Rights are not given by government / people. Rights are inherent.

reply to post by Hefficide

It's all in the eye of the beholder really and a matter of national identity and perspective.

No, it is not, there is an inherent logic to what constitutes a right and what constitutes a privilege.

Privilege is based on benefit. If someone is paying for your healthcare, that is a benefit, and rightfully falls under the category of privilege. A benefit can be revoked, a right cannot be because it is not a benefit in the sense that, it is not being given to you for "free" from the work and labor of someone else. Like freedom of speech, you do not have to tax someone to make sure you can voice your opinions and beliefs. It is simply something that you can do.

Healthcare could be a right if you had the faculties to diagnose and care for your own health. If you cannot, then someone performing those functions for you constitutes a service, and there must be an equivalent exchange.

Your views on rights and privileges is very loose, but it has to be so you can reassure yourself that taxing people to cover the costs of services you feel that you have a right to is "OK."

That is something people need to understand, you do not have a right to the resources (money) that a person works for.

Originally posted by LewsTherinThelamon
Some either do not want to admit that they have any rights and would rather live in the delusion that their rights are granted to them by a higher "authority." It helps them feel safe.

I agree, but I think it's more of a form of Stockholm Syndrome. If you're subjugated all your life and taught to believe that other human beings, who are biologically your equals, have some kind of authority over you and there's nothing you can do but accept it, you'll start to become so dependent on that arrangement that you will reject the notion of freedom.

Others do not want us to recognize that rights are ours simply by virtue of existing because it takes away their power to convince to give up our rights.

I think that is exactly the sole root cause of people not believing in their own rights.

What I don't understand is what a person gains from taking the rights of others. What does it do for them? I'm perfectly happy and content as long as I am free to do as I please; I have no desire to take the freedom of others, I don't recognize anything that it could do for me. The motives of the power-hungry are just something I will never understand.

Hefficide is correct. There is no such thing as 'absolute' rights.

Its a decision of the society that we will use laws (and enforcement) to ensure that all in the society are accorded some rights equally.

You have the right to free speech because the law says you do and society will enforce that law. Otherwise you would have the right to as much free speech as you could take and defend personally.

There is no mysticism or inherent rightness wrongness. Theres the law of society and theres the law of the jungle underneath.

On one hand, okay, you can say you are born with all rights- free. You have the right to do whatever you want.

Now, if you wish to continue living that way, quickly find yourself a place in the desert, out in the forest, on a small remote island.

Because if you choose to live in a pack, you will get various benefits which increase your chances of survival.
Shared and cooperative access to food, protection, mating rights.... to keep these benefits you must adhere to the rules and hierarchy of that particular pack. The "rules" are not the same in each group. Each group pronounces the rights they will allow, and for whom.

People are wierd... some prefer to live in cooperation and social structure with other humans, to exchange services and products amongst each other, have military and police protection, emergency services, utilities and buildings and roads that they didn't build all by themself,
instead of being free. Go figure.

reply to post by xedocodex

And it seems like you are trying to transfer "inalienable rights" to the bill of rights...which is a flaw. The Bill Of Rights are not the "inalienable rights" the founders spoke of. And gun ownership can hardly be thought of as a "natural right" since guns aren't inherently "natural".

I see gun proponents make this false analogy all the time...mixing documents and applying one phrase from one document to one part of another document.

That is false. The ideologies from the Declaration of Independence were transferred to the Bill of Rights. The unalienable rights are the Bill of Rights. Our forefathers debated all of this at the Constitutional Conventions.

Originally posted by justwokeup
Its a decision of the society that we will use laws (and enforcement) to ensure that all in the society are accorded some rights equally.

You have the right to free speech because the law says you do and society will enforce that law. Otherwise you would have the right to as much free speech as you could take and defend personally.

There is no mysticism or inherent rightness wrongness. Theres the law of society and theres the law of the jungle underneath.

