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.

 

IN-A-LIEN-ABLE RIGHTS Where do they originate from?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Each living being possesses basic divine (GOD GIVEN) natural rights. The most basic right is the right of self-determination. Each and every human being upon Earth is divinely GOD given the right to control his own life.

Other inalienable (“in-a-lien-able”, meaning incapable of having a “lien” placed on them)... meaning unable to be alienated from the person possessing them... Other inalienable divinely (GOD CONFERRED) granted rights included food, practice religion, free speech, justice, shelter, clothing, and fair compensation for work done.”



[edit on 6-12-2009 by fmcanarney]




posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
All "rights" are man-made concepts that are only viable in a human society.

When lost in the desert, where is your "right to shelter"?
When drowning in the middle of the ocean, where is your "right to life"?
In either of the above cases, where are your "rights to food and clothing"?

As for your "rights" to practice religion, free speech, justice, and fair compensation, it's only humans who make these an issue in the first place.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Thank you for correcting me. Please feel free to do so at any time.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by fmcanarney]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
inalienable
A adjective
1 inalienable, unalienable

incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another; "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"

2 unforfeitable, inalienable

not subject to forfeiture; "an unforfeitable right"
Synonyms:
inviolable, absolute, unassailable, inherent.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by subject x
All "rights" are man-made concepts that are only viable in a human society.

When lost in the desert, where is your "right to shelter"?
When drowning in the middle of the ocean, where is your "right to life"?
In either of the above cases, where are your "rights to food and clothing"?

As for your "rights" to practice religion, free speech, justice, and fair compensation, it's only humans who make these an issue in the first place.


When lost in the desert I will do my damnedest to build shelter by right as it is necessary to my survival. When drowning in the middle of the ocean I will continue to fight for my life by right and to swim for as long as I can or find something by which I might float upon and in the dessert I will use whatever materials available to me to fashion clothing and will eat whatever is edible and nutritional to continue surviving and I will do so by right. While struggling to survive while in the middle of the ocean I will, assuming I've managed to find something to float upon, catch what fish I can and will pray desperately for rain so that I might drink, and in the desert where rain is sparse I will dig deep in search of well water to ensure my survival and I will do so by right.

Merely invented concepts that have no real meaning in the wild? I think not, and the spider who builds it web in my attic will do so by right and if I decide to destroy that web and kill the spider because it is a threat to me and my family then I will do so by right. When lost in the woods and I find a cave for shelter I will use that cave for shelter just as the bear who hibernates their lives there by right and if I must I will battle that bear to ensure my own survival and I will do so by right just as the bear will battle me. The bear will capture fish out of the river to survive and will do so by right and the fish who swim the river will do what they can to avoid being caught by bears and both will do so by right. There is no contradiction in this and it remains universal in its application. Jay walking or double parking on the other hand does not have universal application and is merely a man made concept only viable in human societies.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
These rights stem from something called Natural Law which was a school of Law taught to lawyers in England and America at the time of the founding fathers and was very well known.

Natural Law is simply the laws that govern the conduct of Man thought to be handed down to man though the ages from our Creator. They are the rights of everyman given by god as human beings.

This is why the founding fathers believed strongly that government would fail without god given moral beliefs.

Natural Law is no longer taught but historians record the popularity of this school of law and how it was taught in the 17 and 18 hundreds and how it shaped our founding fathers thinking. This is Law they all would have been taught, known and understood. it was commonplace.


When researching Natural Law you have to be very careful. this type of natural law has a different meaning from what is considered natural law today. You have to go back to what lawyers studied in the 1700's


[edit on 6-12-2009 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by subject x
 



Exactly!!! I heard one poster say that his "birthight" was being discarded. Pffft, "birthright"!!!?? The only "birthright" we have is to breathe.

Both Hobbes, Locke and the constitution are great ideas, but philosophically speaking, they're not very sound.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
You claim the constitution is not "SOUND".

Post some facts about how and where and why it is not sound.

I was in church this morning, and the bell, although only filled with air and a clapper (tongue) produced so much sound that it was impossible to ignore. In the summer the bell is filled with hot air.

Please create the soundness of and for your position by posting some facts. Else continue to make the sound of the bell.

To speak is to make sound. Sound equates truth. Your log on name purports to be a sound maker for truth (soundness)

edit to correctly spell word.


[edit on 6-12-2009 by fmcanarney]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by fmcanarney
 


Philosophically, due to the word "inalienable rights," it is not sound. You, apparently, are a religious man, so you know well that the only thing that is promised is "bread and water." Where are you're inalienable rights in that?



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by subject x

When lost in the desert, where is your "right to shelter"?
When drowning in the middle of the ocean, where is your "right to life"?
In either of the above cases, where are your "rights to food and clothing"?


Just because one has rights to something (in this case, human rights) doesn't mean that one has a right to have it GIVEN to them or the right to just take it.

I think the point of these rights is so that IF one wishes to construct a shelter in the desert or build a raft, or find food for survival, THEN it is their basic human right to do so without being robbed of that right by another human being.

To the OP, your Q: where do these rights come from? They originate in man's quest to simplify life and conserve energy. As a collective, It's requires much less energy to move through life with a few simple rules to live by. They are instinctual in nature and protect the the fitness and survivability of the "heard".

