Rights are not given by government / people. Rights are inherent.

Not sure whether to post this in Rants or Political Ideology, but mods feel free to move at your discretion.

I'm getting pretty tired of people confusing rights with privileges. People often talk about rights as if they are subjective, existing in some jurisdictions but not others, and can be granted or taken away. But if something can be granted or taken away, then by definition it is a privilege, which is a fake imaginary construct.

A classic example is when Brits say "Americans have the right to bear arms, but we don't have the right to bear arms."

This is a misunderstanding of rights, because rights are not determined by what is written in stone or on paper by men; rights cannot be granted or taken away; rights exist universally and are inherent in all beings. Some individuals live in locations with governments who deny those rights, such as the UK (denies the right to self defense), China (denies the right to free speech / religion), Saudi Arabia (denies freedom of movement for women) but that doesn't mean those people don't have those rights. They do have those rights; they are just being denied at present. Yes, Brits, you do have the right to bear arms. Yes, women of Saudi Arabia, you do have the right to drive. Yes, Chinese, you do have the right to free expression.

The writers of the US Declaration of Independence recognized this fact when they referred to rights as unalienable. That is why even though certain rights were being denied them at the time by the Crown, they exercised those rights anyway. It is my hope that people today, wherever they happen to live, will begin exercising the inherent rights they have whether or not those rights are sanctioned by government.

Now this begs the question; since rights are inherent and universal, how do we know what rights we have? Again we turn to the wisdom of the writers of the Declaration of Independence and see that it is just like a person's conscience, and their ability to discern right from wrong - it's something you just know, referred to as a self-evident truth.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Of course, the word "Creator" here is used in the loosest, most general sense, not endorsing any religious system, but speaking of whatever unseen cosmological force is at work, which could simply refer to nature itself. The important thing that these wise men recognized is that rights are unalienable and self-evident.

Rights can be removed by those with the power to take them away.

We as a nation have not been diligent and have allowed the gov to be the snakes they are and move in slow for a kill. They have been leading us down this path for a while waiting for enough people to be brainwashed so they could cripple us and force us into submission

"Rights" are an abstraction, clouded by the fact that we, as Americans, happen to live in a western country that provides us with enumerated rights by law.\

To speak of them as absolutes is not rational. Most westerners would, for example, speak of their right to medical or dental care. In America we spit in the face of this and scream "COMMUNISM" - but it doesn't change the reality that most of the modern world considers access to healthcare, regardless of ability to pay, an inherent right. Alternatively, many western nations do not see owning an assault rifle as an inherent right, where Americans do.

It's all in the eye of the beholder really and a matter of national identity and perspective.

In reality all we really have as "rights" is what we can take without others limiting. Underneath the veneer of society, Darwins ugly ghost lurks very close to the surface.

~Heff

I agree with you SilentKoala.
When governments respect the rights of the people, there is freedom. When it does not, it is tyranny.

For instance, the people in China have the right to free speech. They do not have the freedom to exercise it.

reply to post by SilentKoala


Dear SilentKoala,

The concept of "rights" is just that, there are no "rights". There is only right, no plural. Somethings are right and somethings are wrong; but, there is no entitlement, look at history. Without a God there is not even a right or wrong. These are concepts, not requirements. I preach, I am told that if I preach and support a candidate that I can lose our tax status. Personally, I don't support any candidates and have given up on the parties, they have all been corrupted. Yet, I could care less about our tax status and say what I will. It is not a right according to the government. "Rights" just mean the law says you will be punished, rewarded or ignored for certain actions that you do, it is not cosmic. Peace.

the U.S constitution is a document of the people, restricting the federal governments powers.
not the government restricting the peoples.
we the people give the federal government it's limited powers, and we can take them away.

the bill of rights is the peoples "inherent" rights. or natural rights, or god given rights.

the government did not give these rights to the people, for they are "inherent".
therefor the government cannot take these rights away.
nor can they restrict them, as the constitution prohibits.
though they often do.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by SilentKoala

 

Dear SilentKoala,

The concept of "rights" is just that, there are no "rights". There is only right, no plural. Somethings are right and somethings are wrong; but, there is no entitlement, look at history. Without a God there is not even a right or wrong. These are concepts, not requirements. I preach, I am told that if I preach and support a candidate that I can lose our tax status. Personally, I don't support any candidates and have given up on the parties, they have all been corrupted. Yet, I could care less about our tax status and say what I will. It is not a right according to the government. "Rights" just mean the law says you will be punished, rewarded or ignored for certain actions that you do, it is not cosmic. Peace.

actually thats not really true preacher.
there are a few men of the church out there defying this tax "law" that may be unconstitutional.

i'am sorry i cannot provide any information on this right this min. but i will try and scrounge it up for you in the next few days.

