We don't have rights we only have privileges.

Firstly you've succeeded in taking me off my point, congrats.

Let me be frank. I don't care about the Australian Constitution. If the people of Australia are happy with their privileges then fine.

I'm an American. The OP used American examples in his original post, therefore I think it was safe to assume he was talking about America...REFUTE!?!

I don't care what the Australian Constitution says, again I'm a citizen of a sovereign national; not my problem.

I do care what my Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights says. Here's some off the top of my head...

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.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Throughout our wonderful document you find the phrase, "right of the people," many many times.

reply to post by blind.face
Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

Explanation: Coolio If I made a mistake when IDing you in my post as I'm open enough to admit I got it wrong! [SEE HERE for proof!] IF thats exactly what I did? Please correct me if I'm wrong but this is how I saw it.

1 I Noticed this thread and joined it and posted.
2 I waited for other posters to join. Mr Headshot posted and I replied.
3 Xtinguish joins the fray and goes of half cocked [IMO],
4 I reply to Xtinguish and as I do so MissSmartyPants and yourself both posted while I was indisposed Re: No#3 above
5 I spend time catching up with the thread as it was at that time Re: watching the vids you supplied and replying to MissSmartyPants
6 By the time I replied to MissSmartyPants another member, yourself and Xtinguish had posted again. Your post was in reply to Xtinguish and as both of Xtinguish's posts we both JUNK and I noticed in your reply you ADVOCATED that either one or the other was and I quote you directly "well put."! :shk: And I noticed your proof relies on a sicophant for TPTB Paul Wolfowitz! And this is where I [yes me OL] may have just got things slightly wrong footed because I discerned [maybe wrongly so and If this is the case then I thank you for denying my ignorance] that your post was referring to me and as such I came from that POV when I commented in my Personal Disclosure that directly ID you.

Personal Disclosure: If you weren't supporting either of Xtinguish's JUNK posts then exactly what POV were you supporting with that comment?
Because when you directly go on to state"I also really look forward to hearing what the OP has to say about the set of videos I posted (of course.. after he watches all of them.. that would only be fair right? I read everything that he wrote.)" when having stated "well done" to a post that was NOT to the OP but TO ME" it then appeared to me that you were ALSO mistaking me for the OP! Was this or was this NOT the case? Care to Deny My Ignorance!

reply to post by OmegaLogos


You: "And I noticed your proof relies on a sicophant for TPTB Paul Wolfowitz"..

enough said.. obviously you didn't watch the videos. If you would have, you would realize that isn't Paul Wolfowitz. So much for denying ignorance huh?

reply to post by Xtinguish
Disclaimer: As above!

Explanation: See once again how your posts show an inability to discern correctly. ATS is a GLOBAL website with GLOBAL membership so when the OP posted the Topic: "We don't have rights we only have privileges." the "We" demographic they are referring to is a GLOBAL demographic and not just the USA! Yes the OP provides evidence from their own backyard but that isn't the be all and end all of it! Otherwise the Topic is wrong and should be "USA citizens don't have rights we only have privileges." or is ATS USA only now?

Next you state "Australians have privileges as you so wish to believe." which implies that 1] I'm wrong & 2] that its based on belief when its actually a FACT regardless of my belief.

Personal Disclosure: I never asked you to do or feel anything concerning the Australian Constitution! :shk: You brought it up not me!

Now as to your proof ...well well well what do we have here...."it is the Right of the People"! Edited to show that nasty little DEMOGRAPHIC that seems to be CONSTANTLY overlooked. RE: RIGHTS = CARTE BLANCHE vs Privileges = SPECIFIC DEMOGRAPHIC [in this case "People"]. EPIC FAIL!

reply to post by MissSmartypants


I went to your link and well personally whoever that OP was is full of you know what IMO. They havent logged in since the day they joined. It was an interesting thread that anyone could have come up with.

To the OP on this thread, yes I agree we have no rights just privileges. Example...they say it's everyone has the right to go to college well that is just not true. It's a privilege if you can afford it, if it were a right everyone would be able to go regardless of money. Same thing can be said with health care. We have no right to it, it's a privilege to those who can afford it. I could go on and on with this. Thanks for the post! S&F to you.

Ok, now I feel the need to get a little more detailed, to clarify where I come from.. and to indeed, deny ignorance..

Let me start with a line from the Declaration of Independence: (since I think it's safe to say we are talking about the US)..

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, 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.

