It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:58 AM

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

sure, if you agree that rights are inalienable from birth ... no other entity.
what you're describing are laws, they are the result of social construct, not rights.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:16 AM
reply to post by randomname

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, (a duty of the Congress) first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks, Federal Reserve), will deprive the people of their property (Foreclosures) until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson

If the American people "EVER"

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

Obviously only for 1776 (EVER)

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

Not applicable today

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

Or at least until some administration down the way takes that right back

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution
(Philadelphia 1787).

I see no application for today

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

EVER - yet again

[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

ALWAYS - thats new

The Virginia delegation's recommended bill of rights included the following:
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Standing armies today, come on in, in fact here's my wife...

The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.

Clearly meant only for 1789

Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790): [C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.

Don't need that anymore

"So it is to ba a Republic then?" If you can keep it mamm, If you can keep it....
Benjamin Franklin


Do I need to go on. I stated before that if I want an interpretation of the Constitution then I will turn to the men who wrote it and not some agenda driven entity twisting it to serve their own devices. The Constitution is a living document written for all time and I have seen no legislation so brazen as to deny that to date.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:20 AM
reply to post by Honor93

sure, if you agree that rights are inalienable from birth ... no other entity. what you're describing are laws, they are the result of social construct, not rights.

Laws are not the result of social construct. Legislation can, and often times is the result of social construct, but occasionally, and when people are fortunate enough to have wise legislatures, legislation can also be law.

All laws are universal. This is what makes them law. Laws are not made, they are discovered, and the laws of justice can just as easily be applied to the scientific method as can the law of gravity.

The scientific method has four steps:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Taking these four steps, and using for our laboratory the Grand American Experiment, we can test the assumption, or theory if you will, that the laws of justice are as universal as all laws and act in the same way.

Narrowing our experiment down to one example, let's take the Rodney King beating:

First we observe a phenomenon, or group in phenomenon. In this case the phenomenon would be "civil unrest"

Now we form our hypothesis. Keeping in mind that in physics, and since it is my contention that the rights are a part of natural law, it becomes necessary to find a causal mechanism. In this case, the causal mechanism to civil unrest would be blatant disregard, or at the very least the perception of disregard for individual rights. Thus, my hypothesis becomes that a violation of, or perception of a violation of individual rights leads to civil unrest.

The prediction of new phenomenon, or prediction of quantitative new results would be the measurement of justice. A violation of a right indicates an absence of justice. One of the tasks of government is to establish justice. It can be predicted that when government acts in a way to offer reasonable remedy for the violation of right, that the absence of justice can be replaced with a perception of justice. Conversely, it can be predicted that failing any reasonable remedy in the event of a violation of right, that resentment and disregard for the government tasked with establishing justice will grow. That resentment can be quantitatively measured by the outburst of any civil unrest due to a failure to establish justice.

The performance of experiments, in this Grand American Experiment, by the several independent experimenters would, in this case be, the Los Angeles Police Department that had for a number of years built a reputation among the African American community that they had little to no regard for their unalienable rights. In fact, there is an antecedent to the Rodney King riots with the Watts riot of 1965 which itself was an amalgamation of several incidents between the African American community of Watts in Los Angeles, and the LAPD. It should have been easy to predict based upon the phenomenon of the Watts riot and the events that led up to those riots that a not guilty verdict by an all white jury in the Rodney King beating case would lead to, or result if you will, in another riot.

By understanding the police officers of the LAPD to be experimenters in testing the hypothesis that rights violations lead to civil unrest, we can take a cool scientific look at the phenomenon of civil unrest and form the hypothesis that civil unrest is caused by a violation of, or perception of a violation of individual rights. That the Rodney King verdict resulted in civil unrest bears out the prediction that should have been easily predicted for the events that led up to the Watts riot. The two, coupled with the previous "Zoot Suit Riots" of 1943 show repeated results of civil unrest based upon the perception of rights violations.

