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

You know when your children start getting old enough, you should sit them down and discuss values with them youd like to pass on and think they should have, regardless of how good or bad the school might be.

reply to post by Cassius666


Before I go and exercise my 9th Amendment right to have a nice cold beer I commend those wise words Cassius.

I have been, for the past 3 years compiling a 'speech' so to speak that of the values that I not only show my young boys, but that I wish to instill into them. Passing on wisdom is one our chief duties as parents and adults.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I agree that all humans are born with rights, but they are not inherent. I don't mean for that to sound as bleak as it might to some. Rights are socially created. It is up to us to ensure that all human's rights are respected all the time.

Originally posted by kimar
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

I agree that all humans are born with rights, but they are not inherent. I don't mean for that to sound as bleak as it might to some. Rights are socially created. It is up to us to ensure that all human's rights are respected all the time.

If we are born with rights, then they are necessarily inherent:

Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic.

Either we are born with them or we are not. We cannot be born with a "social" creation. All true law is discovered not made, and rights are no more "socially created" than gravity is. Gravity did not come into play because Sir Isaac Newton wrote the equation down on paper thereby granting the world gravity, and rights did not come into play because someone wrote them down on paper, or declared them as rights.

The right to life was not a social creation whereby governments allowed people to live. The right to life is self evident, and people need no permission from society in order to understand they have an inherent right to life. All rights are the same. What defines a right is, outside of self defense, defense of property, or defense of others, is that they cause no harm. If it causes no harm, then that which causes no harm is done by right. If harm is necessary in order to protect ones own life or property, or protect loved ones, or even a helpless stranger who needs protection, then this harm becomes a right because it is done so in the defense of a right.

Long before the Bill of Rights were written, these common law principles were understood, and understood to be discovery of law, not socially made law.

Originally posted by kimar
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

I agree that all humans are born with rights, but they are not inherent. I don't mean for that to sound as bleak as it might to some. Rights are socially created. It is up to us to ensure that all human's rights are respected all the time.

For those that came late

reply to post by kimar


Then the discussion and debate shall go deeper. One to decipher and discuss the properties that embody what a 'right' is.

How about you and I, along with others create a society to see if rights are created within, or if they predate and reside even outside of confines of the society we have constructed?

So our society will be that of every other society. A mixture of cultures, of all walks of life. Politicians, educators, children and elderly. Public servants and private entrepreneurs. This society exists within a nation that at its foundation has nothing for it is new.

Shall the society be free or be under despotism?

Its like you are born and need to breathe oxygen. It could be said it is a right given to you by your Creator to breathe oxygen because without it you will surely perish. Now true, an entity could come along and create an oxygen consuming machine and demand you pay a tax to use "their" oxygen. So now you can give in and pay that tax literally for the breath of life or you would have to stand up to that entity and demand your Creators given right to do so.

Kind of like you need to be able to engage in commerce to survive in society but an entity requires you to pay a tax to do so. Oh no - lets not go there.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


You do realize that the rights that you and I enjoy today have evolved and been fought for over centuries and centuries, right? If we choose to live in a progressive society, then future generations should enjoy even more rights than we do today.

The concept of rights and what they are differ over time and space (geography). For example, I think it is fair to say that most Americans feel that they have a right to own a gun. But if we were to go back to Ancient Greece, the right to own a gun would never have been heard of, simply because guns did not exist.

reply to post by kimar


Not even our Constitution recognizes a specific object as that. It recognizes that man, in order to be secure and have the ability of self-preservation has the right to bear arms. That right existed in Ancient Greece or even when man first came about this planet.

ETA: To think of this more, it is really a deep philosophical question that Man has continually debated. To be sure that my intentions are clear, it is to learn more and not put down another persons view upon it.

So some basic background into how I have come to my conclusions can be illustrated quite simply: I have the right to kill a man. It is in my capacity (physically) but morally, may it be based upon Nature or God, I simply cannot nor am I at Liberty to commit such an act.

This is why Rights belong to Man. Society, wherever it is constructed, develops a particular culture based upon a loose understanding of a Moral Good. This country, reduced its Moral Good to three easy principles to follow: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It did not tie itself to any religious moral code. It did not prescribe itself to a complex philosophical view upon the world. Those three principles is what makes up how we exercise the Rights we enjoy as Mankind.

It is not acceptable to murder, because that Right is in conflict with those principles. I cannot engage in fraud for it conflicts all three principles. I can imbibe alcohol, because I have not affected those principles except under my own free will to myself.

reply to post by kimar


So then do you feel that our rights are in a constant state of growth or did they somewhere along the way become constrained. For example, what has been said about credentialism - Ron Paul said it best. "You don't need permission to exercise your Rights"

I think one would be kidding themselves to say with a straight face that we are enjoying more freedoms now then any generation before us. And if we are in fact in decline then where will it ultimately end?

For example, whenever historically the people have asked another entity to provide more protections the end result is uniformally a restriction or flatout loss of freedoms




To add: I'm not arguing that we may or may not enjoy more freedoms than some generations but we are surely not enjoying more freedoms than all so therefore I conclude we are in decline.

I have a 5 year old, and ill tell you what... when (not if) my child comes home and repeats that garbage i will go back to the school and rip the "teacher" a new one.

im already going over the constitution with my kid so ill beat em to it any way.

Originally posted by WWJFKD
reply to post by kimar

 

So then do you feel that our rights are in a constant state of growth or did they somewhere along the way become constrained. For example, what has been said about credentialism - Ron Paul said it best. "You don't need permission to exercise your Rights"

I think one would be kidding themselves to say with a straight face that we are enjoying more freedoms now then any generation before us. And if we are in fact in decline then where will it ultimately end?

