It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What are your basic RIGHTS, and what should they cost YOU?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
Our basic rights are to go about our own business unfettered and free from Government interference. We also have the right to protection of our person and property.

If you were to say health care or education were rights I would disagree. Those are entitlements, not rights.


so what your saying is that if a person is rich, America has everything you need, if you're poor, you're s**t out of luck....no money, no healthcare...no money, no higher education.....so....a poor person leads an unhealthy life, with no higher education hopes, to advance themselves.....maybe we all here in America can call those people the "undesirables" and have them put into camps where they can be monitored, and controlled. it seems like that was done before, but it's not too late to try again.




posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
so much for your "right" to health care: Doctor s in the UK voting to strike See what I mean? You guys can make up all the "rights" you want, but it's not a "right" if you must compel other people to provide it for you.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
so much for your "right" to health care: Doctor s in the UK voting to strike See what I mean? You guys can make up all the "rights" you want, but it's not a "right" if you must compel other people to provide it for you.
Behave, if the biggest gang in town (government) ever struggle to provide healthcare for whatever reason, it does not remove that as a right that the community agrees it is.

Try stick to the point fella, we are talking about 'rights' and I assert that your 'rights' in the constitution are nothing more than any other law which can be changed by the government.
The ability or inability of any government/community promising said 'rights' does not stop them being rights in principle.
Try again.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand





I assert that your 'rights' in the constitution are nothing more than any other law which can be changed by the government.

you fail to see the beauty of the first two amendments and how they protect the whole.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Nope, any part of the constitution can be changed if the due process is followed and two thirds or whatever of both Houses vote for it.
Stop deluding yourself. I'm from the UK and know that the constitution is effectively just another bit of legislation which CAN be changed. It is no untouchable holy grail fella, and that said, it shows that your ideas of 'rights' are no more than whatever the biggest gang in town allows you to have.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Still you miss the point and try to fall back on the ability to change the constitution.

The point I am making is that it can be changed right back and the citizens that are armed win the battle.

It would do one no good to attempt to change the laws and get shot for it.

The same with freedom of speech. The man with a gun can say what he wants.

Being an unarmed citizen is a dangerous endeavor.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: grainofsand

Still you miss the point and try to fall back on the ability to change the constitution.

The point I am making is that it can be changed right back and the citizens that are armed win the battle.

It would do one no good to attempt to change the laws and get shot for it.

The same with freedom of speech. The man with a gun can say what he wants.

Being an unarmed citizen is a dangerous endeavor.


So effectively you are saying that you define 'rights' as whatever can be defended with a firearm, is that correct?
What a silly and obviously ridiculous argument.

I define 'rights' as whatever the biggest gang in town allows you to have, be that in an Amazonian tribe, the US, or North Korea.
Your 'right' to bear arms is no more a 'right' than my right to healthcare free at the point of need in the UK.
They are both agreed by the biggest gang in town/wider society, and CAN be taken away through amendments in legislation.

Keep on deluding yourself with the semantics of rights/privileges/entitlements though.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Boadicea

As soon as you bring a 'creator' into it then you confirm my thoughts of delusions.
You are only allowed the 'right' to bear arms because the biggest gang (government/community) allows it to be in the constitution. It can be taken away if (what is it?) 75% of Senate/House wish it.
That ain't a 'right' it is a privilege granted by the people who control you. You are no more free than I am, but keep deluding yourself.

...I know I'd rather be a slave in the UK, at least our cops rarely beat and kill us. Land of the free, don't make me laugh.

No they can not take away our defense by voting.

All voting against guns does is make targets for gun owners.


Dont be a fool.

The constitution can be changed, it would just be near impossible.

All that mean is some rights are easier to take away than others.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

they can change the constitution all they want but it will be changed back by people with guns




Correction there will be a very very bloody civil war were you MAY win and retain your right to bare arms or the big nasty government with big nasty tanks and planes and drones will win and you lose your right (and your life).


