Rights AND Responsibilities

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Before I begin, I just want to say that I hate to quote Wikipedia, but it is considered to be the universal “laymen’s terms” source that we all have access to. For something technical or published, I wouldn’t use it, but for a message board, it is adequate. With that being said…

What are “Rights”? It seems many people today don’t have an adequate understanding of what rights are or where they come from. We hear the term “It’s my god-given right!” or people feel they are entitled to something as a right for merely being alive. That isn’t always the case.


Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.


Living in today’s world, with various levels of belief in God or other deities, there are no “God given rights” that can be decided upon. I’m not saying there isn’t a God, I believe in God, but some don’t. There are no God-given rights or they would exist and be protected no matter what group was in power, no matter what area we lived in, no matter when we were born, no matter what the color of our skin, no matter what our gender, we would have those rights and they would be protected. They aren’t.

Philosophically, we who are believers in God can state that we have the right to salvation and our life eternal, but we won’t know that while we’re in this world and it has no effect on this world. There are no “God given rights” in our lives right here, right now as far as governments are concerned. Those of us who do believe in and worship God could say that we feel him every day in our lives and he protects us as his children and that could be argued ad-museum, but that’s not the purpose for this post. As far as the government is concerned, there are no god-given rights.

Rights are not something that exist as their own entities which must be followed by whatever group may be in power, they are something that is determined by each group. Many are based on the history of that group, the societal norms, the basic beliefs, the morals that guide the people. They are decided upon by the people that are involved.

Our rights as American citizens (those of us who are in the US) were laid out by the US Constitution and the laws of our nation. Our forefathers who created the Constitution spelled out what our rights would be, what we would be given as citizens, what standard we would live by. Many of them were carried over from the previous nation, the previous way of life, the previous histories and culture. They are spelled out for us, given to us along with the responsibilities that ensure those rights.

These rights don’t exist without any strings, without any catch, without anything to do in order to keep them. Rights aren’t “gifts”, they are principles that have been fought for, earned, protected, kept by our ancestors. With each and every right we have, we also have a responsibility.

We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but with these come responsibility. We have the right to life, but we have the responsibility to respect the life of others. We have the right to liberty, but we have the responsibility to respect the liberty of others. We have the right to the pursuit of happiness, but we have the responsibility to ensure that pursuit to others. It’s not a Me-Me-Me thing, it’s US, all of us.

These rights did not come easy nor did they come free. Many have fought, many have died and that fight will continue to ensure that these rights remain. A right isn’t a “gift”, it is something that has been earned, something that has been fought for, blood has been shed for, people have died for and they are NOT to be taken lightly. If we are unable to live up to the responsibilities that come with them, we don’t deserve the rights. If we are not willing to be responsible for our actions, then our actions will be limited.

This is a two sided coin. You don’t get something for nothing. If you want happiness, then you work for happiness. You can’t spend your life doing nothing, not working, expecting others to support you and be “rich” and never want for money of any kind. That is not your right, it is not something you get just because you want it. We are a nation of spoiled children throwing tantrums wanting things handed to us. We work, we contribute to society and if there comes a point in time we are not able to work, because of our contributions to society, because we did all we could, we are then able to get support from the community in the form of disability or financial assistance. The responsibility was fulfilled, the right is intact.

You cannot go out and kill people just because you feel like it, you cannot go to a store and pick up what you want and walk out, you are not entitled to break whatever law you want to break and walk about freely. If you do this, you will end up in jail and not have your “liberty”. It’s not a free gift, it comes with a responsibility. You uphold the laws that exist, you enjoy the liberty and freedom that the laws were set up to ensure.

If you are unwilling to abide by the laws that are set forth, you do not have the rights that are set forth with them.

They are not a free gift, they are not something you are entitled to just because you exist, they are not something that you have and nobody else does. They are the standards set forth by society and you have a responsibility to fulfill in order to maintain those rights. If you abuse those rights, they are taken away. Stand up, do your part, be responsible and ensure these rights remain intact for future generations.




posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Yeah, but what happens when the standards set forth by society are WAY out of spec?

Morality drift.

When does responsibility kick in to recalibrate?



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Yeah, but what happens when the standards set forth by society are WAY out of spec?

Morality drift.

When does responsibility kick in to recalibrate?