Now.. unalienable.. what does that mean? Well, first.. it's an adjective. Adjectives are used to describe nouns. It means: "incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another"..

Now, lets suppose just for a moment that there is no God.. just for giggles.. that does not change the fact that our founders believed that we had unalienable Rights, given to us by our creator. I don't care if they meant we were created by our government or little green men from Mars and not a 'god' or God.. they said it if that is what you were trying to dispute.

Now,

lets pretend that there was no Bill of Rights, as well as there being no God..

Are you telling me that I only have a privilege to liberty? Are you saying that the government can take away what is mine? Sure they can, but not without infringing on my rights. If they had granted me privilege, then sure they could take it away and it be perfectly legal. The catch is that there has to be rights for them to infringe upon. Rights I indeed have.

All rights are derived from property. my property is what is mine. My body is my property, not the governments.. they do not grant me privilege to my body. ALL RIGHTS (personal property is the only place RIGHTS can come from) are afforded to everyone.

reply to post by OmegaLogos




You need to go back to page one, and read your first post to me about being Australian. You got upset about the word 'we' in my post correct? So you used your own nationality first in order to attack me using the word 'we'.

Secondly, I've never said anything about this being an American only forum. All I said was I am an American responding to someone issuing American examples to make his point WE don't have rights. Was I to suppose to assume he was talking about any other country then America? Common sense would have me not. Where does he issue any global example of this? Hmm? I assumed by the information that was supplied by the OP. I was responding to the OP. Why don't you ask what the OP was meaning by WE? Could he by using American only examples to talk about America? Is that not possible? AND even he wasn't, my first post would be MOST LIKELY referring to his AMERICAN examples.

You whole first response to be was wrong and incorrect. Your fighting with me about the Australian Constitution when I am clearly talking about the U.S. Constitution. Your point to me is that Australia does not have rights. My point to you is the United States does. That is called national sovereignty, see? It's what the NWO wishes to destroy; remember?

[edit on 21-6-2009 by Xtinguish]

reply to post by blind.face
Disclaimer: As Above!

Explanation: Yep your 100% correct that its not Paul Wolfowitz. Its Michael Badnarik. I had barely begun to watch the vids and was astounded by the likeness to him Re:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/254dea6d96c2.jpg[/atsimg]

They could be twins or clones. and because I hadn't yet accessed the Site of his that he spruiked I was still going on my misguided perception when I answered you. Completely my BAD! Now care to answer those questions I asked you?

Personal Disclosure: Thanks for denying my ignorance concerning this issue of mistaken ID. [Star4U].



[edit on 21-6-2009 by OmegaLogos]

reply to post by OmegaLogos


I believe I stated my stance on rights, and how I feel you are off on the subject in my last post, so I will let that stand. Any more questions? Comments?

I respect your opinion, but I just don't agree that I have no Rights.

Now I agree as someone posted earlier.. not everything the government call's rights are indeed rights.. I believe the example was going to college. We do, however, have the right to use the resources that are ours to gain some form of education.

reply to post by blind.face
Disclaimer:As Above

Explanation: Symantic disambiguation of these words as I see them.

1] Rights = CARTE BLANCHE laws of the universe. [re: lorentz symmetry]

2] Ability = what you can do within the framework of your rights.

3] Liberty = Freedom to Act without any restraint. Please show me where you are not bound by No#1. Freedom is like the word Unicorn...its got NO existencial reality beyond its symantic designation.

4] Privilege = inequallity due to demographic RESTRICTIONS!

Personal Disclosure: Rights as you define them come under my definition of Privilege. Does your constitution protect my rights or visaversa? Nope and therefor both EPICALLY FAILS the CARTE BLANCHE test of rights. Any anthropomorphized piece of paper does not a right make! Don't confuse my definition of ability with your definition of rights. I have a potential ability to murder etc a fellow human being. This does not make it my right [as per your definition] to do so! Do you agree? Because I would posit that you have the ability to be offended and therefor it is your right to be offended and of course to be fair to this I would then have to offend you to fulfill your inalienable right to such treatment. Offended yet???
Who OWNS you? You or Existence? HMMMM?

Edited to fix several typos. :shk:




[edit on 21-6-2009 by OmegaLogos]

reply to post by OmegaLogos


By your logic you have no right to say I have no right. Therefore your argument is pretty meaningless.

