We don't have rights we only have privileges., page 4

privacy

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

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 05:27 AM by slimpickens93

reply to post by blind.face

You go ahead and separate all you want to. The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution whether you like it or not.

It is not rules for us to go by.

It is yet more rules for the government. It limits government from encroaching upon our liberty.

In other words, it is not for what we can do, but for what the government can't do or must do.

While I agree that our rights are inherent, I assure you that the Bill of Rights can be amended and/or repealed. Just like any other part of the constitution.

You really should study these subjects more.

Preamble of the Bill of Rights:

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will worst ensure the beneficent starts of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

[edit on 22-6-2009 by slimpickens93]

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 06:11 AM by Xtinguish

reply to post by slimpickens93

I did not say that ALL Americans believe that their rights come from a creator. My post also included that all men have the will to be free. This mutual feeling of freedom and liberty is the common link no matter your belief of origin.

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Xtinguish]

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 06:17 AM by blind.face

reply to post by slimpickens93

just like anyone else, you've completely overlooked what I posted.

If you would look back instead of twisting- you would realize that you and I have the exact same belief. Try reading the full context of all of my previous posts before you try to suggest to me what I should read.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 06:21 AM by blind.face

reply to post by slimpickens93

Also, I never said the Bill of Rights were rules for us to go by.. I said it is what we can do. And no... my inherent rights cannot be taken from me without infringing upon them.

Constitutions are laws for government. My Bill of Rights is a proclamation of my rights. I do not NEED a piece of paper to tell me what I already know I can do. That is the difference.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 09:02 AM by slimpickens93

Originally posted by blind.face
reply to post by slimpickens93

just like anyone else, you've completely overlooked what I posted.

If you would look back instead of twisting- you would realize that you and I have the exact same belief. Try reading the full context of all of my previous posts before you try to suggest to me what I should read.

You said that the Bill of Rights is not part of the Constitution.
You said that the Bill of Rights can not be changed, you also used this statement as your basis for the Bill of Rights not being part of the Constitution.

You are wrong on both counts.

From my understanding of your posts.... you assume that the bill of rights gives you the right to do something.

There is good reason why the Bill of Rights was omitted from the original Constitution.... many people felt there was no need for it since the Federal government was not supposed to have authority to interfere with such liberties to begin with. They also felt that any Bill of Rights would be too limited in nature, and that any rights not included would not be protected and therefore become "privileges".

These matters were supposed to and should have been left to the individual states to decide.

Btw, I am not arguing your beliefs versus mine. I am merely pointing out that you are ignorant regarding the Constitution of the United States of America. Not so much to persuade you, but for the benefit of others who may read this so that they can have a more factual, intelligent understanding of the Constitution.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 09:20 AM by slimpickens93

Originally posted by blind.face
reply to post by slimpickens93

Also, I never said the Bill of Rights were rules for us to go by.. I said it is what we can do. And no... my inherent rights cannot be taken from me without infringing upon them.

Constitutions are laws for government. My Bill of Rights is a proclamation of my rights. I do not NEED a piece of paper to tell me what I already know I can do. That is the difference.

You are right, you did not say the Bill of Rights were rules for us, I was just to lazy to change my post. I figured you would catch that. But I don't understand why you can't seem to catch on to anything else I've been saying.

You just don't get it do you?

The Bill of Rights is not what we can do. It is a combination of what the government can not interfere with us doing, and what the government must do for our protection.

Your inherent rights can not be taken from you whether they are infringed upon or not.

You do not have a Bill of Rights, the Constitution has a Bill of Rights. It is not a proclamation of your rights. It recognizes certain rights and restricts the Federal government from infringing upon them.

You are right that you do not need a piece of paper to tell you what you already know you can do.... but the government does need a piece of paper to tell them what you can do, and that is the reason for the Bill of Rights.

This is my last post to you regarding this subject because I don't think you can comprehend the points I am trying to present.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 10:34 AM by nunya13

reply to post by grapesofraft

Just because the government feels that they can't take our rights away does not make them privileges. I explained this in the post before the one your responded to.