[edit on 6-12-2009 by Aggie Man]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth
 



Self determination naturally occurs.

It is in the nature of all things.

The will or volition of a man, coupled with the highst faculity of man, reason, concludes by examination of self, and others and history, that there are certain rights which naturally exist regardless of and outside the purvey of a government.

That there are also nonsubjective standards of conduct, rules, commandments, etc that the man needs to subordinate his actions via his will, to these objective standards of conduct.

The arguements against this are secular humanism, and moral relativism, and determinism/evolution.

If you have never sacrificed or given up some thing so one of your children could do with, then you cannot know what I am referring to.

Your right to life is manifsted via your will continuing to make you swim.
This speaks to the will to live. A naturally occurring exrcize of the spirit/will of the man.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth
 


Will you exercize your will and post some objective truth to back up your pretension that the constitution is unsound?



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
When lost in the desert I will do my damnedest to build shelter by right as it is necessary to my survival. When drowning in the middle of the ocean I will continue to fight for my life by right and to swim for as long as I can or find something by which I might float upon and in the dessert I will use whatever materials available to me to fashion clothing and will eat whatever is edible and nutritional to continue surviving and I will do so by right. While struggling to survive while in the middle of the ocean I will, assuming I've managed to find something to float upon, catch what fish I can and will pray desperately for rain so that I might drink, and in the desert where rain is sparse I will dig deep in search of well water to ensure my survival and I will do so by right.

Of course you would do all these things. So would I, or anyone else. That has nothing to do with "rights", though. It just self preservation.

As I said, "rights" are a human construct. The only reason people talk about rights is because other people try to stop them from doing things. If you're drowning in the ocean, you're going to die, simple as that. Complaining about your right to life won't do a damn thing. If no-one is around to stop you from building shelter, making clothes, etc., the concept of having a "right" to do so would never enter your head, you'd just do it.

Again, the concept of "rights" came about due to having to deal with other people. Nothing else cares about "rights", not the elements, or animals, or any toxic plant you might ingest. Only humans will fuss over their "right" to anything, and only humans will give any credence to your "rights". Everything else will just kill you, whether you yell about your right to life or not.

Because of this, rights are obviously a human invention, and are only valid as long as other humans go along with the idea.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
I think the point of these rights is so that IF one wishes to construct a shelter in the desert or build a raft, or find food for survival, THEN it is their basic human right to do so without being robbed of that right by another human being.

Absolutely. Thus, rights are man made, not God given. If another human decides to stop you from building your shelter, God's not going to stop him. By the same token, if he decides to kill you, you have been alienated from you "right to life", so these rights aren't what I would call "inalienable", either.

Not to say that the idea of human rights is a bad one. I'm just saying that any "rights" you might enjoy are neither God given or inalienable, but rather a product of humans trying to exist among each other in reasonable safety.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by subject x

Originally posted by Aggie Man
I think the point of these rights is so that IF one wishes to construct a shelter in the desert or build a raft, or find food for survival, THEN it is their basic human right to do so without being robbed of that right by another human being.

Absolutely. Thus, rights are man made, not God given. If another human decides to stop you from building your shelter, God's not going to stop him. By the same token, if he decides to kill you, you have been alienated from you "right to life", so these rights aren't what I would call "inalienable", either.

Not to say that the idea of human rights is a bad one. I'm just saying that any "rights" you might enjoy are neither God given or inalienable, but rather a product of humans trying to exist among each other in reasonable safety.


They are inalienable, because every man expects (for the betterment of man kind) that these rights be bestowed upon them, and in turn surrenders any right to withhold those same rights from another man. One can not surrender that right, nor transfer it...it just is.

For example: I can't decide "well, I want to kill someone w/o consequence; therefore, I am surrendering my inalienable rights to be protected from the same". Certainly, one can go and kill someone and denounce their inalienable rights; however, society would still punish the murderer...see what I mean? (1)It's not transferable and; (2) one can not surrender it; and (3) Every human being expects (and is entitled to) it.

It's all man made; but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist as a reality.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by Aggie Man]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
All rights come from yourself.

You have the right to do whatever you want, if you can manage it.

But so does everyone else.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   
inalienable means unable to be alinated or separated.
in a lein able means not able to have a lein placed against it.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by fmcanarney
 


It seems you may have mixed inalienable rights with Maslow's hierarchy of needs there in the OP. It would be quite civilized to include those basic needs; however, most societies havn't reached such an advanced stage that they believe food, clothing, and shelter to be rights (as opposed to being privileges).

[edit on 12/7/09 by redmage]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Inalienable rights will be defined as enumerated in the Bill of Rights.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
For example: I can't decide "well, I want to kill someone w/o consequence; therefore, I am surrendering my inalienable rights to be protected from the same". Certainly, one can go and kill someone and denounce their inalienable rights; however, society would still punish the murderer...see what I mean? (1)It's not transferable and; (2) one can not surrender it; and (3) Every human being expects (and is entitled to) it.

There are many serial killers out there right now who kill without punishment. They might be caught and punished, then again they might not be.

Humans may expect these rights, but I can't say they are "entitled" to them. They enjoy these rights only until someone comes along who doesn't care about them.

I really can't add anything more without repeating myself, so I guess we'll just have to accept that we have a different perspective on the issue.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join