Either way the point still stands some rights are more easy to take away than others but in "theory" all rights can be taken away.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I never made the claim that the us government does not make or change laws.

I made the claim that millions of guns pointed at the gov. keeps our ability to have a constitution and protect it.

I compared our ability to protect our freedoms to those of a country that does not allow weapons.

even a redcoat can understand that well



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Boadicea

As soon as you bring a 'creator' into it then you confirm my thoughts of delusions.
You are only allowed the 'right' to bear arms because the biggest gang (government/community) allows it to be in the constitution. It can be taken away if (what is it?) 75% of Senate/House wish it.
That ain't a 'right' it is a privilege granted by the people who control you. You are no more free than I am, but keep deluding yourself.

...I know I'd rather be a slave in the UK, at least our cops rarely beat and kill us. Land of the free, don't make me laugh.

No they can not take away our defense by voting.

All voting against guns does is make targets for gun owners.


Dont be a fool.

The constitution can be changed, it would just be near impossible.

All that mean is some rights are easier to take away than others.

And that simple fact that the constitution CAN be changed makes the right to bear arms, no more of a 'right' than the right to free healthcare in the UK at the point of need.

It is something agreed/allowed by the biggest gang in town, be that a democracy, a dictatorship, or a nomadic tribe.
...the semantics of right/privilege/entitlement is just trickery, smoke and mirrors to those who are desperate to think they are more 'free' than any other developed nation.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: crazyewok

I never made the claim that the us government does not make or change laws.

I made the claim that millions of guns pointed at the gov. keeps our ability to have a constitution and protect it.

I compared our ability to protect our freedoms to those of a country that does not allow weapons.

even a redcoat can understand that well

And the thread is about the definition of 'rights' not how you defend whatever you feel it is that defines them.
How does the use of force by a populace influence what we define as rights? Plenty of civil wars in the world where both sides are fighting for their 'rights' so your point is moot or misguided at best, and trolling at worst.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick

I compared our ability to protect our freedoms to those of a country that does not allow weapons.

even a redcoat can understand that well



Yet the UK still has rights and freedoms. We are doing pretty and been a around a lot longer that the USA.

End of the day if a country gets pissed and a uprising happens the lack of guns means F all as someone will smuggle in the guns and actually real heavy weapons that make the difference in a war (like the French did in your revolution).
Gun control is just a farce at the end of the day as you really cant control illegal weapons.
edit on 13-11-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: schuyler
so much for your "right" to health care: Doctor s in the UK voting to strike See what I mean? You guys can make up all the "rights" you want, but it's not a "right" if you must compel other people to provide it for you.
Behave, if the biggest gang in town (government) ever struggle to provide healthcare for whatever reason, it does not remove that as a right that the community agrees it is.

Try stick to the point fella, we are talking about 'rights' and I assert that your 'rights' in the constitution are nothing more than any other law which can be changed by the government.
The ability or inability of any government/community promising said 'rights' does not stop them being rights in principle.
Try again.


Oh, for Christ's sake, "fella," see my other posts on this issue. I am COMPLETELY on topic. You guys make up rights out of ANYTHING you can think of. The whole idea of the OP was to discuss what constitutes a "right." You've made up all these "rights" that aren't "rights" at all. A "right" is something that is intrinsic to the person that does not disappear if someone else does. You have the "right" to free speech because no one else has to DO anything but leave you alone. We can define "rights" as we have in the US Constitution to say, "The right to keep and bear arms." Once again, nobody has to DO anything for you have that right. They don't have to furnish you with a firearm. That's all on you.

But once you start defining a "right" as something someone else is compelled to give you, then that definition, though you certainly are capable of making it up, is one with a hollow ring. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Now several of you here have decided that this means you can't have a fire department or a coast guard rescue system, and that is just completely stupid and woefully missing the point. Nobody ever said that. A culture can decide that it is in its own best interests to pay for a fire department with taxes. That's just fine. You can pay for a public library and a public park department, too. That does NOT MEAN that a public library is your "right." It does not mean you have a "right" to a public park. So just stop with that nonsense.

