Off-Topic DiscussionsThis is the area for general banter/chat. There are rules for this section, please read the sticky post in the section before participating. Enter at your own risk as some posts in here may be NSFW
In another thread, there was a discussion of health care as a "right". I thought that it might be interesting to review the definition of "rights" in the US of A.
The person I was corresponding with was a highly read student of history and as such was certainly aware that since its founding, and for most of this great nation's history, the term "rights" was synonymous with "freedoms". "Rights" were limitations on government. By limiting government, the freedoms of the citizens were protected.
So in the USA, the classic examples of "rights" are the rights of the accused, and the rights to assemble, speak, worship, and to own and defend property, etc. Please note that these rights place no burden on other citizens, either in terms of costs they would be required to bear, nor freedoms they would have to forfeit.
On the other hand, in communist nations, when they speak of rights they are not speaking of the freedoms mentioned above, which generally are denied. Instead, they boast of their citizen's "rights" to a job, "rights" to housing, "rights" to food, medical care, etc. Of course, they tend to do a horrible job of providing most of the above and mostly succeed in equally impoverishing their citizens while the elite rulers live by a very different set of rules and enjoys the fruits of the nation's labors.
In the last few generations, our nation has also begun to redefine "rights" not as things that the government cannot do to you, but as instead things that the government must do for you. Certainly, the "right" to health care fits squarely in this category.
And sadly, here as in the communist nations, these so-called rights come at a tremendous cost to others in terms of lost wealth and reduced freedoms.
I hate to see us going down this road. In some ways, we are now to the left of formerly communist nations that have learned the tough lessons of history. With exceptions for those that are truly not able to take care of themselves, I cannot begin to understand how anybody with an ounce of grit or integrity could argue that a centralized government could do a better job of providing for his family's needs than he can. We seem to have manged to grow a new breed of man in this nation in the short span of a few generations.
I hope that we still have enough citizens with the desire to be free who will push back and reverse the power and control that the federal government has over our daily lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Adams
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
hand on to your butt, nobama is not gonna stop with shoving this tax fiasco down our throats. the gov't has never ran anything that didn't come with miles of red tape and a HUGE bill.
__________________
Protect the 2nd Amendment!
It's the original homeland security act.
'96 F350,Dually,CC,5 spd.,stock.
'02 Excursion Limited, stock
B100 baby! Bring it home, to the American farmers!
Remember 9/11, and don't become complacent again
I hope that we still have enough citizens with the desire to be free who will push back and reverse the power and control that the federal government has over our daily lives.
The part that I um hate most is the how the Fed controls where we can drive by providing an Interstate highway system that we can drive on.
I think that is biggest infringement on my freedom.
Or maybe I am reading you wrong and you actually something specific you want to cite that YOUR government is doing that is keeping you from being all that you can be and more?
It is a "right"............................... the minute it becomes "law."
That is a common, but ultimately a flawed (and very dangerous) definition of a right.
We have laws on the books that say that the most wealthy citizens must turn over about a third of their income to "the collective".
Would you go so far to say that we have a right to their earnings? Do we have a right to a third of their net worth when they die?
If I manage to pay off enough politicians and they pass a law that states that you must turn over all of your wealth to me, would that mean that I have a right to your possessions?
In the USA, we do not get our rights from the government. The government works for us. It is their job to recognize and protect our rights, but they do not create them (see below). To deny this is to, once again, fall in line with the communist definition of rights, where they are given, or denied, at the whim of the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
The part that I um hate most is the how the Fed controls where we can drive by providing an Interstate highway system that we can drive on.
I think that is biggest infringement on my freedom.
Or maybe I am reading you wrong and you actually something specific you want to cite that YOUR government is doing that is keeping you from being all that you can be and more?
I don't follow your question, but if possible, I'd just as soon keep this thread focused on the discussion of rights.
I don't follow your question, but if possible, I'd just as soon keep this thread focused on the discussion of rights.
What rights do you lose by having a representative government that taxes you and provides basic things that a society needs to function?
I can understand ranting a little here and there about waste such as tax breaks for daytraders and speculators but to rant about taxes in general is a little nutty don't ya think?
You're not providing anything specific, just a philisophical rant that has no bearing in the real world.
That is a common, but ultimately a flawed (and very dangerous) definition of a right.
It's been the case since 1776. Why do you think it should be different now?
Quote:
Would you go so far to say that we have a right to their earnings? Do we have a right to a third of their net worth when they die?
If it's the "law"..........yes.
Not to say I agree with all laws to begin with.
As far as I'm concerned, being 'stupid' (or the unwillingness to constantly strive for additional knowledge) should be a felony.
Quote:
If I manage to pay off enough politicians and they pass a law that states that you must turn over all of your wealth to me, would that mean that I have a right to your possessions?
By definition........yes.
I guess I'm confused.
What "rights" do you think should be immune from "laws?"
Quote:
In the USA, we do not get our rights from the government. The government works for us. It is their job to recognize and protect our rights, but they do not create them (see below). To deny this is to, once again, fall in line with the communist definition of rights, where they are given, or denied, at the whim of the government.
Well, you know how to change that...............don't you?
That is a common, but ultimately a flawed (and very dangerous) definition of a right.
Sort of. Idealogues such as yourself generally confuse and intermix freedom and free will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobR
We have laws on the books that say that the most wealthy citizens must turn over about a third of their income to "the collective".
I won't bother verifying this for myself but so what? It makes little sense to pass on huge amounts of money from generation to generation. That is how Oligarchies form. This country was founded to get away from such political systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobR
Would you go so far to say that we have a right to their earnings? Do we have a right to a third of their net worth when they die?.