This takes the hypothesis that civil unrest is caused by a violation of rights, or perception of violation of rights and places it squarely in the category of theory. As to the distinction between theory and law:

It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

History has shown, time and time again, that when a community becomes convinced that individual rights are being blatantly disregarded, that civil unrest will follow. Thus, it is fairly presumed that individual rights, such as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are natural laws, applicable universally, and violations of these rights will result in certain phenomenon, or groups of phenomenon, such as civil unrest or rioting, and even...revolution.

Rights are not social constructs, they are natural laws that apply to all people universally. Legislation, on the other hand, is a social construct, and while it can correctly describe a law, legislation can also violate law, such as the Jim Crow laws mentioned earlier. Legislation is not law, merely evidence of law.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:05 AM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

A right is not a natural law. It is not a natural law that you have other rights then the Afghans. Russians. Europeans or Africans and so on. Every one's rights have been negotiated and sacrificed for.

We make up our rights from how we understand Morality and moral values.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:39 AM
Ten years old. So, that's what, third grade? Fourth?

Here's the thing. He may be a bright kid, but he's not an adult. The "whole facts" of this situation just wouldn't sink in. Here's an example of the "whole facts" as they would be presented in a third-grade textbook.

"Everyone in the world has the right to free speech. However, not everyone in the world is able to speak freely. In the United States, people can speak freely. This is because the US Constitution has a law protecting the right to free speech. Even so, sometimes people in the United States can't speak freely, because of other laws."

The first two sentences would result in confused looks from most of the class, and it just goes downhill from there.

The notion that everyone has these rights regardless of law, is a pretty philosophical notion. Especially when you are compelled to point out that not everyone actually gets to have these rights in practice. When you point out that some US laws protect freedom of speech, while others can take it away, another message is sent; the goverment giveth, and the government can taketh away.

Which is, of course, absolutely true. Else nobody would ever worry about what the government is doing with our "inalienable" rights, correct?

The phrase on this piece of schoolwork is philosophically false but factually true. It's simplistic, and will almost certainly be corrected later in the kid's education - if not by the schools, then by his parents or other relatives. But right now, he's ten. His brain eats simple, practical concepts, and his rights extend exactly as far as his parents allow.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:43 AM
Sounds like they are trying to get the next generation to believe the government "gives" them their rights so they will accept it more when the government takes them away.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:57 AM
No one can capture you soul or thoughts and most certainly not your rights... but that is what is happening in the world. We give up our rights one small step at a time. For instance we give up our rights to privacy because we believe it'll prevent terrorism...we give up our rights to freedom of information because we are told that some secrets may endanger national security. One day we will be imprisoned because we will all believe that it is for the better... crazy world.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:59 AM
reply to post by WWJFKD

It's this simple: you have to explain to him what rights really are and where they come from.

The whole "rights are privileges from the government" thing is just as outrageous as saying that the Revolutionary War was fought in 1963 between Neil Armstrong and Darth Vader. It's just wrong.

You should inform your nephew that it is incorrect.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:14 AM
reply to post by WWJFKD

My take? Finalizing the North American Union (NAU) hinges on negotiations with Canada - a government self-proclaimed to be a government-corporate partnership, historically and currently. The American Constitution is on the table, and has been since the original NAFTA was first drafted.

The NAU is supposedly about "security."

Q: What poses the greatest "threat" to our nations' "security"?

A: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press and the Right to Bear Arms. ...Just read the "news."

Tell your nephew the truth!!! Tell everyone!

Justice William J. Brennan, "The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to "create" rights. Rather they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting."

Benjamin Franklin, "Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature."

I guess these guys ought to know what was intended with our rights they wrote the thing to begin with. It amuses me when man attempts to interpret the Constitution, Bill of rights in todays terms with absolutely no knowledge of the quotes from the men who wrote them, who made it quite clear exactly what was meant by them, funny how that is never taken into consideration.

A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference. Thomas Jefferson

edit on 12/1/11 by soficrow because: format

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:01 AM

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

A right is not a natural law. It is not a natural law that you have other rights then the Afghans. Russians. Europeans or Africans and so on. Every one's rights have been negotiated and sacrificed for.

We make up our rights from how we understand Morality and moral values.