That's for the people to decide, ALL the people, not just fringe minorities. They have things like elections and decide who the leaders will be. Oh wait, we just had one, he was inagurated today


Any decisions made have to be tested against the Constitution. That's why the gun ban will never happen no matter who is in office or tries to change it. It goes against the US Constitution and the Constitution will be defended. They can talk, they can plan, the media (on both sides) can twist it and turn it, but in the end, the Constitution is the standard to which things are held.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by HopSkipJump

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Yeah, but what happens when the standards set forth by society are WAY out of spec?

Morality drift.

When does responsibility kick in to recalibrate?


That's for the people to decide, ALL the people, not just fringe minorities. They have things like elections and decide who the leaders will be. Oh wait, we just had one, he was inagurated today


Any decisions made have to be tested against the Constitution. That's why the gun ban will never happen no matter who is in office or tries to change it. It goes against the US Constitution and the Constitution will be defended. They can talk, they can plan, the media (on both sides) can twist it and turn it, but in the end, the Constitution is the standard to which things are held.


I suppose, if you really think he got elected.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

I suppose, if you really think he got elected.


I just watched the inaguration, so yes, he got elected. He even got a Majority of the vote AND won the electoral college



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by HopSkipJump

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

I suppose, if you really think he got elected.


I just watched the inaguration, so yes, he got elected. He even got a Majority of the vote AND won the electoral college


You know full well what I mean, but since you are an Obama fanboy, you choose to ignore the truth.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by HopSkipJump

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

I suppose, if you really think he got elected.


I just watched the inaguration, so yes, he got elected. He even got a Majority of the vote AND won the electoral college


You know full well what I mean, but since you are an Obama fanboy, you choose to ignore the truth.


Yeah, I know what you mean, but you're wrong.

However, bush LOST the popular vote, yet he was put in office anyway. That's the kind of thing you should be worried about instead of dreaming up ways that the candidate you didn't vote for actually won the vote.

You may not like it, but he did win. I'm also not an "Obama fanboy", as I don't really care much for him, he was just better than the alternative.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by HopSkipJump

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by HopSkipJump

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

I suppose, if you really think he got elected.


I just watched the inaguration, so yes, he got elected. He even got a Majority of the vote AND won the electoral college


You know full well what I mean, but since you are an Obama fanboy, you choose to ignore the truth.


Yeah, I know what you mean, but you're wrong.

However, bush LOST the popular vote, yet he was put in office anyway. That's the kind of thing you should be worried about instead of dreaming up ways that the candidate you didn't vote for actually won the vote.

You may not like it, but he did win. I'm also not an "Obama fanboy", as I don't really care much for him, he was just better than the alternative.


You do know that there were more than two candidates right?



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Krazysh0t

You do know that there were more than two candidates right?


Due to the two party system, there were only two viable candidates


It would be great to see a third party be able to have a chance at winning though



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Apparently everyone wants to claim "rights", but nobody wants the responsibility that goes with them.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by HopSkipJump
 



Our rights as American citizens (those of us who are in the US) were laid out by the US Constitution and the laws of our nation. Our forefathers who created the Constitution spelled out what our rights would be, what we would be given as citizens, what standard we would live by. Many of them were carried over from the previous nation, the previous way of life, the previous histories and culture. They are spelled out for us, given to us along with the responsibilities that ensure those rights.


You would have failed my American Government class...or anyone elses I suppose - well except for Professor Obama I guess.

The Constitution is not the granting of rights to the citizens by the government but a ceding of certain rights and powers to the Federal Government from the States and the people. Any right or power not enumerated (18 of them) were reserved to the States and/or the people. We are so far off that track its unrecognizable.

The only responsibilities laid out in the Constitution are those of the Federal Government – there are no specified responsibilities for the citizen.

I’ll give you a D since you cared enough to type it out with few if any errors in grammar and spelling. That and I wouldn’t want to suffer though the repeat of you returning to class as your political ideology clearly clouds your understanding of the principles of US Government.

The rest of what you wrote is all based on your misunderstanding of the whole point of the document. The point of the document was to limit the powers of the Federal Government not to grant rights to the people. The rights of the people are inherent. (As the founders called it "God given".) I prefer inherent.

If you read the Federalist Papers you will see that many felt the “Bill of Rights” need not be in there are all as the rights are inherent and at the time they felt “God given”. However, the majority won as the fear was that if these rights were not clearly articulated and mentioned specifically that at some later point the Federal Government would enact legislation to limit them.

