affiliation who advocates or feels that less/smaller governmental/societal oversight/ control over their daily activities is preferable/warranted.

You are describing a balanced government which is great we all want one, but that is t the 2md question.

The 2nd question is do you want your current form of government/society to have less or more control/oversight of your daily activities.

If you feel more control/oversight by your government/society over your daily activities is needed/justified/preferable to the current level then yep outlier it is, for now at least.

But if you feel your current form of government/society should have/deserves/can justify a smaller or more limited amount of oversight/control over your daily activities than it currently does then you are on the right and support my hypothesis.

Let me know and I'll mark it down as a data set. Thanks darkbake!

a reply to: AutomateThis1

Thank you for coming back to clarify and for providing the data set. It took some teasing out, but that is simply part of the process.

You rock!

a reply to: Stevenmonet

My rights come from my god/creator.

Rights are one thing, but laws are another. Laws come from government.

You have the " right " of freedom of speech, but the law limits what you can say.

a reply to: alldaylong

The distinction between laws and rights is interesting and im sure we could expound on their many similarities and differences.

My hypothesis is that those who see their rights as coming from their society/government tend to lean to the left which I define as wanting more governmental/social oversight/control over their daily actions.

The inverse would be that people who see their rights as coming from their god/creator tend to lean right which I define as wanting smaller/less governmental/social oversight/control over their daily activities.

So you say laws are from government and rights and laws are different. You say you have the right to free speach but laws limit what you can say.

Ok we are talking rights and political leaning so let's figure out how we can get our data set. And see if my hypothesis accurately describes you or not.

You have told me where you feel laws come from, but where do your rights come from?

If you could have your way would you expand or diminish the level of governmental/social oversight/control of your daily activities from the level it is at right now?

Barring an answer to both of those questions:

Do you feel my hypothesis accurately describes your views on where your rights come from in relation to your political leaning as I have defined left and right?

a reply to: Stevenmonet

You have told me where you feel laws come from, but where do your rights come from?

You may already be aware of this, but i will post it for reference.

The English Bill of Rights was an act signed into law in 1689 by William III and Mary II, who became co-rulers in England after the overthrow of King James II. The bill outlined specific constitutional and civil rights and ultimately gave Parliament power over the monarchy. Many experts regard the English Bill of Rights as the primary law that set the stage for a constitutional monarchy in England. It’s also credited as being an inspiration for the U.S. Bill of Rights.

Many of the themes and philosophies found in the English Bill of Rights served as inspirations for principles that were eventually included in the American Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. Constitution and, of course, the U.S. Bill of Rights.

www.history.com...

originally posted by: Stevenmonet
a reply to: Sookiechacha

God gave you the right to be hungry and vulnerable

Government is a pecking order to to deal with hunger and vulnerability...

Rights are an altruistic concept that allows our species to thrive by taking care of the hungary and vulnerable.

So if I got this right your opinion Is that what is right/beneficial for society is what government decides and the focus should be/is for the society to thrive by feeding the hungry and providing security for the vulnerable.

Do you feel your society/government should have more control/oversight over your daily activities as long as it provides further security for the vulnerable and feeds the hungry?

God gave you the right of choice/ free thinking.

Government has become a pecking order by removing freedom of choice/speech and deal with the selfish agenda of the fraudulently elected.

Where to start on that 1???????


What is beneficial to government is what government decides is right for society. The focus is - can the government manipulate society covertly and provide security for itself.

Eff no......who in their right mind would want that??????ohhhh yea the chinese, nth Koreans etc etc colloquially known as communists....shhhhhhh

Alldaylong brings up a potential difference/distinction between rights and laws. I shared googles 1st and 2nd definition for right and its plural rights.

Let's compare them to the same sources definition of law and see what we get.


Alldaylong says:
"Rights are one thing, but laws are another. Laws come from government."
And clarifies by describing that: "
You have the " right " of freedom of speech, but the law limits what you can say."