You just described moral relativism in a nutshell. The flaw in this kind of thinking is that it holds truth to be whatever it is decided to be at the time. By your logic, the earth was flat 1500 years ago, and only become round later.

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon

That is false. The ideologies from the Declaration of Independence were transferred to the Bill of Rights. The unalienable rights are the Bill of Rights. Our forefathers debated all of this at the Constitutional Conventions.

Please find me the text in the Constitution that says this.

Lot of things are debated, but only those things that are written into the Constitution or passed by Congress is actual law.

Sorry, your argument isn't valid....if you think so...find me the text that says "inalienable rights" were transfered into the Bill of Rights. Honestly, it is just a laughable concept for you to believe.

reply to post by Bluesma

Because if you choose to live in a pack, you will get various benefits which increase your chances of survival.
Shared and cooperative access to food, protection, mating rights.... to keep these benefits you must adhere to the rules and hierarchy of that particular pack. The "rules" are not the same in each group. Each group pronounces the rights they will allow, and for whom.

People are wierd... some prefer to live in cooperation and social structure with other humans, to exchange services and products amongst each other, have military and police protection, emergency services, utilities and buildings and roads that they didn't build all by themself,
instead of being free. Go figure.

The social contract? Interesting. That sums up very well the difference between a right and a privilege and how to tell the difference.

With rights come responsibility.

You said that people join together into societies for the benefits that large, cooperating numbers can generate. The benefit in this case is the safety that large numbers bring. But when you transfer your responsibility to another, like your own safety, you are giving the group power over you because of the fact that you are receiving a benefit.

The only answer is to stop receiving the benefit and to take back your responsibility. If you do not rely on other people to provide for you in anyway, then you are not receiving a benefit, and this is what true freedom is. If you do have to rely on someone, that is where the principle of "equivalent exchange" comes into play. You will either pay through fiscal means in the exchange or you will pay by giving up your rights.

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon

 

That is false. The ideologies from the Declaration of Independence were transferred to the Bill of Rights. The unalienable rights are the Bill of Rights. Our forefathers debated all of this at the Constitutional Conventions.

Please find me the text in the Constitution that says this.

Lot of things are debated, but only those things that are written into the Constitution or passed by Congress is actual law.

Sorry, your argument isn't valid....if you think so...find me the text that says "inalienable rights" were transfered into the Bill of Rights. Honestly, it is just a laughable concept for you to believe.

And, yet, we have a Bill of Rights.

My argument is valid. Read the debates for yourself, I am not your caretaker. You can start with the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. They will give you a better understanding of the Constitution and the law.

The Bill of Rights was created to insure that people had the means for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Originally posted by bjax9er
the U.S constitution is a document of the people, restricting the federal governments powers.
not the government restricting the peoples.
we the people give the federal government it's limited powers, and we can take them away.

the bill of rights is the peoples "inherent" rights. or natural rights, or god given rights.

the government did not give these rights to the people, for they are "inherent".
therefor the government cannot take these rights away.
nor can they restrict them, as the constitution prohibits.
though they often do.

the bill of rights are "god given rights"????...you mean freedom of religion is a god given right?... and up until then...we didn't have any god given rights? what took god so long?...and america is the only country he cared about to give these rights to?....and when that document was written...god thought it was a right to own slaves?

Originally posted by SilentKoala

Originally posted by justwokeup
Its a decision of the society that we will use laws (and enforcement) to ensure that all in the society are accorded some rights equally.

You have the right to free speech because the law says you do and society will enforce that law. Otherwise you would have the right to as much free speech as you could take and defend personally.

There is no mysticism or inherent rightness wrongness. Theres the law of society and theres the law of the jungle underneath.

You just described moral relativism in a nutshell. The flaw in this kind of thinking is that it holds truth to be whatever it is decided to be at the time. By your logic, the earth was flat 1500 years ago, and only become round later.