Amazing how much they knew about human nature and the creeping power of a central government.

Get off your knees (the view of the world at ass/crotch level is not a very encompassing one) long enough to look around and see that Obama is not the savior of America - he is the destructor.

Personally if I were to choose my destructor it would be the marshmallow man - certainly has more ironic comedy value than a corrupt Chicago lawyer.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   
In this "modern", and "civilized" age; I prefer to phrase it this way: Our rights are ours, because we are sentient.
What are our rights? Anything and everything that does not cause harm to another, nor infringe upon their rights.

One of my favorite questions to ask people, is : "How many rights does the US Constitution give you?" and I absolutely *love* the flabbergasted look on their faces when I reply : "None. Not a darned one." To which I immediately continue : " The Constitution merely enumerates a *few* rights, which the framers felt worth protecting specifically in writing."

Don't forget the catch-all for securing your rights - the ninth and tenth amendments.

ADDENDUM --


If you are unwilling to abide by the laws that are set forth, you do not have the rights that are set forth with them. They are not a free gift, they are not something you are entitled to just because you exist, they are not something that you have and nobody else does. They are the standards set forth by society and you have a responsibility to fulfill in order to maintain those rights.


You are 100% wrong here, there's no other way around it. Marbury v Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Anything in conflict or repugnance with the US constitution is null and void of law. So ay laws that are passed, and are in conflict; have no force of law.
edit on 25-1-2013 by blood0fheroes because: addendum



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


since you have no power to grade or judge anything, it really doesn't matter if YOU like it or not.

What I posted is correct regardless of your interpretation of it and I seriously doubt you even graduated high school, let alone took any college class. If you had, you would have a better understanding.

Those of us who have studied beyond high school and college levels know better.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
reply to post by Golf66
 


since you have no power to grade or judge anything, it really doesn't matter if YOU like it or not.

What I posted is correct regardless of your interpretation of it and I seriously doubt you even graduated high school, let alone took any college class. If you had, you would have a better understanding.

Those of us who have studied beyond high school and college levels know better.


You are living in the land of delusion - the Constitution of the United States grants exactly zero rights to the citizens. The intent of the document is to restrict government not grant rights. That's where the whole unalienable rights part comes from...they are inherent at birth, not granted by anyone or anything.

I have a Masters in Military History, a BA in History and an AA in Russian. I actually taught a US Government class at Community College – just for the fun of it.

If you really have a college education and “beyond” and believe that the Constitution of the United States grants any rights to its citizens you need to get your money back…

Also, badge and credentials as a Federal Agent 97B Counterintelligence Agent. I am confident in my knowledge of history, government and the law. Thanks for playing though.

Here is a snippet from a Teachers Guide to Teaching the Constitution:

(Pretty sure its middle school level - if you missed this point in your "beyond" college education please seek a refund)


It is critical to understand that the U.S.Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or Government does not grant these rights. These rights are granted by God--as set forth in The Declaration of Independence. In fact, governments were formed, according to the founding fathers, to protect these rights. The Declaration of Independence asserts that any government which attempts to take away these rights should be overthrown.

www.brighthubeducation.com...



edit on 25/1/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)
edit on 25/1/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by HopSkipJump

Originally posted by Krazysh0t

You do know that there were more than two candidates right?


Due to the two party system, there were only two viable candidates


It would be great to see a third party be able to have a chance at winning though


That is a terrible reason to vote for someone. The reason third party candidates remain unviable as you said is because people like you make the choice of "lesser of two evils." Well guess what? It's still evil. If more people stopped voting because of this reason and voted third party, maybe we wouldn't be in the situation we are in. Also maybe the corrupt dingbats that are the viable choices will realize they are losing constituents and change their ways. Third parties being viable starts with YOU. Stop waiting until they are viable and help make them viable.
edit on 25-1-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


You're still not comprehending here. Seriously, if you can't understand what you read, then have someone help you with it.

Nobody said the Constitution GAVE you rights, you gathered that up all by yourself. I said there were rights laid out by the Constitution, and there were. Just because you are not capable of being able to tell the difference does not make everyone else wrong.

The thing is, that with rights come responsibility and you, and others like you, don't want to live up to the responsibility part, you just want everything handed to you on a silver platter. It doesn't work that way.

The rights that we enjoy as US Citizens are there because they have been fought for, not just because we exist. Too many people today take them for granted and taking them for granted is the first step in losing them.