Again Google defines right as:


noun
plural noun: rights
1.
that which is morally correct, just, or honorable.
"she doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong"
Similar:
goodness
rightness
2.
a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.
"she had every right to be angry"
Similar:
entitlement
prerogative

Now let's look at Google's definition of law:
1.
the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
"they were taken to court for breaking the law"
Similar:
rules and regulations

an individual rule as part of a system of law.
plural noun: laws
"an initiative to tighten up the laws on pornography"
Similar:
regulation
statute

systems of law as a subject of study or as the basis of the legal profession.
"he was still practicing law"
Similar:
the legal profession

statutory law and the common law.
a thing regarded as having the binding force or effect of a formal system of rules.
"what he said was law"

INFORMAL
the police.
"he'd never been in trouble with the law in his life"
Similar:
the police

2.
a rule defining correct procedure or behavior in a sport.
"the laws of the game"
Similar:
rule
regulation
principle

3.
a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.
"the second law of thermodynamics"
a generalization based on a fact or event perceived to be recurrent.
"the first law of American corporate life is that dead wood floats"

4.
the body of divine commandments as expressed in the Bible or other religious texts.
Similar:
principle
rule
precept
directive
direction
injunction
instruction
commandment
prescription
standard
criterion
belief
creed
credo
ethic
maxim
formula
tenet
doctrine
canon
mitzvah
the Pentateuch as distinct from the other parts of the Hebrew Bible (the Prophets and the Writings).
noun: Law; noun: the Law
the precepts of the Pentateuch.
noun: Law of Moses; plural noun: the Law of Moses


Yea that is a lot to take in, but it is worth it.

So do laws come from government yes! Not exclusively but yes.
They also come from god or any organization such as sports or science even.

Laws can describe natural process or a rule laid out by some authority that has consequences when violated.

Once we get all the way to the bottom on
.4 we even learn the law could mean the pentateuch aka law of moses or more broadly as the entire word of god aka gods written law.


So the government has laws and god has laws.

Laws are not rights, but you can see they can used similarly in the same sentance for example: Gods law is what is right.

Some definitions of Law and right can also be used with quite exclusive definitions from one another in the same sentance as well for example: That law just isn't right.

So law and right are in fact quite similar but some uses/definitions can also be exclusive of one another. Unlike say hot and cold or blue and red or white and black which are all exclusive or in polar oposition. I could go on here, but I feel this point of law and right has been expounded uppon enough.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Stevenmonet

You have told me where you feel laws come from, but where do your rights come from?

You may already be aware of this, but i will post if for reference.

The English Bill of Rights was an act signed into law in 1689 by William III and Mary II, who became co-rulers in England after the overthrow of King James II. The bill outlined specific constitutional and civil rights and ultimately gave Parliament power over the monarchy. Many experts regard the English Bill of Rights as the primary law that set the stage for a constitutional monarchy in England. It’s also credited as being an inspiration for the U.S. Bill of Rights.

Many of the themes and philosophies found in the English Bill of Rights served as inspirations for principles that were eventually included in the American Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. Constitution and, of course, the U.S. Bill of Rights.

Very aware and we could expound uppon that to magnacarta and beyond even egypt.

Still doesn't answer my question or help with my hypothesis. Should we expound or carry on you decide but first read where your last tangent lead me and then decide. I will wait for your response before expounding.

www.history.com...

What we are discussing as "rights" comes form the concept of the "birthright." We just shortened the name (as is so common in the English language).

A birthright is something that one is entitled to by virtue of their birth (creation). It is an inherent ownership of an ability. We still recognize that through inheritance today: my home was built by my father. Upon his death, it became my mother's by virtue of their marriage. Upon her death, it became mine by virtue of my birthright. I did not build it (I think my "help" at age 1 was more of a hindrance). I did not buy it. I own it simply because it was my fathers and by birthright is now mine.

Now, is it possible that others can decide to take it from me or destroy this house? Yes, of course. It then follows that my birthrights also must include the right to protect my home to the best of my ability. Else, the birthright to my home is inconsequential.

I have another birthright that became mine simply as a result of my existence: the right to life. Again, that birthright must include the birthright to protect myself and my life/health to the best of my ability, else it too becomes inconsequential.

I was created with certain personality components and certain talents/aptitudes. Ergo, it is also my birthright to use those talents/aptitudes to the best of my ability. I have a knack for system analysis and design; it is my birthright to pursue those things to the best of my ability.

Every person has those birthrights (well, maybe some don't have the inheritance thing, but life and the pursuit of personal interests apply to everyone). In a perfect world, a world where those birthrights are accepted and respected by others, things would be simple. Yet, we do not live in a perfect world. Those talents and aptitudes I mentioned make us all unique individuals with our own basic needs and desires. In addition, some of us are born with the DNA that makes us stronger physically than others, some are born with congenital health defects, some are born with superior or inferior mental abilities in various areas, some have a personality that lends itself to leadership, and so on.