basically this tax law the left beats you over the head with, was a scare tactic to shut up MLK and the black republicans back in the day. you can thank LBJ for it.
i do know there has never been a court ruling on it, so thats why people are defying it.

reply to post by bjax9er


Dear bjax9er,

It is a pleasure to meet you. While the law may be slightly different than I imagined, it was only an example. In the end, I could care less what the law says or what "rights" others say I may have. I am responsible for me and for doing what is right rather than what others say I may. LOL. Not one of us, of the pastors and elders get paid, I have a full time government job and pay so that we can have a food bank and a choir director. ROFL, the lead pastor doesn't get paid, he only pays into taking care of others. I could care less about a tax and neither could he. He had two men beat him with baseball bats because he preached to gays. "Preachers" that worry about taxes are scum. We are told to be good slaves and seek God, not make money.

By the way, I have to give a sermon tomorrow, thanks for getting me thinking about what it will be on. I had five or six on my mind and you are helping me break the tie. I love ATS for that, I use it to pick sermons. I am a last minute kind of a guy, when I preach, I say what is on my mind. I speak from the heart, sometimes I mess up; but, not often because I think about all the things that I need to teach and there are so many that it does not matter what I teach first. A pleasure to meet you.

reply to post by SilentKoala


The word rights is inherently misused, in fact it's very similar to minimum wage or any other paper proclamation that is supposed to "protect" the people.

Well for most cases it works the other way around, there are rules only for the enslaved, as free society requires no rules and no government to enforce them. Without minimum wage, it could've be competitive, if you wanted people to work for you then you had to pay them more than the others, and with a consentual minimum you can feel no remorse in paying what is worldly known to be an insufficient income nowadays.

And so without the use of the term rights, there is simply... freedom. Why would you need paper proclamations for? Only slaves need rights, and TPTB enslaved us and even made us wept about not having enough rights... Come on. We should eliminate all rights and retrieve our freedom, which is what we truly inherent imo.

Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin
Rights can be removed by those with the power to take them away.

We as a nation have not been diligent and have allowed the gov to be the snakes they are and move in slow for a kill. They have been leading us down this path for a while waiting for enough people to be brainwashed so they could cripple us and force us into submission

Not lawfully. Fascism is a crime, its slavery, therefore violates basic common law, and that is the only real inherent law that even exists. There is no other kind. Not harming others, thou shalt not murder, rape, steal, etc is the only intrinsic things that exists. And then constitutions. Slavery violates constitutions. Fascism is slavery.

Anything that is not founded on inherent rights and the constitution is unlawful and illegal. If the constitution violates common law of thou shalt not harm, its illegal. Thou hast no rights over me but may expect me not to directly harm you. Period. I'm not your slave.

I will never follow the criminal orders of anyone.

Originally posted by Hefficide

"Rights" are an abstraction, clouded by the fact that we, as Americans, happen to live in a western country that provides us with enumerated rights by law.\

To speak of them as absolutes is not rational. Most westerners would, for example, speak of their right to medical or dental care. In America we spit in the face of this and scream "COMMUNISM" - but it doesn't change the reality that most of the modern world considers access to healthcare, regardless of ability to pay, an inherent right. Alternatively, many western nations do not see owning an assault rifle as an inherent right, where Americans do.

It's all in the eye of the beholder really and a matter of national identity and perspective.

In reality all we really have as "rights" is what we can take without others limiting. Underneath the veneer of society, Darwins ugly ghost lurks very close to the surface.

~Heff

I must disagree with you (as par )

You cannot use the word "Rights" in comparison to speech/firearms as you can with medical/dental care.

Rights are individual. With medical/dental you are actually infringing on the rights of others just to pay for medical/dental services.

The right to bear arms costs no-one anything.

The right to free speech doesn't cost anyone else anything.

It can't be called a right if you are taking something from someone to afford it to another.

You are mixing documents.

"Inalienable rights" are stated in the Decleration of Independence, they are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit Of Happiness.

These words are not in the Constitution.

And it seems like you are trying to transfer "inalienable rights" to the bill of rights...which is a flaw. The Bill Of Rights are not the "inalienable rights" the founders spoke of. And gun ownership can hardly be thought of as a "natural right" since guns aren't inherently "natural".

I see gun proponents make this false analogy all the time...mixing documents and applying one phrase from one document to one part of another document.

The "Bill of Rights" is simply a name, it is the name to the first 10 AMENDMENTS to our Constitution, meaning they weren't part of our original Constitution. Like any Amendment, they CAN be changed...they are not untouchable.

The "right" to bear arms is NOT an unalienable right.

The constitution is a box that Government operates out of, negotiating a few of your inherent infinite rights for the sake of the nation. It's not a limit to the person, but a wall around government.

reply to post by bjax9er

the bill of rights is the peoples "inherent" rights. or natural rights, or god given rights.

the government did not give these rights to the people, for they are "inherent".
therefor the government cannot take these rights away.
nor can they restrict them, as the constitution prohibits.
though they often do.