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by blind.face

Personal Disclosure: Rights as you define them come under my definition of Privilege. Does your constitution protect my rights or visaversa? Nope and therefor both EPICALLY FAILS the CARTE BLANCHE test of rights. Any anthropomorphized piece of paper does not a right make! Don't confuse my definition of ability with your definition of rights. I have a potential ability to murder etc a fellow human being. This does not make it my right [as per your definition] to do so! Do you agree? Because I would posit that you have the ability to be offended and therefor it is your right to be offended and of course to be fair to this I would then have to offend you to fulfill your inalienable right to such treatment. Offended yet???

Who OWNS you? You or Existence? HMMMM?

[edit on 21-6-2009 by OmegaLogos]

Of course I agree that you don't have the 'right' to kill anyone. Is that really all you have to support your stance?

I think it's very clear who owns me.. I'm not going to beat that horse to death.

You have consistently tried to manipulate the conversation to your liking..

Where have I once said that my Constitution protects me? or you for that matter? You can't stay on the topic at hand, so you have to create to continue.

1)my rights come from my property..
2)I don't need a piece of paper to tell me that..
3)I am obviously arguing a moot point with you, as you can't respond without trying to twist what I have posted without having to actually respond to what I have said.

Point, don't care what your definition of a right is.. could care less.. much like you could care less what mine is. My point? I have rights.. if they were privileges they could be legally taken away by oh say, you? Now, since they are rights.. well, you can still take them I guess, but not in any legal way.

We clearly have two sets of ideals. Who's right? I'm not sure, but I will stick with my own definition.. my rights. You can keep your privileges..? Ok?

Of course we have rights. Just because there is a piece of paper that says you can't do this or that with out getting in trouble does NOT mean you can not do it.

You can murder anybody you can steal anything, you can do anything, however you must understand that there are consiquences for your actions.

If it was just a privelage there would be something preventing from being able to do these things. Yes there are detterents such as laws or the thought of spending life in jail but it is your choice whether or not you do something. YOUR choice.

You see now we are getting into free will. It is your choice. Yes there are things around you that influence your choice but ultimatly only you can choose what you do.

And you can do anything you want as long as you understand there are consiquences to your actions.

The only rights you or anyone else has, are the rights they demand through force. Everything else is an illusion - no-one is going to be your mother when your grown.

reply to post by blind.face
Disclaimer: As Above!

Explanation: You ask "Is that really all you have to support your stance?" and my reply is NO! I've got a few more examples.

Just for start where does your possession of anything start and stop? e.g. Your voice exists beyond your physical body and once its left your lips you have lost control over it. Same with the air in your lungs ....you possess it by ability but once you breathe out what was once a part of you is no longer so. Did your parents possess you when you were a child. Did their abilities overshadow and dictate to you? If the answer to that is yes then I would posit that your rights [as you define them] had to take a backseat back then and according to your definition this abrogation of your rights was ILLEGAL. How would you feel about taking your parents to court over this issue? Do you choose to be hungry or does your body TELL you! If its the latter then does that mean you are possessed by your body and not visa versa? Where is that exacting deliminating line for you the individual that is in complete 100% control always and everywhere? This is an important variable in the argument as you are positing that you are in possession and this goes directly to sovereignty which as I show below is a bunch of fooey as everything eventually answers to something else The USA and yourself included.

You state ambiguously "I think it's very clear who owns me.. I'm not going to beat that horse to death." and so I will disambiguate that for you. Existence owns your A$$ from the big bang to the big rip! Just try dictate to it as a whole and see how far you get!

You noticed "You have consistently tried to manipulate the conversation to your liking..." My liking is denying ignorance regardless.

You then go out on a limb and posit "Where have I once said that my Constitution protects me?" and I agree that you haven't stated those exact words anywhere on the thread but you did post "Bill Of Rights" and a vid supporting it. So now unless you come out and publicly deny your support for either your 1st words of your 1st post or the vid you posted I'm going to have to turf you unceremoniously into the "my constitution protects me" camp! care to refute? Note The bill of rights is subsumed within your countries constitution!

Finally you state "Point, don't care what your definition of a right is.. could care less.. much like you could care less what mine is." and whoah up there a bit as I very much do care about the accuracy of your definitions as I'm here to deny ignorance. Shame you don't feel likewise!

Personal Disclosure: I can't quite seem to get your gist of No#3? Isn't 2 "withouts" a double negetive?


edited to turn an above into a below due to posting posts out of order! :shk:


[edit on 21-6-2009 by OmegaLogos]

reply to post by Xtinguish
Disclaimer: As Above!