For example, whenever historically the people have asked another entity to provide more protections the end result is uniformally a restriction or flatout loss of freedoms

edit on 11-1-2011 by WWJFKD because: typo

Rights are won and lost over time. As I said, they evolve. I didn't say that we enjoy more freedoms now than ever before. I stand firmly by my statement that rights are socially constructed, just as "human nature" is. This doesn't cheapen them as some of you seem to be implying.

Can we all agree that we all have a responsibility to promote, respect, and expand human rights?

Originally posted by WWJFKD


Then I came to the final Paragraph and Blam - there it was - "Rights are special Privileges the government gives you." I had a brief moment of silence and then decided to bring this to your attention. Although it is no surprise as to what untruths are being taught in our schools about our rights and freedoms, it is one thing to know it in the back of your mind, it is entirely another to have it glaring off the page in your face.

I fear that with the level of misinformation our children are being fed in our schools about the founding fathers and the idea that government provides all that we are drawing dangerously close to the abolition of any generation that truly understands freedom and what our founders envisioned for this great country of ours of which we are falling drastically short.

So now what. Do you tell a 10 year old that what he is learning is patently false and have him dispute it in school where some of the worst ridicule comes from the very persons pushing the untruths, or do you just let it go and risk our last hope of informing a generation that could ignite the torch of freedom once more through an accurate depiction of our nations history.

Actually, he was taught correctly. Rights are privileges granted by the government. There are certain "rights" that were granted to you by your Creator....carrying a gun was not one of them. The problem is that you need to distinguish which rights are "god-given" and which rights are government given. Rights are usually granted when something is expected in return. No man can serve two masters.

And it wouldn't hurt to research a little more about your "founding fathers". This entire system is based on freemasonry. Religions, government, the judicial system---all of it has origins in freemasonry.

reply to post by WWJFKD

Kind of like you need to be able to engage in commerce to survive in society but an entity requires you to pay a tax to do so. Oh no - lets not go there.

Actually, and respectfully, I would humbly submit that if we are to fight for freedom, and for the unalienable rights of the individual, we have no choice but to go there.

I spoke to the credentialism that has so insidiously invaded the American society earlier. If one wants to go into business today, most are forced, especially if they intend to employ people, to hire an outside, or in house accountant - credentialed no doubt - in order to navigate the multitude of legislative acts imposed upon business. Further, the vast majority of people believe they have to obtain a license in order to business.

A license, by legal definition, is a privilege granted to someone to do that which would otherwise be illegal. James Bond, to use a well known example, has been granted a "license to kill", because without that license, such killings would be -demonstrably and self evidently so - illegal, or unlawful. But a bookseller? Does the proprietor of a book store require a license in order to sell books? Does an artist require a license in order to paint and sell pictures? Does a musician require a license in order to make and sell music? Does a shoe maker require a license to make and sell shoes?

Why are local governments insisting that local proprietors obtain a license in order to do business? An even more compelling question is why, when people do acquiesce and apply for a license to do business, do local governments insist that no license will be granted without first obtaining a tax I.D. number from the I.R.S.? Is this not a collusion between local and federal government, and is such collusion legal?

Many, many questions that come with credentialism and the licensing schemes government has hoisted upon the public

Originally posted by kimar

Can we all agree that we all have a responsibility to promote, respect, and expand human rights?

I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. In fact We have a duty.

reply to post by Alethea


From my post above:

Not even our Constitution recognizes a specific object as that. It recognizes that man, in order to be secure and have the ability of self-preservation has the right to bear arms. That right existed in Ancient Greece or even when man first came about this planet.

While the specific of a gun is not mentioned, it needs not be. The right to self-preserve is inherent and is duly protected, not granted by any Government or society.

Originally posted by kimar
Can we all agree that we all have a responsibility to promote, respect, and expand human rights?

Absolutely.

reply to post by kimar

The concept of rights and what they are differ over time and space (geography). For example, I think it is fair to say that most Americans feel that they have a right to own a gun. But if we were to go back to Ancient Greece, the right to own a gun would never have been heard of, simply because guns did not exist.

This is why the 2nd Amendment is worded the way it is, and at no point mentions guns. The right to keep and bear arms was understood in Ancient Greece just the same is at is understood today...at least by those not so intent on convolution.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by Alethea

 

From my post above:

Not even our Constitution recognizes a specific object as that. It recognizes that man, in order to be secure and have the ability of self-preservation has the right to bare arms. That right existed in Ancient Greece or even when man first came about this planet.

While the specific of a gun is not mentioned, it needs not be. The right to self-preserve is inherent and is duly protected, not granted by any Government or society.

Well said. I was looking for away to comment on this properly and you knocked it out of the park. There are Wolves in the fields, it is a foregone conclusion that you must defend yourself to survive.

Originally posted by Alethea
Actually, he was taught correctly. Rights are privileges granted by the government. There are certain "rights" that were granted to you by your Creator

What rights are defined as being from ones Creator or Nature and those from the State?

Rights are usually granted when something is expected in return.

I would argue that those are not Rights, for those rights cannot come from anything except ones Creator or Nature. Those would be liberties, either consented upon or not that have been granted. Liberties exist outside of rights. I am at liberty to write on this board. I do not have the right to do so.

And it wouldn't hurt to research a little more about your "founding fathers". This entire system is based on freemasonry. Religions, government, the judicial system---all of it has origins in freemasonry.

That is a topic for another post, but I would digress on it in manner of that the establishment of the foundation of the Constitution was to remain secular. Those that participate within the confines of that Government may have those qualities.