Morality is relative. Its a social construct at its most basic to do with the infliction of harm on the individual and the collective. It reflects the perceived needs of the society that creates it. It evolves and shifts over time.

It is not a universal truth or a constant.

Originally posted by xedocodex
Please find me the text in the Constitution that says this.

Lot of things are debated, but only those things that are written into the Constitution or passed by Congress is actual law.

Sorry, your argument isn't valid....if you think so...find me the text that says "inalienable rights" were transfered into the Bill of Rights. Honestly, it is just a laughable concept for you to believe.

Truth isn't determined by what is written down. Are you saying that because the Constitution doesn't say a certain thing, that that thing must not be true? Do you really think that is logical?

The Framers believed in universal rights, so they referenced those rights in the general sense in the Declaration, and referenced specific rights in the Constitution. Two events with a common cause, that cause being the beliefs of the founders.

But the point is, it doesn't matter what they wrote or didn't write. Even if they wrote none of those things, those things would still be true. A thing doesn't become true because you wrote it down. Rather, you wrote it down because it was true (if you are honest).

Originally posted by justwokeup
Morality is relative. Its a social construct at its most basic to do with the infliction of harm on the individual and the collective. It reflects the perceived needs of the society that creates it. It evolves and shifts over time.

It is not a universal truth or a constant.

Tell that to 6 million Jews in WWII.

If rights are inherent rather than given then i could still walk or sit in the park with a cold beer on a sunny day without being hasseled by the totalitarian scum that is the Police force. It certainly was not a problem for my Father or Grandfather!

Laws change over time, seldom for the better these days!

The want our freedom and they will take it little by little! Inch by inch!

Originally posted by SilentKoala

Originally posted by justwokeup
Morality is relative. Its a social construct at its most basic to do with the infliction of harm on the individual and the collective. It reflects the perceived needs of the society that creates it. It evolves and shifts over time.

It is not a universal truth or a constant.

Tell that to 6 million Jews in WWII.

I fail to see your point.

The Nazis were stopped by a more powerful collective group who destroyed the regime and restored the previous morality in the rubble.

From our perspective thats a good thing. Their actions are abhorrent from our perspective. However, they didn't fail because they were immoral. They failed because the allies were stronger and better led.

If the Nazis were stronger and won you would be raised to think completely differently. We'd be treating each other differently. The universe spins on regardless and doesn't care.

Morality is whatever groups of social creatures agree it is. We believe in ours to our core because thats what we've been raised in. We have laws to enforce it and armies to defend it.

That does not make it a universal constant.

reply to post by justwokeup


So, you're essentially espousing "Might makes Right" moral philosophy. Yes? You believe "Might makes Right" is the most basic moral principle? That seems to be how people who don't believe in freedom think. It must be pretty sad to live in that kind of despair.

reply to post by justwokeup

"The Nazis were stopped by a more powerful collective group who destroyed the regime and restored the previous morality in the rubble."

Fair point but were the Nazis not also financed by the very same collective group/regime?

Originally posted by Bluesma
Balderdash.
Someone said, "The right to bear arms costs no one anything"
I guess if you are american and the only concern is money, you can say that.
For it does cost people lives, of course. But that is so much less important..........

edit on 27-1-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

The right to bear arms costs no one anything, it is the miss-use of weapons that cost peoples lives.
Training and education can solve some of this, arming law abiding people stops more crime than disarming people does.

But as a citizen you give up your rights and agree to live under someone else's rules in exchange for certain benefits. You cant be free of rules and have a social security number...

reply to post by SilentKoala


Theres no despair involved. Its just a recognition of reality. You have the rights accorded you by the social group you belong to, for as long as that social group can maintain cohesion and defend itself.

Nobody ever wins/survives because their cause is just. Thats nonsense from the movies.

I'm fairly optimistic that if we can avoid disaster long enough and continue to converge globally through technology the 'social group' will be 'humanity' with one commonly agreed morality.