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.

 

"Rights are Special Privileges the Government gives you." Excuse me?

page: 2
63
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
A very sad, but apt statement. Somehow, many democracies in the west seem to have been twisted into elected dictatorships. I always thought a democracy was supposed to be a system whereby groups of individuals are elected to represent the people and have their best interests at heart. However, how can that system even come close to working when these leaders are elected on false pretenses that they aren't held unaccountable for. Once elected, the winning party should be forced to stick to the promises they made that got them elected in the first place (barring extenuating circumstances, of course), otherwise- what's the point in voting for anyone at all?

It doesn't help much when the majority of politicans are completely self-serving, either.




posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Even better there are questions at the end....my favorite:


True or False: All people in the world have the same rights you do.


Lets separate the liberty minded folks from the statis with that one right here, right now. What say you?



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


I am with you, obviously they do not - where are you going with this? Please elaborate.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
You also might want to forward a copy of "The Governors and the Governed" to the school board.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ScepticalBeliever
 


The major reason for your confusion, I believe is the twisting of terms of representative republic, representative democracy, democracy, etc.

For starters, democracy was spread thinly and dissipated for that very reason. The original structure was a fine balance between the 'will of the people' and states' participation within the Federal government. Much of that has been changed in favor of a more central Government that is far removed from the People and the States.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by WWJFKD
 


Obviously they do! They have those rights. They are repressed, but those rights reside within every single one of us as enshrined within the Declaration of Independence.

They do not have the freedoms we have, but those rights belong to Mankind. That is the reasons behind the much forgotten 9th Amendment. Madison knew that by making a Bill of Rights it could be twisted to say that only those rights listed are protected, when there are a multitude of rights that no one person may hold the same. Neglect the 9th amendment, abuse the Peoples' rights.

The question was to support the notion that Government is the giver of Rights. That we have those Rights because of our Constitution, which is completely false. We enjoy freely those rights listed or not, because they are protected and were understood to exist before Government. Something many do not believe today.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by ScepticalBeliever
 


The major reason for your confusion, I believe is the twisting of terms of representative republic, representative democracy, democracy, etc.

For starters, democracy was spread thinly and dissipated for that very reason. The original structure was a fine balance between the 'will of the people' and states' participation within the Federal government. Much of that has been changed in favor of a more central Government that is far removed from the People and the States.


I wasn't referring specifically to the U.S, I was actually talking more so about the UK, as being English, that's where I can obviously relate to most- although it seems it's becoming similar through-out the world. At least you guys don't have the EU, that truly is a joke!



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Yikes! you got me (stands in corner with head held down) See its even getting confusing for me. Would you agree that for the most part those that actually enjoy their rights, at one point or another they had to fight to secure them?



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ScepticalBeliever
 


Forgive my assumption and greetings from over the Great Pond! England is a wonderful and beautiful country.

But I do believe the connections can be seen between the two countries. There is a reason many of the founders of the United States of America warned of democracies, specifically democracies on a large scale. They do not work. They do not function.

In my opinion it is the basis of what is now Bureaucracy, which is effectively what the United States has been for quite some time. Laws are hard to change, but rules are easier to administer from the halls of the hundreds of agencies now littering the landscape of Washington and London. Rules do not need to meet the strict standards of Congress or your Parliament (I am quite guessing because I am not well versed in how your parliament works).



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by WWJFKD
 


I think the sentence should read:

"Your rights are defined by the ability to elect others to do violence on your behalf in order to acquire resources and services that normally would require payment through voluntary means."

or perhaps:

"Your rights are defied by whatever 51% of the people think they should be."

or perhaps:

"Your rights are defined by the government's ability to coerce people into service on your behalf."

or perhaps:

"Your rights are limited only by what threatens State power otherwise your rights encompass everything that enhances State power."



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by WWJFKD
 


Yes sir. It is unfortunate that to live freely some must die trying.

John Adams:

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.


Yet we have failed this for longer a time before John Adams even uttered those words.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Check this out:

www.ohiolibertycouncil.org...




More Indoctrination in our Schools: “Being a Good Citizen” UPDATE: The Ohio Liberty Council has received word from Ms. Naegeli. She has stated she ”made a mistake in these articles by saying the government gives us rights. The government is to protect the rights we are given by God”. She has also stated that she ”never intended for anyone to be offended by this or to spread some incorrect information to children”. Ms. Naegeli will be asking EdHelper to change the wording as follows: FROM: Rights are special privileges the government gives you. TO: As a citizen you have special privileges called rights. The government protects those rights. FROM: Because the government gives us rights, we have the duty to be good citizens. TO: Because the government protects our rights, we have the duty to be good citizens. - Ohio Liberty Council is pleased to have heard back from Ms. Naegeli and will be following up with EdHelper regarding these changes. It is our hope that Ms. Naegeli will look further into Constitutional principles to ensure accuracy when writing her educational materials. We appreciate her communication with us.


Read the whole spiel here. Complete with audio. www.ohiolibertycouncil.org...

Way to go Ohio

To add: I do not entirely agree with the corrections. I believe that We the People are the protectors of our rights from an oppressive government. Whether we have an oppressive government I leave to your discernment. But it is better than saying the the government gives us these rights.

Now I have everything I need to confront the school board as the author herself has recanted her own writings.
edit on 11-1-2011 by WWJFKD because: to elaborate



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Full playlist here.

Tom Woods: Where Do Rights Come From?



Epic.
edit on 11-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
The level of mendacity that permeates government agencies is far reaching and seemingly uncorrectable. The tragic reality is that the Constitution for the United States of America, with its problematic Bill of Rights, is a profound indictment upon humanity, particularly those humans that seek public office.

