The Modern Approach To Rights: Why You're Helping Destroy Freedom

reply to post by tgidkp


What I see is a country where only 83% of the population believe one should get a fair trial. I see a society who believes rights should be governed not by the virtue of humanity but by the decrees of the most greedy among us. I see a society that is all to willing to hand over their minds to a government for the protection of their sensibilities with ridiculous notions like "hate speech". I see a society that is just fine with being evesdropped on by the government because "if you have nothing to hide, then its no big deal". I see a populace that is willing to cede control of their protection to a policing body that abuses its authority at every turn in the false hope that it will make them safer.

What is worse is that the dynamic is being fueled by the very people it was meant to protect.They have us clamoring to strip each other of rights until there are no protections left at all.

Maybe its because I'm a soldier. But I'm of the mentality that you don't allow these thing to happen so long as one is allowed to draw breath.

reply to post by projectvxn


you are right. I would never allow such things to happen.

if I saw any clear path that i (or anyone else for that matter) could have an effect on such things, I would. but i do not hold myself nor others to these illusions of duty and obligation etcetera which are so massively disconnected from daily reality.

what I do hold people to is their own integrity. if rights are not something that can be won, then you should not fight for them. that is a loss of integrity.

if you fight for them, then they are not what you say they are.

There are rise and falls for civilizations.

But there are principles ,too.

1 - Those who do not care what is done to other nations , other nations will not care what is happening to them.

2 - And those who support a bully , the bully may turn to them anytime.

if one is wealthy, not rich, but wealthy, blame them, for they have the power to change things without using weapons. the rest, can put up with what is happening, vote and protest, , run away, or pick up a weapon.

S&F
Very well put.
I agree we are loosing our rights through apathy and the willfully blind, Slowly one piece at a time.
If you wish to see how much we have left see this thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by tgidkp


Others gain despotic power over people by creating constructs designed to render the individual without his rights. It isn't that rights themselves are not natural, it is that human beings have free will. Human beings can take any path they choose. But as I explained to another poster, you are responsible for the consequences of your actions.

Originally posted by jimmyx
if one is wealthy, not rich, but wealthy, blame them, for they have the power to change things without using weapons. the rest, can put up with what is happening, vote and protest, , run away, or pick up a weapon.

Are you seriously coming into this thread, which boils down to personal responsibility, and abdication your responsibility to some wealthy guy to save your butt from what is essentially your doing?

Really?

Everyone is individually responsible for the stewardship of their rights. If you think that some rich guy somewhere has a mandate by the sheer virtue of his net worth to fight for your rights while you sit on your butt then the problem is far deeper than I thought.

Originally posted by projectvxn

Originally posted by david99118
a very well thought out and well articulated post. i don't agree with you in the least, but a great an informative post none the less. thank you for sharing.

edit on 30-12-2012 by david99118 because: (no reason given)

Your response is rather vague.

In the spirit of discussion it would behoove you to be more specific.

edit on 30-12-2012 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

I though your post did well explaining how rights came to be, how their context was intended to work, how their implementation has become bastardized as of late.

The point I disagree with is the idea that rights are natural and inalienable. I would think that if they were natural, they would have been known since the moment we became modern man over 2000 years ago. If they were truly inalienable, we wouldn't have this discussion about the restriction of the second amendment. However, since we are discussing it, that in my mind shows that, the "right to bear arms" is not truly inalienable. It is just another law that our government has allowed us, for the time being, to have. The fact that any of the amendments have been curtailed suggests to me that we don't actually have rights at all. That we just have a set laws that TPTB allow us to possess (for the tome being any way). We would of course prefer to have these laws be permanent. However, the fact they can be taken away would show they are not. and if we would like to keep these laws permanent, or alter them to be even more accommodating, then we should do what we can to gain the power necessary to retain them. As the old saying goes, Freedom Isn't Free. If you want your stuff to stay yours, obtain the necessary power to keep it yours.

reply to post by david99118


Rights are natural. They have been expressed in all animals since before we had a name for them.

Like the right to life. The philosophized realization of this right came long after nature created animals with teeth and claws as a means of hunting and self defense.

The laws were a part of nature long before humans gave them a name.

Rights such as gun ownership are granted by the society in which you reside in. If the society decides that they rather not have firearms in the hands of private individuals they are free to remove those rights.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Rights such as gun ownership are granted by the society in which you reside in. If the society decides that they rather not have firearms in the hands of private individuals they are free to remove those rights.

Rights are non negotiable.

The fact that people seem to believe that rights can be voted away by a majority is exemplary of how we have forgotten that our system is a republic, not a democracy, and that our constitution protects the rights of everyone including minorities.

So if the majority votes that you don't deserve a fair trial or that you shouldn't have free speech, or a right to your property, or that you should be killed..That's ok because the majority wants it?

Mob rule is not liberty.

