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

reply to post by deadruby2006


I 2

was it a reading comprehension test?? here's the .doc file here....i didnt d/load it myself as i'm on my phone, but i copied the link to post here.

government give you rights...


but guys, if it's not just a test... this is clearly not something just stuck @ wwjfkds' nephews school....unless this is wwjfkd under another name, someone elses' kids has been shoveled this crap too....someone complained and the author changed that statement according to the link below.

another instance of phyllis at another school?


correcting that faux pas is whatever, but how many school systems are going to reissue the corrected version?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


To quote your original post:

"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 too much, and because of this we have reached a point where enough is enough."

Wow. I have not been a member of ATS for very long, but so far that is the most extraordinarly insightful and eloquent post I have read. I pride myself on being someone who changes her beliefs when credible new information is presented. It has been a long time since I have read something that has done so. The last time this happened was a couple of years ago during my first reading of Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen, a book describing just how far off the history textbooks in our schools are from actual real historical events and detailing instances when history has been intentionally altered or rewritten erroneously. Thanks Jean Paul, for the goosebumps and for the rare thrill of a genuinely warranted change in a piece of my personal belief system.

I exist, therefore I have rights.

What rights do I have?

I have the rights that are due a human being. These rights are basically what is required self preservation without taking the rights of another.

Life-and self preservation
Liberty-the freedom to choose ones own path
Property-the ability to keep what one possesses

All of these rights are inherent. They can be taken, they can also be given away, but one must fight for these rights with due diligence.

My version of Natural Law is in my avatar.

I would submit this, all of the problems today are directly related to the abrogation of our basic human rights as individuals. Some would say we have to give up our rights to live in a society. I would say that to be obfuscational. Do we really need to give up our rights to further our society? To make it better? To advance our civilization?

Absolutely not. It is all a twisting of the possibilities. There are ways to provide for the society that would not abrogate these very basic rights. But the more that the government we created, attempts to provide services that certain entities within our society clamor for, the more rights and freedoms we give up.

There is one right that I think our founders in the US had mistakenly forgotten, was our right or requirement of self responsibility.

It always comes down to choices. What right are you willing to give up, for that illusion of security?

S&F OP, just wanted to drop a comment. Later.

Well I am sorry to say I think you should explain what you believe rights are according to you. Because this is entirely how you interpret rights. If you replace "Rights are Special Privileges society gives you" then it makes more sense. I think maybe its just a miss interpretation of government and society. IMHO

That's right. It's not our government who gave us rights. We have human rights. And we have the rights in our Constitution. Not what the government says is our rights.

Looks like this was being discussed somewhere else.

www.ohiolibertycouncil.org...


Troy

reply to post by WWJFKD


Honestly I think you are making much to do about nothing. This was an article written by a person. People sometimes write things in ways that are confusing, or make outright mistakes. I seriously doubt some sort of agenda here to make kids think they don't have inherent rights. I also find it odd that you hold up the language of the founding fathers as if it somehow has more inherent wisdom than the modern state. As far as rights go, if you were to take what they wrote at face value, then yes it certainly does sound ideal. Yet if you know anything about history then its obvious that today we have more rights than we did back then. Women couldn't vote for one thing. Not to mention they had little or no legal protection from sexual abuse, or even just sexist attitudes. Do I even have to mention how Blacks, American Indians, or Asians were treated back then? Sure our "rights" sounded nice, but at the time this was written it was nothing but a fairy tail for a large part of American society. We are much closer today to the ideals expressed in such documents than we were back then. Not perfect, mind you. We have some HUGE problems here. None the less I think the problems and injustices of today pale in comparison to those back then.

Originally posted by fianna
Well I am sorry to say I think you should explain what you believe rights are according to you. Because this is entirely how you interpret rights. If you replace "Rights are Special Privileges society gives you" then it makes more sense. I think maybe its just a miss interpretation of government and society. IMHO

Society does not give those rights. The individual existed before society, yet those rights were there. So how is that society give us those rights?

Society accepts a common ground on some basic principles that support or shackle those rights. Justice, Law, Ethics, Life, Liberty, and Freedom are but a few in which a society has shaped to form the foundation of culture that either promotes maximum enjoyment of Rights or the down right denial of those Rights.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Sir, you have stunningly hit the nail squarely on the head in relation to a personal dilemna that both I and my wife have been facing here on the other side of the pond in England.

I won't hesitate to say that your clarity of thought and confident expression of your enlightened opinion have emboldened me to follow the necessary step of taking a new view of the state schools, as 'high-priced babysitters' rather than true educators. I almost fell into the trap of thinking I was without recourse following some ridiculous recommendations made by our son's teacher - that simply because he is not particularly artistic, he should be forced to endure a 'special group' to help kids 'gain confidence, to increase their fine and gross motor skills, handwriting and participation' amongst other such things.

They made it sound like an invitation to a special event, a privilege - but in reality it is geared towards the production of a homogenous mass of children who all parallel each other in ability, to take away personal preferences and enforce 'compliance' with 'the program'. As part of a 'taster session', they asked him to "count to twenty, write a sentence, draw a picture of himself and read a short story from the books on the shelf".