You don't get a third of their net worth. They can donate to the cause of their choice, leave it invested etc and avoid taxes much in the same way that you and I can write off various things to save on taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobR
If I manage to pay off enough politicians and they pass a law that states that you must turn over all of your wealth to me, would that mean that I have a right to your possessions?.
More senseless and unrealistic scenarios that would simply never exist to make it seem as though your philosopy has some rational basis in the real world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobR
In the USA, we do not get our rights from the government. The government works for us. It is their job to recognize and protect our rights, but they do not create them (see below). To deny this is to, once again, fall in line with the communist definition of rights, where they are given, or denied, at the whim of the government.
Uh huh. So what specifically do you have a problem with? Taxes?
What rights do you lose by having a representative government that taxes you and provides basic things that a society needs to function?
I can understand ranting a little here and there about waste such as tax breaks for daytraders and speculators but to rant about taxes in general is a little nutty don't ya think?
You're not providing anything specific, just a philisophical rant that has no bearing in the real world.
Hey Check-
In this thread I'd like to avoid the tit for tat about specific laws/bills, etc, but I can offer the following as fodder for further discussion about rights.
I believe that our rights precede and are bigger than our laws. Our laws should recognize and defend our rights.
I don't know if you read the blue quote above, but I'd appreciate it if you would:
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
The very first sentence of the Declaration of Independence states my opinion very well. Our rights are given to us by God and our government was formed to protect those rights. That was stated right up front as the primary role of government.
Our government was set up by "We the people" (the very first sentence in the US Constitution!!!). Not "We the rulers", "We that are smarter than you", etc. As the last sentence in the blue quote above states, the government gets it's power from us, not the other way around.
Since WE grant power to the government, there are limits to its power.
If you and I were neighbors and I wanted to take your possessions, I would be prohibited from doing so. The same prohibition applies to each of our our other neighbors. If our neighbors and I form a small governing body, vote in a new law, and then hire a collector to go relieve you of your possessions, would that be OK?
The answer is NO. If neither I nor my neighbors have the legal ability to confiscate your possessions, then how can we give that ability to our elected representative? We can't.
For much of history, for most of the world, slavery was the law of the land. Before this country shed a tremendous amount of blood to rid ourselves of slavery, the law said that slavery was OK.
If a future congress was to decide that slavery was OK again, then so much for the rights and freedoms of the enslaved? Here today, gone tomorrow? I say no. People have a right to be free. Some governments fail to protect that right. But the right still exists.
Isn't it true that if the government is the source of our rights, then the government can very well take our rights away?
I hope that you won't counter with "oh, that won't happen here". Far worse things have happened by elected governments in not too distant history. Our government was specifically set up to guarantee our rights instead of simply trusting that we'll be taken care of.
It's been the case since 1776 (that rights are given to us by government). Why do you think it should be different now?
Can you please provide a reference that states that our rights are selected and given to us by our government?
As I posted above, the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence says that our rights were already given to us by God and the government was simply formed to protect those rights.
Furthermore, the Ninth Amendment states:
Quote:
Originally Posted by "The US Bill of Rights
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
So this says that listing a handful of specific rights does not take away the fact that our rights already existed, and remain ours, even though they are unwritten!
This amendment was put in place because our founders feared that by listing specific rights, it might be interpreted that those are our ONLY rights. They made it clear that we have many rights, given to us by God, and listing some specific ones does not change that fact.
So I've offered the Declaration of Independence and the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution, both of which state that our rights do not originate with the government.
Please post your reference (from 1776!) that states otherwise.
It might also be worth mentioning again that 100% of the amendments in the US Bill of Rights are nothing more than restrictions on the government. As I stated before the intent was that "rights" == "freedoms".
"Civil and political rightsare a class of rights and freedoms that protect individuals from unwarranted government action and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression."
In case you still don't understand, "rights" can be conveyed by a number of methods. One of which is determined by the laws of the land.
Quote:
As I posted above, the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence says that our rights were already given to us by God and the government was simply formed to protect those rights.
What God?
Yours or mine?
And did "your" God believe that women and Blacks should be discriminated against?
Quote:
Furthermore, the Ninth Amendment states:
And an "Amendment" is just another "law."
Speaking of Amendments, you really should bone up on the 13th and 19th. Those are ones that should have never had to wait so long to be made into law.
You really should stop while you're behind, as this will not end well.
So this says that listing a handful of specific rights does not take away the fact that our rights already existed, and remain ours, even though they are unwritten!
This amendment was put in place because our founders feared that by listing specific rights, it might be interpreted that those are our ONLY rights. They made it clear that we have many rights, given to us by God, and listing some specific ones does not change that fact.
So I've offered the Declaration of Independence and the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution, both of which state that our rights do not originate with the government.
Please post your reference (from 1776!) that states otherwise.
It might also be worth mentioning again that 100% of the amendments in the US Bill of Rights are nothing more than restrictions on the government. As I stated before the intent was that "rights" == "freedoms".
And it was people like you, who a number of the Founding Fathers were worried about, when trying to separate Church and State.
"Civil and political rightsare a class of rights and freedoms that protect individuals from unwarranted government action and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression."
In case you still don't understand, "rights" can be conveyed by a number of methods. One of which is determined by the laws of the land.
Thanks for the post. It's not the Declaration of Independence, nor the US Constitution, but in this case, Wiki got it right (pardon the pun).
Please note that all of the rights listed were LIMITATIONS ON GOVERNMENT, ie things that the government cannot do to us instead of things that the government needs to do for us. The very point I was trying to make.
In fact, I am pleased that with the possible exception of the right to vote, 100% of the rights you listed came from the Bill of Rights! Good on you!
RIGHTS == FREEDOMS. They are guaranteed by placing limits on government.
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Linear Mode
