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

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
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.

I wasn't referring specifically to the constitution. I was showing that different people in different time periods and cultures have differing views about what rights are. Most Americans today believe that it is a right to own a gun. This belief cannot be applied to all people (because guns did not always exist) and might not be the case in the future (for any number of reasons).

reply to post by kimar

I wasn't referring specifically to the constitution. I was showing that different people in different time periods and cultures have differing views about what rights are. Most Americans today believe that it is a right to own a gun. This belief cannot be applied to all people (because guns did not always exist) and might not be the case in the future (for any number of reasons).

It remains a convoluted thought. The right to keep and bear a gun falls under the right to keep and bear arms. It is irrelevant that guns did not exist at one point, thus the right to keep and bear guns is a "new" right. It is not a new right, it is the same old right with "new" technology added to that right.

Rights are rights and exist whether they are discovered or not just as the Planet we call Pluto existed long before we discovered it. If a right heretofore undiscovered is asserted by an individual as a right, it is not an expansion of rights, it is an expansion of our own discoveries on what rights are.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I'm explicitly referring to the right to own a gun. I'm not talking about the right to bear arms. I'm not talking about the right to self defence. Most Americans believe that there exists the right to own a gun. This right cannot be applied to all people throughout all time because guns have not always existed.

But let's be honest, the founders were referring to "guns" (or rifles, or what have you) when they wrote the 2nd amendment. Does there exist the right to own a nuclear device? Does there exist the right to own bomb making materials? Does there exist the right to make bombs?

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....carrying a gun was not one of them.

I disagree. It doesn't pass the logic test. The government cannot grant rights and privileges. Why? Because a human being can exist in the absence of government. If government does not exist, a person could carry a gun absolutely anywhere they desired. Logically, it must follow that the government can merely restrict that right.

In reality, that's all the government can do with regards to any individual behavior. It cannot grant rights, because in the absence of government, a human could exercise any 'right' they damn well pleased. The government can only pass laws to restrict when and how those rights can be exercised, if at all.

And don't get me wrong, that's a good thing in most cases, because we need law and order for civilized society to exist, but still, in no way does the government grant rights. For better or worse, you already had them before government came along.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Its additionally needless to say that the founders implied the whole purpose of the 2nd being the ability of the people to dismiss a rogue government should it exist and clearly a muzzleloader would not afford the people that ability. I have heard it argued that "arms" refers to the "weapon of the day".

Point is it was their intention that we be armed with the ability to meet our adversary equally armed on the battlefield. It is what it is. It exists to provide us a last resort means to put down an out of control governance. Ultimately that responsibility resides with the people and it is not a responsibility to be taken lightly.

reply to post by kimar

I'm explicitly referring to the right to own a gun. I'm not talking about the right to bear arms. I'm not talking about the right to self defence. Most Americans believe that there exists the right to own a gun. This right cannot be applied to all people throughout all time because guns have not always existed.

There is no difference between the right to own a gun and the right to keep and bear arms, they are the same right. It matters not what "most Americans" believe, nor is it clear that you have the pulse of what "most Americans" believe. What is a right, is a right, regardless of popular consensus, or "conventional wisdom".

Whether it is purposely, or inadvertently, you are attempting to convolve gun ownership as a separate right from that of the right to keep and bear arms. Regardless of your intent, the only consequence of such an argument is confusion. Rights are not confusing, and attempts at making it appear as if they are do nothing for the defense and maintenance of individual rights.

reply to post by WWJFKD


It is arguable, in this day and age, that if the people are to stand up against a tyrannical government, especially if that government be our own, that the right to keep and fly Harrier Jets, Black Hawk helicopters, and to keep and bear fully automated weapons are rights retained by the people. Indeed, and as horrifying as the thought may be, if We the People are to face a government with a Nuclear Command Force, then it is arguable that people have the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons, and one would think if our government were thinking clearly instead of relying upon the fallacy of reification and convoluted thinking they did, that they would have understood this and for that very reason refrained from developing nuclear weapons. What rights the people don't have, governments do not have either.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by kimar

 

I'm explicitly referring to the right to own a gun. I'm not talking about the right to bear arms. I'm not talking about the right to self defence. Most Americans believe that there exists the right to own a gun. This right cannot be applied to all people throughout all time because guns have not always existed.

There is no difference between the right to own a gun and the right to keep and bear arms, they are the same right. It matters not what "most Americans" believe, nor is it clear that you have the pulse of what "most Americans" believe. What is a right, is a right, regardless of popular consensus, or "conventional wisdom".

Whether it is purposely, or inadvertently, you are attempting to convolve gun ownership as a separate right from that of the right to keep and bear arms. Regardless of your intent, the only consequence of such an argument is confusion. Rights are not confusing, and attempts at making it appear as if they are do nothing for the defense and maintenance of individual rights.