He could count to a thousand over a year ago, was writing the beginnings of what would have amounted to an hundred page story six months ago (coming up with the ideas independently), and has enjoyed drawing, painting, glueing and arty stuff (to his level of ability) since birth. For reading material, he sits down with The Usborne Encyclopedia of the Human Body, or a book on the specifics of certain branches of paleontology aimed at children three times his age (essentially a reference book for older teenagers). He asks questions about tidal locking, the constitution of asteroids and the orbits of the various planets of the solar system. A year ago, he could reel off the planets and several star systems by rote. And yet, they want him to be held back, because he doesn't 'conform to the ideal model' in one area of his work. His handwriting suffers only when he is bored by what is being asked of him. His participation cannot be encouraged because he already knows everything they are teaching - he tries to get involved but gets accused of being bossy or demanding, just because his general knowledge and common sense are so overwhelming to most of the other children.

He turns six years old in a week.

The education system in the UK is a bloody con - a swizz, and a disgrace. I've seen enough in two years as a parent of a brilliant child to know that they are not interested in brilliance - they are interested in creating robots suitable for the corporate world. The headteacher is a snide political animal, who maybe once upon a dark age could have cared about the education of children, but who has (after fifteen years in the game) been well and truly turned - into an efficient and mean-spirited business manager; nothing more.

I will now be having a long chat with my lovely wife about how we can go from here, to nurture his talents and encourage him to enjoy the art of learning. He is already frustrated daily by the repetitious nature of the studies he is being forced to sit through.

Thank you to the OP for raising such issues, and thank you Jean Paul for your incisive and pertinent comments.

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment


Thank you brother, for sharing your story. Children are wise. We teach them to be stupid. We teach them to lie, and we teach them to abandon ethics in favor of something more insidious. If only we would relax a bit, and allow them to teach us. To remind us the importance of play. The importance of wonder.

You and your wife are the experts in what your child needs. No one cares about your child more than you two do. No one understands your child more than the both of you.

Keep fighting the good fight, and continue to love your child with all your heart. Teach him what you know, and learn from him what he knows, and let the wonder of life surround you in celebration.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


blah. you just twist words at your own lesiure.

Originally posted by Aeons
I'd send a copy to the Local Board of Education of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and underline the parts about "inalienable."

A concept that has apparently been lost.

edit on 2011/1/11 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

boy, all this huffing and puffing about rights...my father-in-law is of japanese decent, but born in america, and was put into an internment camp during the second world war. he lost all of his possessions, except for 1 suitcase of clothes and personal items they allowed him to bring to camp. he lost his home, his old 36' pickup, his furniture, his job, everything but that 1 suitcase. want to guess how he feels about the bill of rights?
where were the patriots then? where were the people that were suppose to stand up for his rights as an american then? all of the brave big-talking "don't tread on me" americans?...yup...they were nowhere in site.

when he finally got out, he had to start all over again. he found a job doing backbreaking farmwork, and he faced contant discrimination for the next 10 to 15 years. he finally landed a job at the port of stockton, that paid a decent wage, and was able to provide for his kids. he retired in 1990, and to this day, he doesn't give a crap about the bill of rights, because for him, it was a just a group of convienent privileges.

reply to post by jimmyx

where were the patriots then? where were the people that were suppose to stand up for his rights as an american then? all of the brave big-talking "don't tread on me" americans?...yup...they were nowhere in site.

Nowhere in sight? It is unfortunate your father knows nothing, (or if he did failed to inform you) about Fred Korematsu a brave big talking "don't tread on me" American who challenged Executive Order 9066 in the landmark Supreme Court Case Korematsu v. United States. Korematsu challenged this Executive Order - issued by a President Franklin D. Roosevelt, famous for many things, but championing the unalienable rights of individuals not among them - after he was convicted for evading internment. A conviction Korematsu was able to have overturned in 1983 because this brave big talking "don't tread on me" American never lost hope, and continued to fight for his natural and unalienable rights long after the shameful decision rendered, (in a 6 - 3 decision, which means three Supreme Court Justices stood up for Korematsu's rights), their decision that the need to protect the government against espionage outweighed the rights of the individual.

The fact of the matter is that this is just a prime example as to why government cannot be trusted and brave big talking "don't tread on me" Americans must jealously guard, and zealously protect their natural unalienable rights on a daily basis.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I would also like to add to JPZ's component here to jimmyx. This was not the first time that our government has done heinous things. Looking back to the slavery era the federal government passed fugitive slavery laws that required states that did not allow slavery, to return fugitive slaves to their owners. Of course some would not do this, I am proud to say that my Republic of Wisconsin was one of them.

The Supreme Court upheld that legislation as well. Does this mean that the people of Wisconsin were breaking the "law"? Of course not, they were being lawful just as the government was being unlawful.

Because the government was being tyrannical, does not infer that the people are.

That is a misnomer.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Thank you for your companion post, Brother. It has always amazed me, to the point of jaw droppingly so, that people will so smugly point to slavery, or to the internment of Japanese American's as evidence that unalienable rights do not exist, or are not worthy of defense. This strategy only condones slavery and the internment of people for the most dubious reasons, while simultaneously dismissing unalienable rights.