They took away our rights giving the illusion that they are privileges. That means we do not live in a free society anymore.

I am having a problem with people thinking that no human being has any rights other than privileges granted to them. This really bothers me that people think along these lines. Because that means that we are giving an exorbitant amount of power to people who are NO BETTER THAN US. What gives President Bush or Obama the right to tell me what I can and cannot do? Nothing. Just because they may have more money or "power" than I does not mean they are automatically given the ability to decide who gets what and when.

Why do we claim we are fighting for people's freedoms if they are nothing more than lowly human beings who are only allowed to rights their governments grant them in the first place. It would be pointless to send our own countrymen and women to fight in a war to sacrifice their lives for nothing more than privileges.

As for your comments on "God given rights", I see what you are saying. But I believe that it would be futile for you and I to debate the issue seeing as I don't perceive God as some man pointing his finger saying, "I love you.", "You can die", "you've worshiped me well and shall receive a good life", "You disobeyed me and now you shall live life in squalor".

I don't even perceive God as a man for that matter. But that is for a different thread.

But to be brief, my perception is that we are all equals in this universe, it doesn't matter what sex, race, or religion (or if you don't even have a religion let alone believe in a higher power for that matter). We are all free people's and no one has any right to take that away from me.

Once again, just because someone took away my RIGHTS does not make them privileges. They are rights that have been taken away. They've never been privileges, they've always been rights. The definition does not change just because some a-wad took my right away.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 10:45 AM by nunya13

Originally posted 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.

Exactly!! This thread isn't for debating who, if anyone, gave us our rights.

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.

Right on the money again. When someone takes away my rights, I still have them, I've just been forbidden to practice exercising them. It doesn't mean they are gone, since they are inherent. I can still exercise my right at anytime I want, I would just have a serious price to pay for exercising them.

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

Yuparoonie. To say that the Constitution, written by men, gives me rights would assume that they also have the power to take them away. But, as you said, they don't because they didn't give them to us. They were just stating an undeniable fact that they didn't see as up to interpretation.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 01:24 PM by Zerbst

reply to post by nunya13

Once again, just because someone took away my RIGHTS does not make them privileges. They are rights that have been taken away. They've never been privileges, they've always been rights. The definition does not change just because some a-wad took my right away.

en.wikipedia.org...

A privilege—etymologically "private law" or law relating to a specific individual—is a special entitlement or immunity granted by a government or other authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. A privilege can be revoked in some cases. In modern democracies, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from birth.

This is exactly what is bothering me today! People think it's okay if their rights are taken away for a while, as long as they can still claim to own them? The ONLY difference between rights and privileges is their ability to be taken away. That is EXACTLY what makes them privileges whether you think so, or not!

All rights come from a common understanding among men. An agreement that says my rights as an individual are only valid when extended equally among all others. The basis of there inherent value can only be validated when shown inherent in everyone. When held to this standard, by all men, then rights are protected.

When one persons inherent rights are violated we must understand it is applied to all. It should be understood that no man can regulate or adjust the levels in any way other than equally. Sadly, these levels are not equal for all men and when this is aloud to go on we are putting are rights in jeopardy.

There's no argument that these rights cannot be taken away from us. They are, however, being denied. Rights denied are nothing more than privileges. If we all are unable to express them in certain circumstances, or when only some are granted expression while others are not, it all means the same thing. They are only rights when freedom to exercise them is unabated for all in any circumstance.

What good are rights if restricted from use? About as good as privileges, that's what. Some are saying that only our liberty is effected, and never our rights? I'm saying what's the difference? How can you feel secure that your rights are safe when liberties are denied? Is it because they may come back someday? What makes you think that? I guaranty you that those that deny liberty temporarily only do so when it is needed. You cannot be okay with temporary expression of rights?

There's no security in unimpeded rights at all times except when their expression is useful. For example. You are granted freedom of your right to bear arms at all times except, that small amount of time, when bearing arms is necessary to defend yourself from those being aloud to regulate your rights? What is the point in that? Having rights safe in a lock box is ridiculous and useless. You can have my rights when I don't need them. I only want them when I feel the need to express them.