False False False.

Go ahead and show me any text in the CONSTITUTION that says this. Not the Decleration, in which they talk about inalienable rights in reference to Life, Liberty, And The Pursuit Of Happiness....nothing about guns.

Show me the text in the CONSTITUTION, not the DECLARATION...which is not an official US Government document.

Balderdash.

"Rights are universal- just read the Constitution of the US"
That's about as good an argument as when people say "because it says so in the Bible".

Rights are something relative, which collectives agree upon.
And no, the US isn't the end all of rights- I live in France, where there are rights considered unquestionable that you do not have in the US!


Someone said, "The right to bear arms costs no one anything"
I guess if you are american and the only concern is money, you can say that.
For it does cost people lives, of course. But that is so much less important..........

I find it interesting that on the pages of ATS you will find a myriad of people who have found the right to free health and dental care in our founding documents yet, somehow, can't seem to locate the "right to bear arms".

If I might....
I am born from my mothers womb naked and dependent no different from a king. The king and I are equal. Now as we grow and develop our lives may differ based on influence and resources yet we each have life.
Regardless of status as men if you were to strip the king and I of all but what we entered life with we remain equal.

On the subject of rights vs. privilege. If you are allowing men of equal status to determine what you as a "citizen" have the right to do or say then you are not free.

We have the right by birth to live and experience humanity as we choose. We are subject to the limitations and privileges decreed by the king, our equal. Therefore the act of rebellion is instinctive.

You are either sub-servant or you are free, there is no in between.

My rights are not given to me in the form of a list written by my equal, they are not decided by legislation. I am endowed, (provided or supplied or equipped with especially as by inheritance or nature), with my rights.

If you are an American you can elect an equal to represent you before the government of equals. If your representation is not properly advocating for your privileges then you have the right to admonish your chosen representation and hold them accountable as your equal.

Those that believe that they are elite, or above the masses, or decree themselves supreme and not equal are tyrants. If tyrants are abusing your rights and limiting your privileges then you have the right to fight the tyrant. Our "leaders" in their most primitive form are equal men, naked and dependent requiring influence and direction.

Liberty is experienced by those that understand that they create their freedom and if you have found liberty then you will fight to keep it.

Thanks for your time.

Thing is that people are not all the same. Some need freedom, others are happy as long as they can exercise the things they like to do. On top of that, some like being led [as long as they can do the things they need to do]. Humans are strange, they accept an awful lot if they are born into it. See N-Korea. If you believe from a young age that this is the way it is, you may even hate when what you know is taken away from you, because it means change. Some people can't deal with change, even if it means freedom.
In the West, we are used to a certain amount of freedom. Others are not. Are they suffering?

You can only suffer if you had it once and it is being taken away.
I want personal freedom but I wouldn't want it to an extend that I have to fend for myself and have to be on the lookout every day. I don't mind a little bit of 'looking after', as long as it doesn't infringe on the things I'd like to do that do nobody any harm.

Once they take freedoms that are harmless if done in your own home, then it goes too far.

Us humans are genetically geared towards living in a society. Which means that we are OK with certain restrictions, because they serve us as well as others towards an easier life.

However nowadays things are made illegal that shouldn't be. so you can become a criminal just because others may simply not like what you are doing. Other things are made illegal because of greed. These are wrong laws.
I also don't like being watched all the time [even if I have nothing to hide]. After all, what someone said just before me, we are all born equal.

We are still wild animals, albeit domesticated, we are still animals. This seems to get forgotten. It is almost as if being human puts an expectation on you that we can't actually fulfill.

I am a little drunk right now and I am happy [at the moment] but what if that freedom was taken away?

Real freedom means that everything is still running OK [bins taken away, roads being mended, dangerous criminals get locked up] but you as an individual can still exercise personal freedoms regarding your own body.

Cheers for listening!

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by bjax9er

 

False False False.

Go ahead and show me any text in the CONSTITUTION that says this. Not the Decleration, in which they talk about inalienable rights in reference to Life, Liberty, And The Pursuit Of Happiness....nothing about guns.

Show me the text in the CONSTITUTION, not the DECLARATION...which is not an official US Government document.

Not only is Declaration of Independence an official document, it is recognized as law.

The Declaration of Independence Part of American Law
Professor John Eidsmoe writes:
"The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America.

"The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading 'The Organic Laws of the United States of America' along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance.

Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section 3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution 'shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.' (Christianity and the Constitution, pp. 360-361)

Link

reply to post by SilentKoala


Excellent post.

I have had this same discussion with people to absolutely no avail. Some either do not want to admit that they have any rights and would rather live in the delusion that their rights are granted to them by a higher "authority." It helps them feel safe. Others do not want us to recognize that rights are ours simply by virtue of existing because it takes away their power to convince to give up our rights.