We don't have rights we only have privileges., page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 15 times

reply posted on 21-6-2009 @ 05:34 PM by OmegaLogos

reply to post by Xtinguish

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: Long story short. I was over exuberant and I went off half cocked! My sincerest apologies over being petty over semantics! I call em privileges and you call em rights OK! Cool! I have a seen the light and I am willing to move on as this threads basic premise is what I really care about and to that end and in hoping to build a bridge I noticed that you said rights [I'm going to use your semantics from now on in this thread even though I am of course quite attached to my own version] need to be defended and I fully agree with this and most of what you then go on to explain is the case in your country and I believe the case is the same over here. The question then becomes a matter of the who,what,where,when,why and how's to appropriately respond and I'm currently looking at Iran for any possible pointers on this particular issue but there are a dozen threads on that already and no need to derail this one so I was wondering if India under Ghandi vs the British Empire would be the most appropriate way to address the current shenanigans being carried on by the TPTB? Any ideas?

Personal Disclosure: Once again I apologize for being a

and

around. I gotta stop listening to ICP!

they give me big feet syndrome and I go clowning it up by putting both of them in my mouth. You ROCK! as I'm a little surprised you didn't ignore me as I surely deserved it.

for being MR

Edited to fix emoticon.

[edit on 21-6-2009 by OmegaLogos]

reply posted on 21-6-2009 @ 06:11 PM by Xtinguish

reply to post by OmegaLogos

Heh, no problem friend. I come to ATS for good discussion; not to ignore people who have different view points then me. Good chat.

reply posted on 21-6-2009 @ 07:46 PM by Zerbst

reply to post by blind.face

First off, I just got back on ATS and I'm glad to see you all taking interest in this topic! Thanks for all the responses, but let's try to stay on topic.

Thank you, blind, for the great video series! This is exactly my point. This is what rights are supposed to be, yet we are not doing enough in protecting them. When we allow the government to take away inherent properties of various rights what we are doing is allowing them to replace rights with privileges.

Unlike the weight in the lead example from the videos, some inherent properties can be separated from rights. Like the rights that were taken from the Japanese/Americans in 1942. All others, as ?/Americans, allowed our rights to be infringed upon equally as theirs when we did nothing to defend them. Though it seemed to only effect those that were Japanese/American, in actuality, it was the rights of all Americans being offended.

This is the point I want to make! Some of you are standing in disagreement with me saying I'm mistaking this and we do have rights. I AM saying we DO have inherent rights, only that when we allow those rights to be violated they become privileges. We are obligated to stand for each other always and never mistake these injustices as exclusive. As one as all! An attack on my brother is an attack on myself!

This is exactly how they are succeeding in this. Chipping away a little at a time under the guise that only a small group of citizens are being effected in each incident? In fact, there is no such thing when it comes to our rights. We share these one and all. They are precious and equally important, as well as vital to our freedom. For sake of argument, whether you believe they can be lost or not, let's treat them as such? Erring on the safe side is a wise place to be here!

Peace.

reply posted on 21-6-2009 @ 09:29 PM by blind.face

reply to post by OmegaLogos

The "Bill of Rights" is not part of the Constitution.. it is a separate document altogether. Even if it were a part of the Constitution- the point made by the OP (a lot better than the point you are trying to make) was that we have privileges, not Rights. I only pointed out a few instances in one paragraph of one document (that doesn't have to exist for me to have Rights) that points out what the founders of the United States intended for this country.

We can both agree that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are laws, yes? Well, even if Rights are privileges, it was what this government is based on, therefore should be followed by the leaders of this country in order to be legal, yes?

Nothing owns me for the record. If something owns you, then that is your problem.

reply posted on 21-6-2009 @ 09:34 PM by blind.face

reply to post by Zerbst

Thank you for your post, and the time that you took to make the argument.. and for the record, I agree that some are letting their rights slip away.

You are welcome for the videos. He also has a great set of videos where he teaches a Constitution class. He doesn't teach them anymore, but if you would like a copy of the materials, I would be glad to send you one of his books (as it is basically covering what he teaches in the course).

reply posted on 21-6-2009 @ 09:59 PM by ReelView

The concept of "God given rights" is traceable to common law / natural law. The Magna Carta and the gradual evolution of fundamental rights of a living human being. When people talk about rights they are talking about a fundamental of true Law and Justice that supersedes and proceeds Constitutions. It is this fundamental natural law and natural rights that is destroyed by dictatorships, kings, tyrants. When they talk about "Living Constitutions" they are talking about the destruction of natural, fundamental rights as well a established meaning of law and constitutional principles in favor of the whim of the dictator(s).

reply posted on 21-6-2009 @ 11:08 PM by grapesofraft

reply to post by ReelView

So if they are "God given rights" then shouldnt we be allowed to strip them from Atheists, because they do not believe in God. I say lets strip all of the "God given rights" from Atheists ASAP.

reply posted on 21-6-2009 @ 11:12 PM by blind.face

reply to post by grapesofraft

inherent Rights.. inherent is a quality that cannot be removed..

reply posted on 21-6-2009 @ 11:16 PM by grapesofraft

reply to post by blind.face

"God given"... God giveth and God taketh away. There is no rights that are inherent without a God. Think about that.