Great thread, the first amendment wasn't put in place for popular speech. Everyone needs to own their rights otherwise people will look to take them.

Great analysis, and I very much enjoyed reading your thread post. So many people seem to be incapable of analyzing themselves and their own decision making processes, yet are quick to analyze everyone else. Very few stop and say to themselves "hey, I am basically doing the same thing that I condemned others for doing." And you are absolutely right that this has to do with selfishness. Personally, I think this mentality is a byproduct of Capitalism. Of course there are likely more dynamics, but I figure that Capitalism is the main factor in breeding and perpetuating this "me" attitude.

I assume that there are people who have figured out that the sate of our country is going to decline in proportion to the amount of wealth that is controlled by the super-elite. The top 1% of "earners," and I am not using that word as a verb, control around half of the wealth of the ENTIRE nation of the USA. That is mind-blowing to think about, and it is not that hard to see why so many people are scrambling to "get what they can" while they are able. This is not an excuse, but simply an observation.

There is nothing that an individual can really do to solve the problem of the distribution of wealth, but I think that individuals could change their own attitudes and the way they treat their fellow man. Areas like this always get me thinking about how great religious institutions could be in helping people with their outlook on life, thus their behavior. And for those who for whatever reason deny the possibility of God, and thus refuse religion, they should take up the philosophy of morals as their biblical or sacred text, and practice what they are taught. If those who claim to be Christians actually practiced what their religion tells them to practice, considering how many Christians there are in the US, our country would be a lot better off. And although some of it is the fault of corrupt religious institutions, the majority of the failure is due to the individual and their attitude.

Starred! (don't know how to flag..) thank you very much for authoring this thread! It fully describes what I have been feeling, towards a myriad of issues in our country today, from gays rights to gun rights. It seems to be such a complicated issue in this diverse melting pot of a country.

reply to post by projectvxn


Nope, not at all correct. Society in itself has already limited and also granted new rights.

The problem is that mentally, the human species is still stuck in Ancient Rome. Technology, we're in modern times. So now we have Caesar with nukes and the common people are still as stupid as ever refusing to listen to lessons from the past while constantly questioning the fault of everyone else. This endless circle becomes worse and worse as the line between stupidity and technology lessons to the point of ....

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by projectvxn

 

Nope, not at all correct. Society in itself has already limited and also granted new rights.

There's a huge difference between civil rights and inalienable rights.

There's a book out there by the title 50 Questions on The Natural Law. I recommend reading it.

reply to post by projectvxn


Very well put sir, it is indeed a topic that raises many concerns about morality regarding the right to bear arms within a structured nation such as USA.

Although i do not dwell within the borders of your country i can very much relate to your views. Firstly, if we look at your first statement of having a right to live. There should be no argument towards such a statement due to the blatant fact that 'life' is meant to be 'lived' , thus such a right should not even be a topic of debate regarding the principles of defending ones own life ,as defense, is a mechanism to preserve life.

Therefore bearing arms should be viewed as a right to live and not the other way around. Yes, a question of morality can arise due to complex factors such as age restrictions, mental stability to bear arms, and limits towards quantity of arms. Yet i cannot help it to think that having a government with such rights whilst the civilians themselves are deprived of said rights is a breading ground for instability. After all, lack of equality is the reason we live in such an unbalanced world in the first place.

This dilemma is putting a tremendous amount of strain on the concept of 'human rights' and the integrity of the creation of such a concept in the first place. Guns don't kill people, the person behind the trigger does and it should be the right of every man and woman to defend themselves and there loved ones from such a situation.

Just an outsiders 2cents

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Rights such as gun ownership are granted by the society in which you reside in. If the society decides that they rather not have firearms in the hands of private individuals they are free to remove those rights.

No. The rights we have were shaped, granted and formed when our country was founded and for very good reasons. These are non negotiable and are the very reason America is here in the first place. Those who were born in America as an American citizen should realize this because those before them were brave enough to stand against tyranny, fight and shed blood for liberty and freedom. They should not slander them and there memory by stating the rights they fought and died for to found our country can be snuffed out when the propaganda machine tricks people into thinking it's in there best interest to be "more safe".

I can understand this kind of sentiment from non Americans but from people who live in this country it still shocks me every time I hear this. It is almost begging for slavery in return for personal assurance of protection. We are citizens, not surfs.

reply to post by Tw0Sides


Again, it's not the guns that do either, they don't put us in jeapardy and they don't save us. It is people that do that. When society is filled with a bunch of chicken# pussies that won't stand up for anything, even themselves, you end up with rampant crime and especially organized crime.

When you have laws that illegally restrict the public bearing of those arms, then all the arms in the world won't do antrhing sitting in gun safes doing nothing.

Your argument here relies on guns themselves intrinsically being able to put is danger or save us from danger. Guns intrinsically do NOTHING. They require a person thinking behind them, either for good or for ill.

Jaden