Explanation: Kudo's on the history of us in this thread extremely accurate until "That is called national sovereignty, see?" and yes I do see....

See here....from freedictionary.com

Sovereign state:

a state which administers its own government, and is not dependent upon, or subject to, another power.


So you think the USA is sovereign in its statehood? Hmmmm? Not by my Yardstick! Seems to me the USA was just DEPENDANT on China for Bailout money ...some 2.7 trillion$ and is SUBJECT to various OIL producing countries world wide. Seems the USA is Sovereign in existence like Unicorns exist huh?

Personal Disclosure: "It's what the NWO wishes to destroy; remember?" ...I remember that something can't destroy what never existed in the 1st place!

Now as to me having the "right" well I certainly have the universal ABILITY to say so and the laws of the universe in no way restrict this and in fact they promote my ability to do so. This by my definition is a right but that does not make it MORALY or EXISTENTIALLY CORRECT [i.e. right. No pun intended] for example I can doublethink 1+1=5 all I want but this does not make it so!

only a society of "must" can replace a society of "rights"

we cannot get rid of those privileges if they aren't replaced before by must (ideas acquired and understood) : that is education

ultimately we 'll reach utopia (the only realistic objectives if to get rid once for all of the corruption of power)

Heres my concept of a free society.

Fair Money/wealth Standards (no fiat please)

Right to lifestyle within a non-force/non-forced coercion understanding (example: man constantly harrasses a women for sex by unwantedly swooning her in public. Or even forces that is wrong absolute-yet even with married couples it happens)

Right to practice intoxications and divinations for responsible use..meaning self control to the degree of twice a week then back to farming. which might just be fun in the future.

Right to worship a God unimpeded as long as that God belief is excersized rationaly and peacefully, violent use of God should be looked down on severely as this causes mind sets which are dellusional and self justified in not knowing in an angered state. But should be given a public system of addressing the problems they see on a local level or whatever ails the mind, in order to vent peacefully. I.E. People like to be heard and accepted for who they are inside, we should roll with that.

Right free choice of food, seed stocks, and growth within the rational means of maintaining an overgrowth of plants and animal life. While providing an abundance with a co-op of people doing what they can to eat and live collectively.

Right to weapons is a touchy one. On one hand, if the whole world honestly disarmed in a peaceful state. We could see a renasciance? Yet it could be a self made trap. Always despise war but be ready for it right?

I think that it wall take the world losing most to have a disarmed society. Sadly as that sounds, people are too chaotic right now to even think it. The school bred shopping class is the perfect breed of anti-gun activists in my view. And good for them to want peace. Yet materialism is a false and temporary bliss and escape. You never face your own ugly side in seeking materials to drug the mind with your own success' and such. See what i mean there?

I could copy paste here the Constitution Of Finland, so u guys could read it, and stop wheep, so you could see that other countries as well have Functional Constitutions

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Why are you using so much effort to explain to me my original point? I said rights need to be defended. I said Americans need to stop being apathetic and chicken #s and protect their rights. They don't and I don't see them doing so in the near future. So what do you have? A government who is working against the right of it's people and has placed the nation in a position where we need billions from China. Get it yet? They have to work OUTSIDE the Constitution to destroy the sovereignty of the United States.

Let's look at what a right actually is. A right is defined in most legal dictionaries as an entitlement, which is far different than a privilege or a license. Where do they come from? We here in America believe they come from a creator. You can believe this creator is a spirit, a being in the clouds, aliens, consciousness, or maybe just the desire of all men to be free.

Now, if the government is violating the rights of the people over and over again, who are they working for? Obviously not for the American people. Hence the situation Americans are in, as you have described.

Now, you call my post hogwash? You have the universal ability to do so? Why is that? Governments have the universal ability to tell you to shut up and any further posting will result in your imprisonment. Why don't they? Why can't governments shut people up on the internet in Democracies? What would be done if they tried as I am sure many governments would love to do. Would their be a court hearing on the subject? Why? Governments have the universal ability to do that too. What makes it wrong if it is not breaking any rights of the people? Why wouldn't people accept those actions from their governments?

Lastly, you can measure with any yardstick you choose. The United States has rights as I original posted. Rights which are indeed being stripped away faster then crap through a goose. Again, back to my original post which started your attack on me, because we (Americans as the OP firmly points out) have become apathetic. That is the only reason government can take any rights away, only if we let them.