Peace.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 02:13 PM by Zerbst

reply to post by For(Home)Country

The question I ask is this; What makes us think we have a right to freedom?

Personally, I believe inherent rights are the certain wants and needs, all reasonably sane and rational, people agree to always be cherished by everyone. The best way to assure this for oneself is to collectively agree that it secures everyone, or no one at all. That denying this trust to anyone else is equally denying it to yourself. Basic protections for us all, formed among man to stand forever as a reminder of what should always be held important.

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?

These are the types of issues that should be granted as privileges. Only expressions that are completely free from ever harming others should be a right. A privilege comes with responsibility and is a way to allow certain activity for those wanting it, while also protecting others vulnerable to possible negative effects. Responsibility comes from incentive that you can lose a privilege if requirements agreed of it are not followed. The basic principle being freedom for all to do whatever they choose, but equal protection from harming others. Unlike rights, privileges can be taken away do to their potential for harming others.

Peace.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 02:21 PM by Zerbst

reply to post by grapesofraft

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.

Isn't that the Old Testament? I thought the New Testament overrode the old?

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.

That is exactly why they should be taken more seriously. This is the point of this topic, to not let man deny man of inherent rights.

Peace.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 04:16 PM by grapesofraft

reply to post by nunya13

The point is not that someone gave us rights or took away our rights, it is that there is no such thing as inherent rights. You can say you have them, you can think you have them, someone else can say they gave them to you or took them away from you, but nobody is born with an inherent right to anything. Calling something an inherent or God given right is just some touchy feely thing to make people feel better.

You did not come out of your mothers womb with any rights whatsoever. In fact, if she decided she wanted a better job instead of you she could have killed you before you were even born. This could all be done with no more guilt than a few pings of sadness on her part on a dark, quiet night.

So where did your inherent, God given rights go in that scenario?

[edit on 22-6-2009 by grapesofraft]

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 04:50 PM by nunya13

reply to post by Zerbst

Yes, I do think that people shouldn't make a correlation between taking away a liberty or a right. They go hand-in-hand. You take away one, you take away the other. However, there is a small difference between a liberty and a right, NO ONE CAN EVER TAKE AWAY MY RIGHT. They can prohibit me from using them, but I will still have it and I CAN STILL USE IT AT ANYTIME I WANT. A liberty CAN unfortunately be taken away.

Like I said in another post, just because someone took away my right, the definition of it doesn't change to being one of a privilege. It was, is, and always will be a right. It has never, is not, and will never be a privilege.

One poster brought up George Carlin saying that our rights are actually privileges. I saw this same show a few weeks ago. I believe he was being facetious. He was talking about the issue from the perspective of the government. They've convinced themselves that WE have privileges since they can take them away. They are only able to take them away because they con us into thinking it is for our own good (PATRIOT Act, FISA Act, etc.).

Some one can make the argument that we were given rights, therefore, that really makes them privileges, but I would ask, "Who is it that gave us rights?" followed by, "Were those rights GIVEN to us or was someone just STATING what our rights were?". I strongly believe it to be the latter part of that question.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 05:04 PM by nunya13

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by nunya13

The point is not that someone gave us rights or took away our rights, it is that there is no such thing as inherent rights. You can say you have them, you can think you have them, someone else can say they gave them to you or took them away from you, but nobody is born with an inherent right to anything. Calling something an inherent or God given right is just some touchy feely thing to make people feel better.

You did not come out of your mothers womb with any rights whatsoever. In fact, if she decided she wanted a better job instead of you she could have killed you before you were even born. This could all be done with no more guilt than a few pings of sadness on her part on a dark, quiet night.

So where did your inherent, God given rights go in that scenario?

[edit on 22-6-2009 by grapesofraft]

If you believe that no one, including yourself, is born with rights or a reasonable expectation of being a free person, I really think you should back it up with logic.