I claim the Bill of Rights is problematic because, and alarmingly in spite of the Ninth Amendment, they are perceived as granted rights. Rights granted by government. Muzzleflash earlier in this thread asserted that these "educators" must know what they are doing. I wholeheartedly agree with that. I used to think the government was just incompetent, but after years of watching how remarkably competent they are at being incompetent, like Muzzleflash, I have determined that they must know what they are doing. Competent incompetence.

When an "scholar" claims that the rights enumerated within the Bill of Rights are privileges granted by government, that "scholar" is necessarily ignoring the Ninth Amendment:


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


The language of this Amendment couldn't be more clear, and yet there are those disingenuous petty tyrants who will argue that the language of the Ninth Amendment is "too vague" and engage in circular arguments claiming that it is vague because it does not list what that Amendment precisely makes clear need not be listed.

It is the mendacity of government and their sycophants that endeavors to cloud the issue, by making fallacious arguments that "one persons rights can trump another persons rights", and by, of course, linking rights with privileges.

Privileges are indeed those special favors that are granted by some authority, whether it be government, country clubs, or parents, privileges are not rights, they are allowances made by others who believe they have the authority to allow, and with that authority, the ability to disallow.

What can be granted can be taken away.

It is folly to trust any government agency, including local public schools. The Constitution for the United States of America wasn't written because it trusted government, but quite conversely because government cannot be trusted. Granted, that Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation of Perpetual Union which trusted government even less so than the Constitution, but this does not diminish the fact that the Constitution is in fact an indictment on people. It is not an imposition on We the People, it is an imposition on government officials, and anyone who bothers to read the language of the Bill of Rights understands that those Amendments are not a grant of privilege, but rather acts of prohibition on government.

"Congress shall make no laws..."

"...shall not be infringed."

"No soldier shall..."

"...shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue..."

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime..."

On and on and on the Bill of Rights prohibit government from acting in ways that would disparage or deny people their unalienable rights. Technically the prohibit, but just as the people ignored the 18th Amendment and drank anyway, government ignores the Bill of Rights and disparages the rights of individuals everyday.

We the People have foolishly gone along with credentialism, agreeing that people should be licensed to do what is otherwise an inalienable right to do. Among those who are credentialed, are teachers. In the State of California parents who home school have been fighting years long battles from this credentialism where the State has been insisting that parents must first be credentialed before they can exercise their unalienable right to educate their own children.

We the People have foolishly gone along with too much, and because of this we have reached a point where enough is enough.

I understand that is not always expedient for parents to home school their children, particularly in light of the legal battles many would have to fight in order to exercise that right. However, if one must acquiesce and send their children to public schools, it should be understood that those children are not being sent there to be educated, but they are either being sent there to be indoctrinated, or baby sat. I humbly submit that parents forced to acquiesce to public school systems should choose the latter view rather than helplessly accept the former.

Do not let your children be indoctrinated by the state, teach your children well and inform them that when they attend public schools they are being sent to high priced baby sitters who have annoying opinions that should be taken with a grain of salt, and make sure they understand that they at all times have the right to question and challenge their indoctrinator. If these public school teachers will not allow critical thought within the schools, then let our children expose this atrocity, and let us as parents take matters into our own hands and endeavor to have these high priced opinionated baby sitters removed from the public schools, regardless of what their union rep. has to say about it.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I wish there was a special "shooting star" for a post like that. You brought a tear to my eye and your post exemplifies the very best of what ATS has to offer.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
As I am doing a little research I see that Ms. Naegeli apparently writes quite a bit for our nations school system. So I wonder, seeing that this woman doesn't seem to see how things work here. How did she get her job, and how does it work, does she just write something and the schools just accept it wholesale because she wrote it.

Maybe the teacher who commented earlier could help me out with this. Who made her an authority to write about these things.

Apparently from what I am learning she gets it wrong quite a bit and why is it that a document that the author herself recanted in 2009 is now showing up in my hands in 2011.

And these people want to control health care?

And I to agree "competent incompetence" When all else is removed you must accept what is left.
edit on 11-1-2011 by WWJFKD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Jean Paul always gotta be the 'one upper' don't ya!

Very well put and is a true testament to the value of the very Rights the Constitution protects. Such ideas would be stifled and silenced if not for a document that I guess in some persons minds is too old and doesn't really matter anymore.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by WWJFKD
 


*Cough Cough* God probably doesn't exist and if it does it doesn't give a rat's behind about our rights. *Cough Cough*



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by kimar
 


The argument here is not about God. It is about material that is teaching about the Constitution, where Rights are derived from and how that material is incorrect.

One does not need a belief in God to know that we are all born with certain Rights. Those Rights do not come from Government, but preexist and reside outside the confines of Government. Nature, being Man that is, has given us a unique opportunity of free will, critical thinking, reasoning, expressions of thought and emotion among a larger list of attributes that others will always seek to silence and control.

Post Script: Also, welcome to ATS and let us hope that you keep those eager eyes open to all opinions.


edit on 11-1-2011 by ownbestenemy because: Fixed some funky sentences...

edit on 11-1-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by kimar
reply to post by WWJFKD
 


*Cough Cough* God probably doesn't exist and if it does it doesn't give a rat's behind about our rights. *Cough Cough*


First, let me say I hope you take care of that cough, and I will pray for your quick recovery. Secondly, allow me to say that one does not need to believe in God to understand the profound importance of declaring rights as being God granted, or granted by our Creator. Regardless of ones spiritual belief, the language is quite clear in such an assertion, and that assertion is that no mere mortal has any legal authority to grant me, or anyone else, rights that we all ready possess.




top topics



 
63
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join