If you have the education you claim, which I seriously doubt, then you would be capable of undertanding that. Try actually READING a post before you sum it up in your mind from the opening paragraph and you'll have a little more success.

Your "teacher's guide" blah blah blah snippet is from an article written by an English teacher named Tent Lorcher, it's not a guide used in schools, it's found on a website. At least investigate your sources a bit before claiming they are something they aren't.




edit on 25-1-2013 by HopSkipJump because: the letter r is sticking on my keyboard causing typos



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Krazysh0t

Originally posted by HopSkipJump

Originally posted by Krazysh0t

You do know that there were more than two candidates right?


Due to the two party system, there were only two viable candidates


It would be great to see a third party be able to have a chance at winning though


That is a terrible reason to vote for someone. The reason third party candidates remain unviable as you said is because people like you make the choice of "lesser of two evils." Well guess what? It's still evil. If more people stopped voting because of this reason and voted third party, maybe we wouldn't be in the situation we are in. Also maybe the corrupt dingbats that are the viable choices will realize they are losing constituents and change their ways. Third parties being viable starts with YOU. Stop waiting until they are viable and help make them viable.
edit on 25-1-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)


Unfortunately, in today's world, you don't vote for the candidate you want to win, you vote against the candidate that you absolutely don't want to win. Many of the votes for Obama were really votes against Romney as well as the other way around. Can the people who voted for Romney/Obama say that they suppoted Romney/Obama 100%? No, they can't. We don't go for the third party candidates because the candidates from the two parties are so horrible that we have to decide which would be worse and ensure that one doesn't win



edit on 25-1-2013 by HopSkipJump because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
You're still not comprehending here. Seriously, if you can't understand what you read, then have someone help you with it.


I know you think it makes you seem cool to be snarky but really it is base and undignified.


Originally posted by HopSkipJump
Nobody said the Constitution GAVE you rights, you gathered that up all by your little self. I said there were rights laid out by the Constitution, and there were. Just because you are not capable of being able to tell the difference does not make everyone else wrong.


These are your words from your post...


Originally posted by HopSkipJump
Our forefathers who created the Constitution spelled out what our rights would be, what we would be given as citizens, what standard we would live by.


Right after you said that the Constitution laid out these rights... You followed with the above which as I read it clearly says to me that you believe that the founders wrote the document to spell out our rights as you termed it


what we would be given


Granted it is a poorly constructed sentence and the use of what is awkward and hard to follow but the only subject in there is rights so one must assume when reading it that when you say "what we would be given" that you are referencing rights... Either that or you are referencing something else altogether which is not clear.

If that is not the case then perhaps a remedial English class is in order along with Government 101.


Originally posted by HopSkipJump
Your "teacher's guide" blah blah blah snippet is from an article written by an English teacher named Tent Lorcher, it's not a guide used in schools, it's found on a website. At least investigate your sources a bit before claiming they are something they aren't.


Who do you think writes teachers guides? I'm going to say teachers...and they put them on the web for others to use. I suppose you are a fan of government approved teaching materials? Look up any teaching guide you'd like then and find one that indicates:


Originally posted by HopSkipJump
Our forefathers who created the Constitution spelled out what our rights would be, what we would be given as citizens, what standard we would live by.


Either you haven't a clue what you are talking about...or your use of sentence structure is so poor as to detract from your ability to make a point. Neither is flattering.

If you were communicating something other than the way I understood it I will give you the benefit of a doubt.

Regardless I think our discussion is fruitless as we clearly see things differently.




edit on 25/1/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


Your further attempts to "save face" are actually working against you. It would be much easier for you to admit that you misread and move on than to continue digging your hole deeper.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by HopSkipJump
 


The third party candidates are horrible? How do you know? In fact how much do you know about those candidates that the MSM didn't tell you? Did you look into what they stand for? Did you read up on their issues? Do you even know their names? Your entire post just sums up what TPTB want you to think. The whole "Lesser of two evils" thing just plays right into their hands. When a Republican or a Democrat wins, they win. Change cannot and will not happen with either of these two political parties.

Case in point, Obama has extended and even added more of many of the same policies as Bush including but not limited to: Patriot Act, corporate welfare, unending wars, out of control spending, lies, and non-transparent administration. While these issues were yelled about day and night by the MSM during Bush's presidency, they are strangely silent about it now. Yet we all know that they are happening.





top topics
 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join