Nature can be cruel. The easiest way for one with superior physical ability or superior leadership qualities to obtain their desires is to take what they desire from others. That is the nature of the world: might makes right. Such a societal system, however, fails to benefit from the advantages that others can contribute. Imagine if you will a world where there was never an Einstein, or a Tesla, or a Marconi, or a Plato, or a DaVinci... such a world would have us all living in caves and fighting among ourselves constantly for the bare necessities of life. No cell phones, no computers, no airplanes, no cars, no trucks... a lifespan of maybe 30 years... no heat, no air conditioning, and every day devoted to one simple task: acquire enough food to live and protect it from others.

That is a miserable life.

So we have societal rules we call "laws." These laws exist to protect individuals from other individuals who would take away those basic birthrights and in doing so, allow each individual to contribute to society and better life for everyone. The downside of this is that there is no higher authority on Earth that everyone must acquiesce to. Everything that we do is done by a human somewhere. That computer? It was designed by a human and constructed by other humans. That car you drive? The same. That home you live in? Yep, it too. Even those laws which we have to maintain order in society are concocted and implemented by humans. Thus, considering the base nature of nature, there will be those who seek to take from others using the very laws which we have together agreed to in order to benefit us all. This is simply a reality, underscored by history.

Thus we have the King's divine right to rule: a birthright which he claims based on his creation as a member of nobility. Over the centuries, this concept became enshrined in human society. Many times it was benevolent; other times it became tyrannical and oppressive to the people, nullifying any benefit the laws enacted under this rule might have provided. History is replete with examples: Hitler, Alexander, Tiberious, Stalin, and the list goes on.

The American colonies of Britain, in the late 18th century, saw men who realized that the divine right of Kings held this flaw, and they sought a better way to establish law and order in society, a way to protect those birthrights of others. They called it "democracy," the birthright of a people to rule themselves by majority vote. However, they also saw the inherent evil that such a democracy could introduce: when one group becomes demonized by all others and is thusly overwhelmed with legal actions intended to do what lone tyrants had done throughout the ages. So they conceived the Republic... founded on democratic principles of majority self-rule, but also limited in the ability to overthrow the basic birthrights essential to an equitable society.

Thus, we have enumerated (specified exactly) certain rights... certain birthrights... that cannot legally be taken from us individually. These are the right to speak our thoughts without fear of government reprisal, the right to know that which our government is doing, the right to choose to whom we attribute our existence, the right to own property, the right to protect that which we have to the best of our ability, and so on. These are birthrights... they are ours as the result of simply being who we are. No government has the birthright to take these away; if a government had that birthright, then no one would have any birthrights. The very premise of a birthright would be nullified.

This, my continued assertion and belief that any... any... willful violation of our basic enumerated birthrights under our Constitution nullifies the right of the Federal government to rule us at all. Try to take away my right to worship? Try to take away my right to own a firearm? The result is that all laws enacted under the Federal government at that point can be declared null and void. The contract between government and the governed has been broken, and the government no longer has any authority over the governed at all.

So where do these birthrights come from, you ask? They simply cannot come from any government or society by definition, for we were not created by a government or a society. They must come from whoever or whatever created us. If one is a true atheist, then those birthrights come from their parents. If one believes in a God of Creation, then those rights come from that God of Creation. If one believes that we are creations of the Earth (Gaia), then those rights come from Gaia.

Anything else denies the basic concept of the birthright.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Stevenmonet

Let me add this.

As i previously stated " rights " and " laws " can be both one and the same thing, but also can be something completely different.

When it comes to " law ", they can be interpreted in differnt ways if you have a clever enough barrister ( lawyer), who can show that by enforcing a " law " that could very well infringe on an individuals " rights ". It can also in fact go the other direction. A " law " maybe required that would gurantee an idividuals " rights "

The whole subject of " rights " and " laws " can be a minefield. Puerly an area for scholars of such subjects.

originally posted by: CthruU

originally posted by: Stevenmonet
a reply to: Sookiechacha

God gave you the right to be hungry and vulnerable

Government is a pecking order to to deal with hunger and vulnerability...