Now you have decided people have a "right" to health care. OK. Who are you going to get to provide it? How are you going to COMPEL health care providers to provide health care? What if they don't want to? Are you going to FORCE them to provide your healthcare because it is your RIGHT? My example above SHOWS you the consequences of such an assumption. It does not matter that you can have the government pay for it, which actually means that you can get the government to take the money from me and pay for your health care, i.e.: Confiscate it on your behalf.

The only reason you can even approach healthcare being a "right" is because there are enough people who have chosen to enter the field to actually do the job you demand. But as my example shows, sometimes these people are thoroughly pissed off at the conditions under which they are compelled to furnish you your "rights," and as a consequence REFUSE to do so. SO - MUCH - FOR - YOUR - RIGHTS. You don't have the "right" to health care any more than you have the "right" to garbage pick-up.

You can bluster and fume and conjure up all the "rights" you want, but the fact is, if the doctors say, "Screw you. We're tired of your god damned "rights," then you do not have those rights any more.

Now if you FORCE those doctors to provide you with your "right" to health care by, for example, making it illegal for them to strike, then you have created a slave class. The point being that I should not have to give up MY "rights" in order to provide YOU with YOUR "rights." And that's the problem with simply declaring that you have "rights" without having a clue as to what you are really saying.

You want your rights and compel me to provide them to you? Make me! Do you get it yet?


edit on 11/13/2015 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Ok, so those striking docs ... if you need health care and they are refusing to provide it ... does that give you the power to march up to one, put him or her in chains and beat the snot out of her until he or she complies and gives you care?

We had a system like that in the US once for getting forced labor. I'm not so sure I'd want my health care provided that way though.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler
No we wont force "you".


Obviously were you are healthcare is not a right and your not British so we are not forcing you to do anything.


The UK is not the USA and the USA is NOT the UK.

UK has a community and culture accepted healthcare as a right the same way Americans have accepted guns as a right.
Just accept that fact and move on!

What is people obsession with forcing US values on country's that dont share them? Insecurity?



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: grainofsand

Ok, so those striking docs ... if you need health care and they are refusing to provide it ... does that give you the power to march up to one, put him or her in chains and beat the snot out of her until he or she complies and gives you care?

We had a system like that in the US once for getting forced labor. I'm not so sure I'd want my health care provided that way though.



Can you force the owner at a gun shop to sell his guns if he doesn't want to sell to you?

Guns are a right in the USA but you cant force someone to give you one.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

You have the right to keep and bear arms, not have them provided to you. Not quite the same thing.

The right to health care presumes you are being cared for meaning someone is giving you care.
edit on 13-11-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

So, urm, who exactly defines and enforces these particular mahgical 'rights' you speak of?
The biggest gang in town? The community or wider society?

Different societies/nations, different rights.
Cultural semantics is all, and you take comfort or security deluding yourself with the trickery of rights/entitlements/privileges, they can all be taken away, and different cultures have different rights.

The biggest gang in town always controls the rights, don't delude yourself that the constitution defines 'rights' for the whole world and cannot be changed.



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: schuyler

So, urm, who exactly defines and enforces these particular mahgical 'rights' you speak of?
The biggest gang in town? The community or wider society?

Different societies/nations, different rights.
Cultural semantics is all, and you take comfort or security deluding yourself with the trickery of rights/entitlements/privileges, they can all be taken away, and different cultures have different rights.

The biggest gang in town always controls the rights, don't delude yourself that the constitution defines 'rights' for the whole world and cannot be changed.


We are working off the definition of right.

Clearly you do not get that.

A right is something that imposes NO obligation on anyone else in order for you to have it. Things like education and health care do that. In that case, they are not rights. They are civil privileges that can only be guaranteed by society as a whole and thus can change on a whim.

Do you really think if society disappeared tomorrow that you would still have that health care that you have a "right" to?
edit on 13-11-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join