[edit on 21-6-2009 by grapesofraft]

reply posted on 21-6-2009 @ 11:41 PM by For(Home)Country

reply to post by Zerbst

A very good thread, Zerbst. I often ask myself the same question, but maybe not in the same context as you. I too always seem to pick out when people demand this and that because it "is there right", but really, right of what? Right from where? Who gave you this right? Don't get me wrong, I am a Christian and believe in God, but the only right he gave us was to live how we deemed fit, some chose to follow him, some didn't. Within those choosing were specific paths you could follow, but this is irrelevant.

The question I ask is this; What makes us think we have a right to freedom? Don't get me wrong, I believe that people should be treated good, people should be considerate along with all these other cliche moral things that everyone that is born is entitled to for the sake of general morality, but on a more specific level, I believe that the people of consumer-saturated societies have become disillusioned with the right to "do whatever the hell I want" type of thing, and this I really don't agree with. It's cliche to see people in movies (and in real life) move to the United States of America from their homeland for the sake of gaining individual freedom, but if people would open their eyes, IT'S INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM THAT HAS WRECKED US, created elitists, selfish politicians and almost every other major issue that we see in today's world.

The individuals self-proclaimed adhesiveness to their individual's rights is the problem of today's free world. I think a common example is the mis-representation of sexual intercourse and the perversion of the human body in today's popular culture. People say it's your own right to expose yourself and its another one's right to access these materials, but really, who gave people the right to pervert sex and mass-introduce it to popular culture?

I too think we don't have rights, but privileges. And some of these privileges need to be taken away. I could talk much more extensively on my own personal feelings about this topic, but this is your thread, Zerbst, so I add this to your discussion.

Good threat again, btw!

reply posted on 21-6-2009 @ 11:41 PM by asmall89

Whoa I was totally about to flame because I didn't read the whole thing, but am glad I did lol. Anyway you are right, rights are determined by what people think they have, if they do not stand up for what they believe and is said to be their rights, they will lose them. Our founding fathers new this and is why they put so much emphasis on them when writing the Constitution.

reply posted on 21-6-2009 @ 11:44 PM by nunya13

A privilege by definition is a benefit. According to your OP, you are saying that that things like being able to say what we want, owning a gun, being given a fair trial and and to be able to confront our accusers, etc, is only a benefit.

The next logical assumption is that the reason we've been granted these "benefits" is because we live in a free society. But, living in a free society entails that individuals as well as groups enjoy living in a society that is free from constraint of choice, expression, and not living under the power of another or a group that constrains choice/expression.

After that, the next logical assumption is that the freedom to choose what I want to do or express myself how I want is a right. A privilege is something granted to you and can be taken away at any time. A right is inherent and nobody has the right to take it away for any reason.

The government cannot take my right to choose or express myself away because, if it did, then I would no longer be living in a free society.

If you notice, your argument that we only have privileges is based on the fact that we have had certain things taken away from us at the behest of the government, otherwise, you wouldn't quite have a basis for your argument other than opinion. They are taking away our RIGHTS; thereby, giving you the IMPRESSION that they are privileges.

Once you realize that what we have are RIGHTS then you will see that we are no longer living in a free society and that we are living under the power of a tyrannical government.

So, you either have two choices:

1. We are, in fact, not living in a free society and therefore only have privileges or,

2. We are living in a free society and are having our rights taken away from us.

Either one should PEEVE YOU OFF!

S & F

reply posted on 21-6-2009 @ 11:51 PM by nunya13

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by ReelView

So if they are "God given rights" then shouldnt we be allowed to strip them from Atheists, because they do not believe in God. I say lets strip all of the "God given rights" from Atheists ASAP.

Then they wouldn't be rights then would they. A God given right applies to anyone regardless of whether or not they believe in God. Otherwise, they would only be privileges.

A privilege entails that you have been granted something as a benefit as long as you have done something to earn it (such as taking a drivers test to earn a license to drive, which is a privilege).

So taking away a "God given right" way from an atheist is contradictory because you just applied a condition to it. This turns a right into a privilege and it is no longer "God given" because man is the one who just decided who to grant that privilege to--any one who believes in God.

I don't really think that you're God would appreciate that much. Only he is suppose to decide those things.

In any case, I think the proper term that is less controversial would be "inherent right". You just need to be a human being to have a right, without condition.

reply posted on 21-6-2009 @ 11:57 PM by blind.face

reply to post by grapesofraft

it was a shot at your comment about removing them from Atheist because they don't believe in God. Nope, sorry. I agree with you, but your interpretation of my reply was a little off.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 12:05 AM by hangedman13

How sad that I just watched a George Carlin stand-up that said the exact same thing!!!