Rights are an altruistic concept that allows our species to thrive by taking care of the hungary and vulnerable.

So if I got this right your opinion Is that what is right/beneficial for society is what government decides and the focus should be/is for the society to thrive by feeding the hungry and providing security for the vulnerable.

Do you feel your society/government should have more control/oversight over your daily activities as long as it provides further security for the vulnerable and feeds the hungry?

God gave you the right of choice/ free thinking.

Government has become a pecking order by removing freedom of choice/speech and deal with the selfish agenda of the fraudulently elected.

Where to start on that 1???????


What is beneficial to government is what government decides is right for society. The focus is - can the government manipulate society covertly and provide security for itself.

Eff no......who in their right mind would want that??????ohhhh yea the chinese, nth Koreans etc etc colloquially known as communists....shhhhhhh

We are getting closer to a data set.

Set aside beneficial to the government for a minute because you have separated government and society in your terms which is fine. They are different in that governments are formed from and form of society/social organization, and the only right you as you define it comes from god and is the right of free choice.

You say government has become a pecking order by removing our freedom of choice/speech and deal I think you meant dealing with the selfish agenda of the fraudulently elected.

If your opinion boils down to: freedom of choice is our only right and comes from god, but the government is limiting that right aka freedom of choice by using fraud to appoint instead of allowing society to freely choose/elect their leaders. Leaving us with selfish self serving government with an agenda contrary from that of what is good for the society then you fit my hypothesis and we have a complete data set.

Either that or have completely misunderstood what you have tried to relate.

Am I close enough or is their work yet to be done. Dont humor me. I am a big boy I can take it. I just want clean data sets.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

Are rights only rights if they're understood?

Because my dog has a right not to be beaten and abused yet it has no actual concept of rights. Seemingly abused dogs are broken by their owners and suffer said abuse without retaliation.

Personally I think my rights were earned by my ancestors and sanctified by law. If I didn't have language, education, a family and an upbringing I'd have no understanding of laws or rights. I'd most likely be a slave to circumstances, a bit like a dog with a very poor owner.

I'd say as a living entity it's extremely difficult to constrain me with notions such as right or left. I'm neither and both. My rights were given by law and those around me but they're also inalienable because just like the dog I am an animal.

I have a right to eat, to mate, to defend myself because my existence compels it. Someone denying me these things is denying life. We have a right to exist, hence why my answer is my ancestors.

In other words we're living proof.

I'm of the "born with rights" crowd, but what good are such rights if you never use them? Plus, there are philosophical problems as well.

Why am I endowed with any rights by my creator and how would anyone know what my creator intended for me? If you believe in fate and destiny, that our life choices aren't real choices, and that you own nothing you can take with you after this life, then it would be hard to believe we have any rights endowed by our creator.

What if our creator was mere chance, a roll of the dice, or from the shear weight of the numbers?

Also, what "rights" do I actually have?

The right to life, but only if my mother chose to give me life, otherwise that was her right to decide, not my right to choose (even after birth). As a created being, how do I have any right to exist just because I exist?

A legal right is something you take and try to keep but you only have the right to try if you can. Might makes right essentially. Like smoking in public places used to be legal before it was taken away from smokers through legal arguments. Your "right" to pollute your own body with tobacco doesn't include the right to pollute other bodies in public spaces, until smoking is made illegal in all spaces that is.

TheRedneck,
I put some real work into this thread and it is members like yourself who are willing to dive Into the subject matter deeply, and share their ideas and beliefs that keeps me so happy to do it.

I really feel the value add here theredneck and agree with all that you have layed forth. Much of it runs along a similar line a was going to take if asked to expound uppon the links between the American bill of rights British bill of rights and magnacarta going all the way back before egyptian society. I have always found you to be very concise and ballanced, but I needs me that data set...I'm such a beggar I know.

My brother who is the scientist by trade refers to hi.self as a professional beggar. I always figured it was because he was well practiced In wording his grant submissions to get funding, but now I see it comes from his ability to beg for data with great results.

The worst part of it is I feel 99% certain I already know your answer just from running across your comments in other threads. In fact I would be lieing if I said your response was not one I had anticipated with some degree of joy as I feel you exemplify my hypothesis.

So for parcatice sake please tell me what I ready know I will hear/read before I even ask/write:

Do you feel your government/society needs/is waranted more control/oversight over your daily activity?

