What are your basic RIGHTS, and what should they cost YOU?

a reply to: stolencar18

Under those conditions there are no such things as rights if a government exists as any "rights" are purely privileges granted at the the governments and community's discretion be it the right to free speech, the ability to own a gun, free travel or even healthcare. All those are granted by Authority or community.

The only difference is some "rights"/ "privileges" are more easy than other to take away.

a reply to: stolencar18

Okay, gotcha.... but saying it doesn't make it true.

The simple fact that one must use color of law (and the barrel of a gun) to prevent people from doing what is self-evident -- what can do for themselves by themselves -- proves my point.

SO...what are your basic rights, how much should they cost, who should pay for it, and why?

My rights, and your's as a human being, a person... Are too numerous to list.

And they cost no one, anything as they are naturally mine by virtue of my existence.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Basic test: If you were stranded on an island, anything you can have for yourself or provide to yourself is something you have a right to. It generally costs nothing except the effort you put in and it incurs no obligation on anyone else for you to have it.

You probably can't build a gun if you're stranded on an island but you have a right to that. Due process is also something you have a right to, but not only is it not free but it can only be provided with the assistance of others.

originally posted by: stolencar18
This thread is about what basic human rights are. Health care is not one. Not in any way, shape, or form. Just because some people put a higher value on it doesn't mean that it magically becomes a right.

To the other poster....coast guard, fire dept, police, etc are also not rights. They're privileges. We are privileged to have these emergency services available, the same way people are privileged to have access to a doctor.

I don't have a right to a firefighter or paramedic.

Privileges are things not everyone gets, they're a bonus. Rights are things that it has been deemed beneficial for everyone in your society to have. Beyond the obvious ones in the Constitution there is (or rather should be) a right to travel, right to health care, right to education (including college), right to food and water, a right to law enforcement, fire fighting, and shelter.

As for who pays for them, society benefits so society pays. Throw it onto the tax bill.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: stolencar18

Okay, gotcha.... but saying it doesn't make it true.

The simple fact that one must use color of law (and the barrel of a gun) to prevent people from doing what is self-evident -- what can do for themselves by themselves -- proves my point.

So...if own property and on my property grows some plant that can heal something that ails you, you can simply walk in and take it?

Of course not. The same laws and guns that protect property rights also protect your health care rights. You don't have a right to go pick flowers for your own benefit at someone else's expense. It is NOT self-evident.

Again, this is easy to state - that is not a right. It's a privilege.

And just to give you a fair chance here...on what grounds is your heath care a right? What makes it a right? And in what manner? How do you go about health care? Any and all plants are yours for the taking?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: stolencar18
This thread is about what basic human rights are. Health care is not one. Not in any way, shape, or form. Just because some people put a higher value on it doesn't mean that it magically becomes a right.

To the other poster....coast guard, fire dept, police, etc are also not rights. They're privileges. We are privileged to have these emergency services available, the same way people are privileged to have access to a doctor.

I don't have a right to a firefighter or paramedic.

Privileges are things not everyone gets, they're a bonus. Rights are things that it has been deemed beneficial for everyone in your society to have. Beyond the obvious ones in the Constitution there is (or rather should be) a right to travel, right to health care, right to education (including college), right to food and water, a right to law enforcement, fire fighting, and shelter.

As for who pays for them, society benefits so society pays. Throw it onto the tax bill.

Your logic is flawed, no offense. You're literally saying that "I have a right to education at someone else's expense".
Education, health care, emergency services, etc are not rights - they're entitlements that you and everyone else pays for collectively. Big difference. You can't say "I have a right to make someone else forcibly be a police officer and others have to pay for him so I have protection from crooks". Does that officer have the right to choose not to be a cop? Do others have the right to choose not to fund it?

If your "rights" take away someone else's "rights" something isn't "right" about what you call "rights".

a reply to: stolencar18

Me: "The simple fact that one must use color of law (and the barrel of a gun) to prevent people from doing what is self-evident -- what can do for themselves by themselves -- proves my point."

Bolded by me to emphasize the false premise you presented:

You: "So...if own property and on my property grows some plant that can heal something that ails you, you can simply walk in and take it?"

If I steal a plant that you grew on your property, than I am not doing it for myself by myself.