My logic that we ARE born with rights and freedoms is that someone has to come and take them away from me in order for me not to have them anymore. Until those rights are taken away (which I am really only forbidden from exercising them), I AM A FREE PERSON. If I did not have any rights to begin with then there's no reason for anyone to take away something I never even had in the first place. There's also no reason for something to be given to me that I already had and, as one poster mentioned, the Bill of Rights was never an intention of the forefathers. The rights that they stated we had were a given. They didn't see any need to elaborate because, if they had, they wouldn't be rights anymore, they would be privileges. Once again, the government turned around and decided to give us something WE ALREADY HAD in order to give us the illusion that they were actually privileges. It worked pretty good, eh?

I won't even go into the abortion issue because we obviously differ on the definition of when life, and therefore consciousness, begins so it would, once again, be futile for me to try to convince you that, had my mother chosen to abort me, who's to say I was even a conscious being who had a reasonable expectation to have the right to live? Again, that's for another thread.

Either way, according to you, there is no such thing as an inherent or even God given right so who cares if my mother had aborted me? I didn't have the right to live.

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 05:58 PM by grapesofraft

reply to post by nunya13

If you believe that no one, including yourself, is born with rights or a reasonable expectation of being a free person, I really think you should back it up with logic.

Having a reasonable explanation of something and thinking it is an inherent right are two different things.

My logic that we ARE born with rights and freedoms is that someone has to come and take them away from me in order for me not to have them anymore. Until those rights are taken away (which I am really only forbidden from exercising them), I AM A FREE PERSON.

You are only a free person because you live in a society that allows you to be free. If you were born in South Africa before the end of Apartheid and you were black, you would have had no right to be free.

Either way, according to you, there is no such thing as an inherent or even God given right so who cares if my mother had aborted me? I didn't have the right to live.

Sadly this is how the law sees it as well and it proves my point that you have no inherent rights.

As far as logic goes, here you go.
1. We are no more than animals, just more highly evolved.
2. If we are just a product of evolution and there is no God, then there is no one to give us more rights than any other product of evolution.
3. We FEEL that we have this right and so we make ourselves feel safer by saying we have a right that we do not have, because there is no such thing as rights beyond it being an idea, that can be supported or denied based on whoever has the power.

I am not saying we shouldnt be free or we shouldnt be happy, etc. I am just saying that you werent born with that right, beyond what was agreed to among other humans. If you lived in a non free country no one there would care if you were free or happy, so therefore you wouldnt have an inherent right beyond your own desire to have them.

[edit on 22-6-2009 by grapesofraft]

reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 11:50 PM by slimpickens93

Originally posted by For(Home)Country
reply to post by Zerbst

The question I ask is this; What makes us think we have a right to freedom?

It's simple logic, really.

If we do not have a right to be free, then we are owned.

Ask yourself who among us has the right to own another? Who gave them that right?

The right to individual sovereignty (freedom) is the only logical conclusion.

It is the primary purpose that the Constitution and our government were created in the fashion that it was.

How/why do people attempt to use the very document that declares us a free nation to deny us the liberties to which our fore-fathers dedicated their lives, so that we may enjoy the pursuit of happiness?

reply posted on 23-6-2009 @ 01:37 PM by nunya13

reply to post by grapesofraft

You say that I wouldn't be free if I was born in another country, but as I said, the only reason I am not free is because someone took my freedom away. You can only take away what someone already has, you cannot take away something someone never had. If I wasn't born free then there would be no need for some dictator to take away my freedoms. That only means that someone has prevented me from exercising my rights. You cannot confuse the two.

Edit to add:

The more this discussion goes on, the more I don't believe that anyone can really say whether we are born with rights or not.

The only thing that IS FOR CERTAIN is that, when I am born, the only FREEDOMS I am allowed or not allowed is determined by who is in power at the time of my birth and can change or not as I grow older (or I can be the one who ends up in power and give or take freedoms).

These are the only things that I hope we can agree are for certain:

If I am born with rights--someone has to take them from me, or I from them.

You cannot give something to someone they already had.

If I am not born with rights--someone has to give them to me; or I to them.

You cannot not take something from someone they never had.

I don't think we'll ever get this settled.