If you say yes I disavow all precepts of prior knowledge on my behalf.

P.s one Montana boy to one Theredneck: we just got constitutional carry signed Into law here recently and when I excitedly told my brother the good news. I said, "we got one of our rights back" and his response was, or has it just been aknowledged again?

And now you see the fruits and results of that happening.

a reply to: alldaylong

The more I work on relating with others the more I am forced to realize the limitations of language and the more respect linquests garner in my book.

As long as we are working towards a better understanding of each other we can find enough common ground to come to shared terms and definitions that may be limited topically In their use but still serve to from a better relationship between us.

Laymen though we may be I feel we can still relate though I admit I often wish I had pursued linguistics much further than I have thus far.

Oh well there is always time to learn and experts aplenty.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

So tell me in your own words.

Where do your rights come from and do you lean more to the right or left as described above?

I consider myself center/right too but feel my Rights come from the blood , sweat and tears of those who have fought to secure them , it's our duty to maintain them as best we can from governments who try to degrade them.

a reply to: RAY1990

Great comment and I see a potential data set if we can clear some things up.

I'll start by answering your question. In my opinion yes!

Rights are rights whether they are understood/aknowledged or not.

Much like you stated in your own way our rights are made self evident in our nature and in the observable natural world.

So here is where I maybe need some clarification from you to better get at the data set I'm after.

How do you square your comment that:

"I have a right to eat, to mate, to defend myself because my existence compels it"

With your prior comment that:

"Personally I think my rights were earned by my ancestors and sanctified by law. If I didn't have language, education, a family and an upbringing I'd have no understanding of laws or rights"

One hand you imply your rights come from your ancestors, and without language education and a family what I take as an extension/or expressions of social order or society you would e ignorant of and therefore In your opinion have no rights or as you put it be like a dog with a poor master.

If your rights are apparent in your nature they must be from your creator, but if your rights only exist if aknowledged/understood by you/society they originate from you/society.

If your rights are given you from those arround you how could they have been earned for you by your ancestors as you also posted?

Moving on I see that you find it is as you put it difficult to constrain you with notions such as right and left because as you put it you are neither and both.

I can relate to that myself if you mean by using what some would consider the conventional and highly contentious left right political spectrum.

With my spectrum it is much more simple to figure out at least with my definition of left and right as they refer to your politicall leaning.

Forget what form of government you consider ideal and forget about trying to figure out which political idiology best fits your beliefs. Ask your self one simple question.

Do you feel that your current form of government/society needs/deserves to have more control/oversight over your daily activities?

If you answer is yes you lean left if no then you lean right.

Now we just need to figure out if you think of your rights as being your birthright and laws as being unwelcome social constraints on those birthrights. Or if I have completely misunderstood what you are trying to relate.

If you provide a little clarity as best you can I feel we are quite close to a data set.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

I could tell your request for input was genuine... there's just something in the wording that tells me that. I guess because I am a professional searcher, if you will, for data myself I can pick up on that. I find that data on human behavior comes my way far too frequently for my tastes, and often leaves me more confused about the subject than before, lol.

So to those like you who have the courage to seek such data out, my hat is off to you.

Now, to answer your additional query, let me expound a bit more. There have been some great responses from others (although I will admit to not pre-reading the entire thread this time) that have made me consider my position more.

A proper government exists to protect the inherent birthrights of the individual. To accomplish this, it is sometimes necessary to limit those inherent birthrights in favor of the inherent birthrights of others. For example, I may wish to scream out the word "FIRE!" in the middle of a crowded theater... an absolute adherence to freedom of speech would, at least superficially, seem to allow that. But in exercising that particular speech at that particular time, I would have endangered the health and possibly the lives of those around me by creating a stampede. In this case, my gain for using that speech would be nothing more than a momentary laugh at best. The cost to those around me would vastly outweigh such... therefore I could be charged with a crime. We term that crime as "inciting a panic" or some other similar phrase, but in reality it is an infringement on the rights of those around me that far outweighs my right to have a good chuckle.

Similarly, if I choose to accost someone on the street, that right to act as I choose is far outweighed by the infringement I make upon my victim's right to life and health. In fact, I see no inherent birthright to "act as one chooses" at all. That inclusion simply negates far too many inherent rights of others. I prefer to say I have "the right to act as I choose without unduly infringing on the rights of others."