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 12:19 AM by Evisscerator

The founding fathers did in fact recognize that WE, white men as referred to at the time the document was written, had GOD given rights. They also recognized that slaves had no rights, indentured servants had limited rights according to their servitude and that when the document was written, they recognized that ALL MEN were created EQUAL.

This was established Constitutional Law until the 14th Amendment was written. It took ownership of the slaves away from the slave owners and gave that ownership to the Federal Government in an area now known as Washington D.C.

It is from that 12x12 square mile plot of land that the Slaves would call home. Their 14th Amendment Rights were merely "PRIVILEGES" extended to them and used to control them, their whereabouts and certainly anything else that might be granted to them. Privileges can be taken away at any time because they are issued by MAN, not GOD. Privileges are an EXCHANGE of one's RIGHTS for something else. Your Driver's License is a PRIVILEGE that can be taken away at any time by the issuing Corporation if you violate their policies .... like drunk driving.

You have a GOD given right to FREEDOM to be free of ownership of the Government, LIBERTY to go anywhere in our land unencumbered by law and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS as long as you do not infringe upon the rights of someone else. The Common Law was the law of the land. Today, the laws of Equity, Admiralty and Civil law have been used to try to replace the Common Law. The Common Law is a law that all men can be treated equal with. It is a law that all men understand.

I was born in the Texas State republic and my domicile is there as well. I am a Citizen of Texas 1st, and an American Citizen when I am outside the country in a foreign land.

A 14th Amendment citizen is a subclass citizen who is only an American because their domicile is in Washington D.C., though they reside anywhere else in the country.

[edit on 6/22/2009 by Evisscerator]

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 01:38 AM by grapesofraft

reply to post by nunya13

So you are saying that God doesnt have the power to give certain rights to some but not to others. That is foolish. What rights does man have at all other than those granted by God or made up by his fellow humans. We are nothing more than monkeys with big brains, so we are entitled to no more rights than they are.

Rights are something that man made up. Nothing more nothing less.

There are tons of examples in the Bible where God sees one group of people as precious and the other groups as only worthy for destruction.

If you are speaking of the God of Christianity or the God of Judaism, He never gave rights to anyone or any group. He blessed or destroyed as He saw fit.

If any of the "rights" we have as Americans were trully rights then all people on Earth would be given them by default, but this is not the case. So I agree with the OP, they are but priveleges misnamed as rights.

To prove it, how long would it take a dictator to destroy the Constitution and then your "inherent" or "God given" rights would be no more.

[edit on 22-6-2009 by grapesofraft]

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 04:09 AM by slimpickens93

reply to post by Xtinguish

I'd just like to say that not everyone of us believe that our rights are given to us by our "creator".

I believe my rights are "inherent". That means they are a part of me. I exist, therefore I have rights. I've had them since the very first breath I took. Nobody gave them to me. Nobody can take them away.

My consciousness is the source of my rights.

I don't really think that the factors of religion are beneficial to this topic as it relates to constitutions, laws and liberty.

The source of rights is not that relevant so long as we all understand that we have them and what they are. And also that rights once realized, cannot be taken away... ever. Only one's liberty to exercise said rights can be taken/lost.

One's liberty can be taken/lost by physical handicap/restraint, or voluntary forfeiture due to many reasons including "laws", "taxes", threat/fear of force, "morals", "religion" and so on.

Murder is as close as any one can come to taking away my rights, because when I die I will no longer have consciousness or physical ability to exercise any rights. But my rights will still not have been taken, only my liberty to live. My rights will just cease to exist.

It seems to me that most people when speaking of rights, are actually speaking of liberty.

I wonder how different would the world be if for example, the Second Amendment had been written like this:

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

I would have written it something like this:

A well armed society, being necessary for the security (protection) of freedom, the liberty of the people to exercise their individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (encroached upon).

The wording of the U.S. Constitution too often leads people to believe that the constitution itself grants people the rights covered in the document just as it grants rights to the government that it creates, even though it clearly states:

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.

I suppose that is the source of belief that rights are "God given".
I believe I was created by nature (naturally). The same way every other thing on the planet came into existence (excluding man made objects, of course).

The point is that every person is born with rights. Rights that are inherent and unalienable.

These rights aren't unalienable because the Constitution says so, the Constitution says so because the authors understood that rights are unalienable.

If you still cannot understand this, well then I regret that I am not able to articulate it in such a way as to enlighten you.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 04:18 AM by slimpickens93

reply to post by blind.face

The Bill of Rights is indeed part of the Constitution.

The original Constitution did not contain the Bill of Rights. However, we are governed according to the amended Constitution, not the original.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 04:32 AM by blind.face

reply to post by slimpickens93

The Bill of Rights is a separate document. The Constitution is rules for the government to go by.. the Bill of Rights are what is ours. Not rules but what we can do. I view them as a separate document, as I stated. I do not include them in what we talk about when we talk about the Constitution, as the constitution can be amended, the original 10 articles of the Bill of Rights cannot be changed. They are inherent rights. That is why I separate the two into separate classes- for discussion.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^