This is where we disagree. As I have stated, I believe that rights have evolved, been won and lost over time. I believe with everything in me that health care is a fundamental human right and that good societies respect and promote this by providing each other this right. Others will whole heartedly disagree and spew "personal responsibility" bs. It would be nice if it was as simple as stating that "a right is a right." Is marrying the person who you love a right? Tell that to homophobes or to the elite in Victorian society. Is being free from slavery a right? I sure as hell think so. The founding fathers didn't.

A right only exists when it is practiced and acknowledged. Otherwise, it's just a word.

Well as always my friends men and "women" alike from around the globe I have enjoyed greatly this spirited debate and I appreciate all of your input as far as how to handle this development. I didn't mention this but in the accompanying worksheet he actually had to answer "the Government gives us our rights" in order to get a question right.

I can assure you this will be rectified not only in this household but within the school district. Local media www.waltonandjohnson.com... have already been contacted and I plan to shine a great big spotlight on this issue in the coming days.

I will let you know how it goes.

reply to post by WWJFKD



Why don't you ask your self this question. Why is the right to bear a gun a privilege and not a right?

The bill of rights have granted you the privilege to bear a gun. There was a lot of people who agreed upon that Americans should be allowed to bear arms.

First of. All your rights are self given. That makes all your rights privileges. Because you have given them to yourselves.

What has been given can be taken away.

Because a group of people can gather, and decide a new bill of rights. And they can decide to take away your privilege to bear a gun.



If carrying a gun is a human right. Why are you disarming Iraqis and Afghans? Don't they have a right to carry a gun if you have.

If you have a right to a trail and defense. Why don't people at Guantanamo have the same rights?

It is because rights are privileges we have given to our selves. Rights are also privileges we have given others to fallow.

reply to post by kimar

Others will whole heartedly disagree and spew "personal responsibility" bs.

This statement betrays your position. In the land of the self governed, personal responsibility is key. It is fairly presumed that you do not believe in a self governed society.

I believe with everything in me that health care is a fundamental human right...

Health care is a fundamental human right.

...and that good societies respect and promote this by providing each other this right.

Societies can only do what individuals within that society will do. Of course, it is again fairly presumed that by "health care" you do not mean an individuals right to do what is necessary to maintain good health, but instead are referring to some sort of insurance scheme that regulates the health care industry. The fundamental right to health care does not, just as no other right does, trump other peoples rights to their life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness.

It would be nice if it was as simple as stating that "a right is a right."

It is that simple.

Is marrying the person who you love a right?

Yes.

Tell that to homophobes or to the elite in Victorian society.

More convolution! What homosexuals seem to want is a license to get married, and if a license is necessary to get married, then clearly those applying for such a license do not see it as a right. If two people want to act outside of the system and take their own marriage vows in front of their loved ones and declare themselves married, there is nothing to stop them from doing so. Of course, what the homosexuals seem to want is the privilege of filing jointly on a tax return, which is not a right, but a privilege.

Is being free from slavery a right?

Yes.

I sure as hell think so. The founding fathers didn't.

Of course, when one hopes to convolve an argument, it becomes necessary that they speak in generalities. Not all the Founding Father believed that slavery was legal. However, and more importantly, it matters not what the Founding Fathers thought, for they did not grant me, you, or anyone else our rights.

The problem with using slavery as an argument to refute unalienable rights is that you are necessarily condoning slavery in order to do so, your insistence that you don't not-with-standing. Make no mistakes about it, if you hope to argue that rights are government granted, and you use slavery, as an evidence of this, you are condoning slavery, not vilifying it.

The hard reality is that those who were held as slaves though out history had their unalienable rights denied and disparaged. It is that simple.

Rights only exist when they are practiced and acknowledged. Otherwise, it's just a word.

Tyrants throughout history have attempted to not acknowledge rights, some have prevailed, others paid suffered tragic consequences for this denial. Some people do not acknowledge gravity, and of those people, some will prevail anyway, and others will suffer tragic consequences, and until those tragic consequences make themselves known, gravity is just a word.

Rights are Special Privileges the Government gives you.

'Rights are Responsibilities the Government give you', is a way I would word it. We all have the need to survive, but to do that in our large communities some guidelines and regulation for acceptable behaviour is needed. The whole thing falls into chaos otherwise. It is the governments job to manage many things and this is one of them, they have the role of umpire with this game of life.

I do acknowledge that some of the laws and ways things are managed do need more work to reflect the community more accurately, governments responsibility.

reply to post by kwakakev

We all have the need to survive, but to do that in our large communities some guidelines and regulation for acceptable behaviour is needed. The whole thing falls into chaos otherwise.

It is well accepted among physicists that all closed systems tend towards entropy, or "chaos". The more regulations one imposes upon a system the more closed it becomes only ensuring its inevitable tendency towards entropy. Freedom is an open system. The individual right to self defense is the reasoning behind a just government. If individuals have the right to self defense, then it stands to reason that those individuals have the right to collectively form a government towards that same end.

