It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


We Have No Rights! Just privileges.

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:24 AM
Gearge carlin said it best, "You have no rights!! you have privileges" and its true. We call them rights and they are, to an extent rights, but when we need them the most they can be taken away for many reasons (national security, public safety ect). If you dont believe me do what George carlin suggested look up the Japanese-American detainment camps during world war two. Perfect law abiding citizens locked up for no reason other than their ethnicity, and did they as americans have any rights? no they never got a trial to plead why they were loyal to America they never had the freedom to speak out against being detained they never have the right to stay in their homes, they were forcefully removed and taken away.

Now thats just one example, but there are more. Even today our rights are being taken away by the government with help from the Patriot act and the super rich leaders of the nation.

No if we did indeed have rights they would never be taken away. Those Japanese-Americans would have been heard, we would still have our privacy intact. We would be able to oppose war during time of war, people have been arrested for passing out anti war propoganda during time of war. Our privileges sure are going away rapidly too pretty soon we will be living like we were in the book "1984".

Youtube link. You have no rights video.

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/6/2008 by Mirthful Me]

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:39 AM
reply to post by caballero

That's true but far from profound. We may "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." But that doesn't make it true. Anyone can see that.

The idea, of course is to have the government secure those rights for people. You know, the whole

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


Now they might not do a very good job of it, you might even say they do a poor job of it, or even that they're unceasingly attempting to take your rights away, but, you know, that's a big part of what we talk about here on ATS.

And, as someone who's rights/privileges aren't routinely interrupted or waived, I'd say it does better than anarchy would. Does kind of suck for the people who get interred for spurious reasons.

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 07:27 AM
Actually, what you really have is freedom. Nothing is garanteed 100% in life and you have the freedom of movement and thought to do what you want to do, circumstance permitting.

That said, any civilised society has rights constitutionally defined, and any state that tries to keep humans down and basically instrumentalize and dehumanize them is a state that has reached the end of it's history, because it enters a dynamic which ultimately ends up in it's dissolution, on a longer or shorter timeline, but with a well defined result.

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:24 AM
The US Constitution was framed around those declared inalienable rights. The law was meant to protect the governed from the inevitable tendency of the government to 'grasp' for more and more control over the population - despite the population's desire NOT to be subjected to controls.

The law was meant to exists as an obstacle to those who would deny the rights of the citizens, allowing for initial resistance and eventual redress should a transgression take place.

Unfortunately the government was slowly populated with technocrats and specialists who made it their job to chip away at those controls until they were nothing more than a minor inconvenience. Law by exception. Governance by decree.

However, we are now seeing a direct assault on the rights themselves, and the law, is no protection any longer.

This countries political parties COULD have offered new hope to restore the rights and powers to the citizens, instead they are doing whatever the hell they call it, seems like Hollywood antics to me.

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:39 AM
reply to post by mdiinican

The Declaration of Independence is a beautifuly worded document.It swells those who read it with pride.For all it's glory it does lack one thing.The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. I wish that it could become a legal document,but doubt it will ever happen.
I propose an amendment to the Constitution to barr any law,action or executive order that would alienate any citizen's rights.

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 10:33 AM

Originally posted by daddyroo45
The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document.

And what is the measure of legality, that a document which itself establishes the legal framework of a State, is subject to?

The Preamble of the Constitution states:

We the People ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Which rests the foundation of Constitutional power solely on the will and consent of the People. The logical question -- do the People have the right to so decree? The Declaration of Independence is the obvious document asserting that, yes, indeed, the People do have that right. So it is, 'legally', quite relevant.

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 03:00 PM
Now heres the thing yes we have the constitution that is supposed to grant us all hese wonderful rights but how can they be ights if the the people who are supposed to follow those rules dont follow them? if people dont follow what the constitution say then it just becomes a piece of old paper with some words on it.

Slowly but surely thats what it is becoming, just an old piece of paper.

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 03:14 PM
we used to have rights and god willing we will have them again soon.
i have rights i dont care what the law says, cause the laws are made by criminals.

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 03:25 PM
reply to post by Ian McLean

The question would be,has the Declaration of Independence ever been sited as precedence in a court of law?Although the signates of the Declaration were some of the same men who drafted and ratified the constitution.While the Declaration holds the intent and even some could say the color of law.It has never been ratified as a law.
More the pity,as the wording of the Declaration is irrefutable.The meaning of the wording leave little to interupertation.

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 08:20 PM

Originally posted by daddyroo45
The question would be,has the Declaration of Independence ever been sited as precedence in a court of law?

Yes, for example, the Supreme Court in "American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton":

[T]he general doctrine was thus summarized in the opinion delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall (p. 542, L. ed. p. 255):

When our forefathers threw off their allegiance to Great Britain and established a republican government, assuredly they deemed that the nation which they called into being was endowed with those general powers to acquire territory which all independent governments in virtue of their sovereignty enjoyed. This is demonstrated by the concluding paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which reads as follows:

'As free and independent states, they [the United States of America] have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.'

It has never been ratified as a law. More the pity,as the wording of the Declaration is irrefutable.The meaning of the wording leave little to interupertation.

Agreed -- that would be putting the cart before the horse. My position is quite simple, really: The Declaration of Independence acknowledges the Peoples' right to dissolve and establish their government, the Preamble to the US Constitution acknowledges that its authority derives from that right of the People. Trying to give the Declaration of Independence legal authority within a system of law established by the Consitution would be incorrect.

If the Constitution is the fundamental and sole authority on the rights of the people, where do the 'other rights' mentioned in the 9th amendment come from? Establishment of self-governance is one of those rights, and the Declaration of Independence acknowledges that. Without such rights, it could be argued, the Constitution itself has no legal authority.

new topics

top topics


log in