Most of our laws are designed with that end in mind... most, but not all.

Alcohol, for example, is an example of a substance that has been the object of many laws. During prohibition, the making of alcohol was deemed to be illegal. However, the making and consumption of alcohol in itself infringes upon no one except the person indulging. Therefore, any law that restricts alcohol consumption blanketly is a form of tyrannical law. It does not strike a balance between an individual's right to self-action and the rights of others. A law that prohibits drunk driving, on the other hand, does strike such a balance. A person who is incapacitated while driving is a clear, present, and inherent danger to the lives and self-actions of all those around him/her. Therefore, the balance is struck and the law against drunk driving is proper.

My stance on marijuana legalization is based on this same principle. Usage itself is not an undue infringement upon others' birthrights; therefore marijuana usage should be legalized in itself, subject to restrictions similar to those placed on alcohol.

Some rights are also granted by government itself. I have been speaking of inherent birthrights, but there are also legal rights. Some countries have declared a right to healthcare. This cannot be an inherent (or some would say "God-granted") birthright, because in order to obtain healthcare, the services of another are required. However, it can be a legal right granted by a government. Since it is granted by a government, it can also be taken away, restricted, or limited by that same government. I tend to refer to these legal rights in the vernacular as "privileges" to separate them from inherent birthrights, but in some sense they are rights.

The problem with many laws comes about when legal rights for one begin to infringe upon inherent rights for others. For example, let us consider the restroom situation that has been in the news lately: I believe one has an inherent right to privacy in certain areas, the restroom being one of those. When one enters a restroom, they have an expectation that their anatomy will not be visible to those of the opposite gender. There is also an expectation that they will be safe from anyone attempting to use the privacy of that environment to harm them, and that expectation expands to include the appearance of opposite genders since that increases the likelihood of sexual assaults and intensifies the desire for privacy.

Some areas have enacted laws to facilitate this expectation of privacy. There is, however, a movement to allow human males who claim to have female mentalities to share the private restroom space of human females and vice versa. The debate tends to focus around the former, however, since human males are typically stronger and more aggressive than human females, especially in sexual encounters.

This is a case, IMO, of the granted legal rights of a few individuals taking precedence over the inherent rights of many. In that respect, it is no different than the government granting the right to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.

The same can be stated for many of the social agendas presently being advanced. I have no rights issue with regulations requiring companies to clean up exhaust; there is no right to use resources that are shared universally beyond that which is necessary for other rights (like the right to breathe and therefore live). The abuse and widespread contamination of the environment can actually be seen to be infringing on the rights of those in the environment to a healthy life to the best of their ability. Where I do have a problem with some such regulations, it concerns rather the economic impact as opposed to the environmental advantages. The air and water are shared resources among all people, and thus regulation becomes a balancing act of who/how many will benefit as opposed to who/how many will suffer how much.

So my answer, as you likely saw coming, is that as long as my activities do not unduly infringe on the inherent rights of others, I definitely do not believe more control over my daily life, or the daily lives of others, is in any way warranted or proper. To do so is to impose legally granted rights over inherent rights.

I hope that made sense... this thread is fighting for mental space with a few designs for needed products I want operational this year. I am enjoying it, though, so thank you for starting it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Great points and questions like your are what make this such an interesting topic and is obvious fodder forn countless hours of metaphysical discussion and theorizing all of which I enjoy and find great value in. Many other members have expressed similar thoughts/ideas and i
would be remiss if I didn't point that out.

Ok so by now hopefully you know my goals for data and have seen a few of my quick breakdowns just let me know if I'm way off here as I try and summarize your beliefs:

You are in the born with rights camp and likely from a creator, but the nature of creation in question as far as random or organized may be your hang up.

Would it be fair to say until you are convinced of the organized nature of creation that you at least feel some form of universal order gave rise to you and therefore your birthright?

If so we have half our data set, but if not please clarify.

You make distinction between rights and laws. In my limited experience this means you see laws as being from men/government/society, and rights as being from the possible chance roll of dice on a universal scale that was somehow imparted to you upon birth.

So basically I'm left with one question.

In your opinion does the society/government of which you are currently a member pass laws that you feel encroach upon your rights, or do you feel that any law the government passes could not possibly constrain that which only comes from the chance toss of dice on a universal scale Into which you were born and exists only of aknowledged?