However, I have every right to do it for myself and by myself and/or in free association with others. I have every right to grow that plant myself and use it as I see fit for myself. I have every right to obtain that plant through voluntary association with someone else who grew that plant themselves. I have every right to dry it and smoke it, cook with it, make concentrated oils and tinctures, and treat my health needs. I have every right to purchase or otherwise obtain such products through voluntary association with others. No one, and especially not government, has the right to deny me the life saving and or life enhancing benefits of nature, much less any right to use force to stop me.

ETA:

And just to give you a fair chance here...on what grounds is your heath care a right? What makes it a right? And in what manner?

We have the inalienable right to life, which naturally includes the right to nurture and sustain life, and the right to protect and defend our lives from any and all threats, including disease and injury.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: stolencar18

Under those conditions there are no such things as rights if a government exists as any "rights" are purely privileges granted at the the governments and community's discretion be it the right to free speech, the ability to own a gun, free travel or even healthcare. All those are granted by Authority or community.

The only difference is some "rights"/ "privileges" are more easy than other to take away.

Agreed.
All this talk of unalienable rights and all the rest is just a load of bull#. Those rights/privileges/entitlements are granted by the biggest/hardest gang in town, and in the US/UK right now that is the government.

"Oh my right to freedom of speech is in the constitution!"
"My right to bear arms is in the constitution!"

Both of which are 'granted' by the biggest gang in town, community and government.
The constitution is not sacrosanct in law, what is it, 75% of congress and the house voting to change anything in it and your 'rights' can easily be taken away at a whim, if the people community (biggest gang) vote for it.

You US members are deluding yourselves with this idea that rights are anything different to privileges or entitlements, quite amusing though so please do carry on.

Your delusion that your free speech is a right is shot down when you realise it is only granted by government voted in by the people. The constitution CAN be changed, and if it was then your 'right' to bear arms would be shown for what it really is...something simply allowed by the biggest gang.

Same with free speech, go to a presidential rally and start shouting that Obama is a #ing black prick (or similar) and see how that goes for you. I guarantee you would be arrested, and probably be beaten by your rabid police.

Land of the free, delusions of 'rights' yeah, carry on deluding yourselves that those 'rights' are not merely at the whim of the biggest gang in town...the community, and the government the community votes in.

a reply to: grainofsand

You US members are deluding yourselves with this idea that rights are anything different to privileges or entitlements, quite amusing though so please do carry on.

I understand the distinction between rights in theory and rights in practice... but if I ever concede that I/we have no rights, much less rights "endowed by our Creator" and therefore inviolable by government under law and founding government, then I/we deserve the inevitable tyranny and abuse we reap for our cowardice and submission.

If you know a better way, I'd love to hear it... but for now I will cling to my "delusions."

a reply to: Boadicea

As soon as you bring a 'creator' into it then you confirm my thoughts of delusions.
You are only allowed the 'right' to bear arms because the biggest gang (government/community) allows it to be in the constitution. It can be taken away if (what is it?) 75% of Senate/House wish it.
That ain't a 'right' it is a privilege granted by the people who control you. You are no more free than I am, but keep deluding yourself.

...I know I'd rather be a slave in the UK, at least our cops rarely beat and kill us. Land of the free, don't make me laugh.

originally posted by: stolencar18
Your logic is flawed, no offense. You're literally saying that "I have a right to education at someone else's expense".
Education, health care, emergency services, etc are not rights - they're entitlements that you and everyone else pays for collectively. Big difference. You can't say "I have a right to make someone else forcibly be a police officer and others have to pay for him so I have protection from crooks". Does that officer have the right to choose not to be a cop? Do others have the right to choose not to fund it?

If your "rights" take away someone else's "rights" something isn't "right" about what you call "rights".

If you don't have the right to be educated, then the government has the right to prevent you from becoming educated. Either they enable a person to become educated and productive or they prevent it. Since we have the freedom to become whatever we're willing to put in the work to learn how to do, the government needs to help facilitate that and an education system that's open to all is how that's done.