Natural Laws are those given at birth before any written laws is applied. The written laws are created by men and those are the ones that violate the natural laws sometimes. Slavery, for instance, being one of them. The constitution broadly states most natural laws. The problem arises when those laws are un-natural in natural. Again slavery being an example, the right to protect ones self, the right to live free by the natural laws that we hold to be true.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:27 PM

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

A right is not a natural law. It is not a natural law that you have other rights then the Afghans. Russians. Europeans or Africans and so on. Every one's rights have been negotiated and sacrificed for.

We make up our rights from how we understand Morality and moral values.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

I don't have other rights than Afghans, Russians, and Europeans...not unalienable rights. All people across the world have the same unalienable rights. Now, civil rights is an entirely different matter. Civil rights are legal rights granted by a government and any person foolish enough to surrender their unalienable rights in exchange for civil rights runs the very real risk of losing those civil rights.

Of course, as far as unalienable rights go, everyone runs the very real risk of having those rights trampled upon, especially given there are people such as yourself so willing to argue in favor of tyranny and against freedom. To be sure, your willingness to point to other nations and use them as evidence that rights are not natural law, presumably because other nations have their rights violated, is a defense of tyranny, or at the very least makes you an apologist for tyranny. Frankly, the notion that Americans have some sort of privileged rights that are superior to other nations is absurd. The United States of America has a long and sordid history of disparaging and denying the rights of individuals. Hell, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 go to show how willing our Founding Fathers were to trample upon rights in the name of protecting a political regime, not to mention slavery where many people had their unalienable and natural rights egregiously trampled upon.

Rights are unalienable which makes them non negotiable. Protecting those rights is the responsibility of each and every individual on this planet, hence the notion of self government. It is quite simply myopic to view rights as being some sort of legal construct. Humans predate government and enjoyed their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness long before the advent of government. Government is unnatural, an artifice created by natural people. All government, regardless of its form, exist by consent of the governed. Those who live under tyranny, do so by consent. It is just that simple.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:08 PM
If it were my child, I would inform him that the teachings are wrong and explain why. I would then send a copy of that paper as well as your quotations form our founding fathers to the teacher in question and request that they start teaching accurately.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:09 PM

Originally posted by WWJFKD

Hoping to find other pearls of truth I read on. Loose definitions of the amendments but accurate, so far so good. 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.

there are many definitions of the word "Rights"...constitutionally, in a court of law, "Human" rights, philosophy etc.

As you explain this was in context of the Amendments to the Constitution granting recognized by the government.

•Rights are variously construed as legal, social, or moral freedoms to act or refrain from acting, or entitlements to be acted upon or not acted upon. While the concept is fundamental to civilized societies, there is considerable disagreement about what is meant precisely by the term rights. ...


•Powers or privileges granted by an agreement or law.

Go need to get all TP about the issue...employ your context one is saying that the only rights we have are granted by the government...only that the constitution specifically grants/guarantees a given set of "rights".

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:13 PM
reply to post by warbird03

Tell me about it!! Back in the 90's when a teacher asked me what I had learned from history class I said that I had learned that Christopher Columbus paved the way to the genoside of the native americans. He was not too happy. But it is the truth none the less. I told him that history was written by the victors and that there are alway 3 sides to the story. His side, their side and the truth.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:18 PM
When my niece was in, I believe 10th grade, she was studying for her finals by my house. She was studying the amendments to the constitution and asked a question about one, I forget which but it was like around 20 or so. I answered and the conversation turned to what she was studying and what was on the finals.

She told me she didn't have to study amendments 1- 10 because they weren't on the test.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:23 PM
My 2 cents...

Keep in mind that he's 10, and that he has to finish this school year with the teacher, and he may have several more like him/her in years to come. He/she likely won't engage in dialogue with a 10-year-old regarding the constitution, no matter how poignant a point he may bring up. Make sure he understands that at his age, arguing with his teacher will get him nowhere but in trouble. I'd tell him when the teacher says something he questions, just write it down and bring it home and we'll discuss it.

If it were me, I'd get that paper out and ask him about it. Ask him what he thinks about it, have him interpret what that means to him. That'll give you good insight into what the teacher told them, and how he perceives it.