If laws are not a collective organization of individual rights, then they are merely legislative acts acting under color of law. The only rules a society need concern themselves with are the rules that state no person has the right to deny or disparage another person's right, and this is why just people form governments, to put justice in whenever there is an absence of justice, that absence being the abrogation and/or derogation of a right, or rights.

This is where we disagree. As I have stated, I believe that rights have evolved, been won and lost over time. I believe with everything in me that health care is a fundamental human right and that good societies respect and promote this by providing each other this right. Others will whole heartedly disagree and spew "personal responsibility" bs. It would be nice if it was as simple as stating that "a right is a right." Is marrying the person who you love a right? Tell that to homophobes or to the elite in Victorian society. Is being free from slavery a right? I sure as hell think so. The founding fathers didn't.

A right only exists when it is practiced and acknowledged. Otherwise, it's just a word

OP,
This is why you need to fight this tooth and nail. We as a nation have lost our history. I would like to say it has been stolen from us but sadly this is not the case. We have just let it slip away little by little because we did not care enough to stand.
Now regarding the quote above. Heath care is not and should not be a right. I can not grant a right to anyone. But that is what many want. They think it should be someone else's responsibly to pay for their right(s).

As far as slavery goes- The founders thought it was a right?!? WHAT?!?
See we have lost our history. Maybe I can help some of you find a small piece of it. Enjoy...


In 1789, Congress passes, and George Washington signs into law, a bill stating that no territory could become a state if it allowed slavery.

In 1792, the Democrat Party is formed. They are the party that promotes and seeks the continuance of slavery.

In 1808, Congress abolishes the slave trade in America.

In 1818, the Democrats become the majority in Congress. Using their majority, they begin to undo the 1808 and other anti-slavery decisions.

In 1820, the Democrat Party passes the Missouri Compromise, institutionalizing slavery in half of the territories.

For thirty years, Democrats pass multiple laws promoting and protecting slavery, culminating in 1850 with the Fugitive Slave Law. This law takes away all rights to jury trials, representation, and habeas corpus from any black who is so much as accused of being a slave.

In 1854, Democrats pass the Kansas-Nebraska act, opening up those territories to slavery, thus exceeding even the limits of the Missouri Compromise.

In 1854, the Republican party is formed to end slavery. Six of the nine planks in their fledgling platform statement deal with civil rights issues.

In 1857, the Supreme Court rules in Dred Scott v. Sanford that blacks are considered inferior and thus not covered by the phrase "all men" in the Declaration of Independence; that they are property covered by the 5th Amendment; and that no black—not even a free black—could ever become a citizen of the United States. The Democrats support the decision.

In 1861, Abraham Lincoln is inaugurated, and the anti-slavery Republican Party now controls the Executive Branch. The Democrat Party, in complete control of the South, splits the nation asunder and causes a war in order to maintain slavery. Innumerable horrors and 650,000 deaths are required to free the slaves and restore the union.

In 1865, Republicans pass the 13th Amendment, ending slavery.
100% of Republicans vote for it.
Even among northern Democrats, it receives the support of only 23%.
...

reply to post by Quadrivium


If you read my reply above, then please do so again. I left out most of what I wanted to say about slavery. Sorry and thanks.

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.

Ah, you may have forgot that this was covered in detail

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I'm tired and need to go to bed because the dawn comes too soon, but I came across this quite by accident tonight despite having searched high and low for it for some time and to further derail my thread into obscurity must share it with you.

Sorry the audio is a bit high and low but it was an in studio recording and the mixer should be hung.

www.dipity.com...

The New American Pie ... The Day The Freedom Died
Mar 13, 2009 9:07 PM

Walton and Johnson introduced Joe Roy's version of American Pie on their show March 11th 2009 and I couldn't help but share. Listen to the lyrics and the wonderful talent of Mandeville, Louisiana's Joe Roy. www.waltonandjohnson.com www.garageband.com/artist/jroystudios Thanks to others online and on youtube who posted pictures and flag clips for the background. This was thrown together in 20 minutes of editing and encoding so not the best but the song is what counts here. Enjoy.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

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

wow, what a pooooooorly worded question. who writes these things?
** As stated, the answer is False.
imo, All persons are born with equal (the same) rights, however they do not 'have' the same rights, depending on their govt structure.

first of all the liberties that the founding fathers were talking about was liberty from the king of england, who had control over their lives.

that doesn't apply now, it's ironic that people in your own government are trying to take liberities away from it's own citizens.

i don't think the constitution takes that into account, because if enough senators and congressmen decide to amend the constitution to their liking they can.

the only safe guard is the supreme court, but then the powers that be can appoint justices that are sympathic to their agendas.

reply to post by WWJFKD


It's a shame they teach that in schools. I remember learning about Christopher Columbus and how he was a hero. If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have celebrated him. Hopefully, something like this comes back to bite them in the ass.