And there's no need to force someone to become a police officer, or a doctor, or a teacher. If you make the job and the wage attractive, people will do it out of their own free will. If that's not happening and the demand for the service isn't being met, then the government is failing it's people.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Boadicea

As soon as you bring a 'creator' into it then you confirm my thoughts of delusions.
You are only allowed the 'right' to bear arms because the biggest gang (government/community) allows it to be in the constitution. It can be taken away if (what is it?) 75% of Senate/House wish it.
That ain't a 'right' it is a privilege granted by the people who control you. You are no more free than I am, but keep deluding yourself.

...I know I'd rather be a slave in the UK, at least our cops rarely beat and kill us. Land of the free, don't make me laugh.

No they can not take away our defense by voting.

All voting against guns does is make targets for gun owners.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
No they can not take away our defense by voting.

All voting against guns does is make targets for gun owners.

You are incorrect. The constitution CAN be changed if enough of the Senate/House votes for it, and you know it full well.
Your 'rights' are then simply something written in law by the biggest gang in town.
Carry on deluding yourself though, it is amusing.

There are no 'inalienable' rights, just those granted by whoever is in power. Some places are nicer than others of course, think Saudi, or Somalia, but your delusion of rights always boils down to the hardest gang in town, be that the US government, or an Amazonian tribe.
I find it funny how you US folk have been so easily tricked with the semantics of rights/entitlements/privileges.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Boadicea

As soon as you bring a 'creator' into it then you confirm my thoughts of delusions.

I didn't bring a "creator" into it... the Declaration of Independence did, a part of our organic law, and the law of the land. These are the rules agreed upon and established for us to play by. Everyone making up their own rules and ignoring the established rules only creates more problems. I'm all about what works. If there's a better way, don't know it...

You are only allowed the 'right' to bear arms because the biggest gang (government/community) allows it to be in the constitution. It can be taken away if (what is it?) 75% of Senate/House wish it.
That ain't a 'right' it is a privilege granted by the people who control you. You are no more free than I am, but keep deluding yourself.

As I said, I understand the difference between rights in theory and in practice, especially when the established rules and rule of law is arbitrarily rejected and replaced with anything and everything that folks can come up with... and/or keep us fighting about while the few benefit at the expense of the many. If we have no rights, government can do anything and we have absolutely no recourse.

And I know we have more power than we give ourselves credit for. But we are our biggest enemies. We divide ourselves, let ourselves be distracted by superficial and personal issues, and we let ourselves believe the enemy has more power than they really do.

...I know I'd rather be a slave in the UK, at least our cops rarely beat and kill us. Land of the free, don't make me laugh.

Point taken. And believe me, I'm not laughing.

a reply to: grainofsand

nope not incorrect

you are confusing a nation that has no guns with a nation that has weapons.

The difference is that if both were told by law they can not have weapons then one would still have weapons to defend against the law.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: grainofsand

nope not incorrect

you are confusing a nation that has no guns with a nation that has weapons.

The difference is that if both were told by law they can not have weapons then one would still have weapons to defend against the law.

Oh please with the silly sidetrack. That has nothing to do with the claims by US members that whatever is in the constitution is some magic thing known as a 'right' and inalienable.

I'll say it again, the constitution CAN be changed if enough of the Senate/House vote for it to be changed.
That makes your 'rights' no different to anything else enshrined in US law.
Rights/privileges/entitlements, carry on deluding yourself that they are something other than semantics. You folk in the US have been tricked with that, you just don't see it or wish to accept it.

a reply to: grainofsand

you are missing the point

they can change the constitution all they want but it will be changed back by people with guns

that is the benefit of owning guns vs a country that has no guns

a reply to: Boadicea

The tragedy is though that your 'rights' can be changed at the will of enough of your elected representatives.
They are no more a 'right' than entitlements/privileges, just semantics is all.
The biggest gang in town can change it if it, or the people, wishes.

A creator may well be mentioned in the constitution, I've not read it and don't need to, I only need to know that it can be changed by government so the only 'rights' you have are granted by the biggest gang in town.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: grainofsand

you are missing the point

they can change the constitution all they want but it will be changed back by people with guns

that is the benefit of owning guns vs a country that has no guns

No. You are missing the point and attempting to sidetrack.
This topic is discussing 'rights' and I say your 'rights' are only granted by the biggest gang in town. Regardless if you have firearms to defend yourself against the biggest gang in town does not change the fact that any claims of 'rights' from the constitution can be shot down because the constitution CAN be changed.

Stick to the point eh fella?