I'd stress to him that our rights are a very important issue, and that he may not be able to fully understand them yet. Then maybe start spending some time with him explaining what the bill of rights is, and what each amendment mean in words he can understand. If and when he asks about something that he's been taught incorrectly, just tell him some people misinterpret or misunderstand things, and explain to him your interpretation.

Hope that helps. Good luck to you.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:25 PM
reply to post by maybereal11

Go need to get all TP about the issue...employ your context one is saying that the only rights we have are granted by the government...only that the constitution specifically grants/guarantees a given set of "rights".

There is nothing in the language of the Bill of Rights, (the first Ten Amendments) that claims to be granting rights. There are precise rules to statutory construction and its interpretation.

* "[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, "when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: 'judicial inquiry is complete.'"[1]

* "A fundamental rule of statutory construction requires that every part of a statute be presumed to have some effect, and not be treated as meaningless unless absolutely necessary." Raven Coal Corp. v. Absher, 153 Va. 332, 149 S.E. 541 (1929).

* "In assessing statutory language, unless words have acquired a peculiar meaning, by virtue of statutory definition or judicial construction, they are to be construed in accordance with their common usage." Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 923 P.2d 783, 787-88 (Alaska 1996);

* "The principal command of statutory construction is that the court should determine and effectuate the intent of the legislature using the plain language of the statute as the primary indicator of legislative intent." State v. Ogden, 118 N.M. 234, 242, 880 P.2d 845, 853 (1994) “The words of a statute . . . should be given their ordinary meaning, absent clear and express legislative intention to the contrary,” as long as the ordinary meaning does “not render the statute’s application absurd, unreasonable, or unjust.” State v. Rowell, 121 N.M. 111, 114, 908 P.2d 1379, 1382 (1995) When the meaning of a statute is unclear or ambiguous, we have recognized that it is “the high duty and responsibility of the judicial branch of government to facilitate and promote the legislature’s accomplishment of its purpose.” State ex rel. Helman v. Gallegos, 117 N.M. 346, 353, 871 P.2d 1352, 1359 (1994). - New Mexico v. Juan, 2010-NMSC-041, August 9, 2010

As much weight that needs to be given to what is said, so should weight be given to what is not said. In the case of the Bill of Rights, it is not said that rights have been granted, and in light of the Ninth Amendment, where each and every word should be given significance, it is quite clear that the rights enumerated within the Bill of Rights are not granted rights.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:25 PM
reply to post by WWJFKD

Evidence par excellence for the proper response to publik skewl: close it down.

The process of socialization through education and media has destroyed what was once 50 sovereign Republics and mushed them together into some congealed mass of centralized power.

To expect that this obvious direction will suddenly avert is naive. In the same vein of consolidation of power, where once men had unalienable rights, you can only- ever- ever-ever- expect the same thing to continue.

Nothing ever stays the same. As Bruce Lee said, "The only thing that is constant, is change." Teachers educated within the same paradigm will add more of the same within the world view they already have.

Then to plunder and raid the dinner table of neighbors without kids in order to provide this level of socialization? Really? The only hearty proponents of publik skewls are those with the same paradigm (imho). It simply makes no logical sense otherwise.

Ways to shut down publik skewls -

1. Place real estate subjected to school tax into not-for-profit holdings. N4P don't pay property taxes in many places.


3. Convene with others concerns for a: alternative educational options and b. alternative funding sources.

This is such a 20th century model of indoctrination and socialization, where students are trained for work instead of taught to think and understand the world. Maybe a good response for those who issue "what about training the future's work force?" is simply to get rid of the child labor laws, and then their kids can have on-the-job training at a much earlier age.


posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:33 PM
reply to post by WWJFKD

Such a great post. We are under control, but if questioned the ones in power say, "It's for your own good, without us there wouldn't a you"

We are all human beings and the fact that people believe they are better, and possess some kind of divine right to rule us makes me sick thinking about it. It's our planet. Of course some basic rules should be made, but the way things are, it shouldn't be.

I am not a rebel.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:41 PM
reply to post by WWJFKD

Just tell him that it's wrong..

Rights are something you already have and that the government does not grant them; but protects them as that is their job.

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in