Put This in Your File

a reply to: Shoujikina

I skimmed through this response w/o getting too much from it aside the sense it comes from a rather inflated ego. You sound upset, though--sorry about that!

a reply to: Shoujikina
Man,. did you missed the boat on what he was trying to convey.

What he meant was the freedom to do with his own body as he chooses. Such as work hunt or trade or in other words use his word to obtain food to feed his family. Whether or not his family chooses to eat food he provides, the government approves the food he decides to purchase, it is his right regardless.

If he so chooses you are damn right that is a "inalienable right".

When anybody stops another person from doing as they choose (as long as they are not causing direct harm to others) that's a violation of an individuals right to be a free human being.. The violation of personal liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

All that is needed for evil to succeed, is for good men to stand idly by and do nothing in the face of oppression and tyranny. No that's not a direct quote, but there is more truth to that than one would think.

I really don't get people arguing semantics.

The truth of the matter is that government and bureaucracy has started first by facilitating the destruction of the nuclear family. The demonization of the Christian church United States.

Within the last 10 years there started the destruction of communities as well There used to be a pub, or family restaurant within walking distance of almost every home in every modern city.

So now I'm American society is about the single human. It is no longer about caring for a family, a community, charity, or doing right by others.

Its about "what's in it for me", paraphrasing what was said on the cartoon feature - The Land Before Time.

"Hmmph I can get my own green food and my own place to sleep!", (I don't need anyone).

I really wish the world would stop to take time and listen to other people, care what they have to say, what they think and how they feel. Try to mentally walk a mile in anothers shoes.

The world would be a much better place.

What a magnificent rant. Well done!
You've summed it up. Allow me to contribute a couple of poignant quotes:

We have succeeded in creating what deserves to be called the idiot culture. Not an idiot sub-culture, which every society has bubbling beneath the surface and which can provide harmless fun; but the culture itself. For the first time, the weird and the stupid and the coarse are becoming our cultural norm, even our cultural ideal.
...Carl Bernstein

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
...Jiddu Krishnamurti

a reply to: zosimov

Very well put I truly hope the people stand up and end all this Bull@%&#

It's disorienting how quickly they jammed 50 years worth of tyranny and oppression into a single go round the sun. It's happening so fast and in so many different areas all at once no one knows which hole to try to plug. It's the Gordian knot and we have is a roll of tape.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

If it's duct tape maybe we'll be alright old friend.

originally posted by: zosimov

We are all born with certain inalienable rights that no man can take from us. The right to our own body and the right to breathe and eat and feed our family is ours and ours alone.

(Spoiler: Good wins, God knows)
thanks for reading

Morning Zos!

I was thinking about this part and wondered if humans really knew what their inalienable rights are. Has anyone ever defined each and every one of them?

I looked at the US constitution and it specifically says among others the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But what are the "others" its referring to?

That led me on a search that took me through natural rights, God given rights, and finally the universal declaration of basic rights created by the United nations in 1948 (which we've pretty much ripped to shreds at this point).

All these are man made, personal opinion rights. So now I'm wondering, if we took politics, greed, profit, religion, and all other current societal needs out if the equation, what would/should be the list of inalienable rights we are entitled to?

What natural rights as humans do you think should we all have? Is there a true list without bias out there that defines these inalienable rights? Is it defined in the bible?

Thanks,
blend

originally posted by: blend57


Morning Zos!

Good morning, Blend! So nice to see you!

I was thinking about this part and wondered if humans really knew what their inalienable rights are. Has anyone ever defined each and every one of them?

I looked at the US constitution and it specifically says among others the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But what are the "others" its referring to?

That led me on a search that took me through natural rights, God given rights, and finally the universal declaration of basic rights created by the United nations in 1948 (which we've pretty much ripped to shreds at this point).

All these are man made, personal opinion rights. So now I'm wondering, if we took politics, greed, profit, religion, and all other current societal needs out if the equation, what would/should be the list of inalienable rights we are entitled to?

What natural rights as humans do you think should we all have? Is there a true list without bias out there that defines these inalienable rights? Is it defined in the bible?

Thanks,
blend

Great questions. I really want to put some thought into a response and anything I do before my first coffee of the day is bound to be foggy.


Funny that such fundamental rights would be so hard to define.

I'll think more on this and post later and hope more of our esteemed community chimes in on the subject.

I hope you have a great day!!

the only fundamental right you have is to "do whatever it takes to survive"

everything else is a concession or entitlement granted by those who have the power to undo your survival.

a reply to: sraven

Being powerful or strong doesn't give anyone the right over anyone else. In that case, everyone would have the right to injure small children and animals unmolested and without consequence.

Having the ability to do something doesn't mean one has that right.

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: sraven

Being powerful or strong doesn't give anyone the right over anyone else. In that case, everyone would have the right to injure small children and animals unmolested and without consequence.

Having the ability to do something doesn't mean one has that right.

Apparently they do. It happens all the time.
Because there is no invisible force that prevents it.

You can imagine any philosophy but imagining it does not make it a "right".
When you are walking in a dark and deserted alley in the middle of the night
every right that you imagine you might have
must be defended by the one and only fundament right - the right to fight to survive.

a reply to: sraven

Rights are natural (discerned by conscience) social, legal, and ethical constructs. A person would not get away with publicly harming a child or a dog for that matter in any society I know of.

I also have full faith that even when there are no witnesses to a crime, there will be consequences.

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: sraven

Rights are natural (discerned by conscience) social, legal, and ethical constructs. A person would not get away with publicly harming a child or a dog for that matter in any society I know of.

I also have full faith that even when there are no witnesses to a crime, there will be consequences.

Yes however, those consequences may occur only after you have been deprived of your ethical constructs and must be imposed by those who have the power to undo your survival and then only if it can be proven - which makes these rights "not natural" but artificial.

a reply to: sraven

Here's a good example of natural consequences (around the 6:50 mark). Geoff Thompson confronted the man who had molested him as a kid, who a few years later hung himself in a hotel room. We can see through their respective fates which man was free and which was oppressed.

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: sraven

Here's a good example of natural consequences (around the 6:50 mark). Geoff Thompson confronted the man who had molested him as a kid, who a few years later hung himself in a hotel room. We can see through their respective fates which man was free and which was oppressed.

You just changed the subject and are wandering off into the psychology of overcoming trauma.
Which is "the right to do whatever is necessary to survive" - you figure out how to live with it.
But that does not change the fact that the child's artificial rights defined by society were taken by force.

a reply to: sraven

No, the subject is still "natural consequences" which the molester faced, even years after inflicting the trauma.

Geoff discovered a wonderful truth-- that the language of violence and force is ultimately impotent.

Yep, sounds about right.

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: sraven

No, the subject is still "natural consequences" which the molester faced, even years after inflicting the trauma.

Geoff discovered a wonderful truth-- that the language of violence and force is ultimately impotent.

I understand that you are the originator of the thread and you can make it be about anything you want however, in your original post you said

"We are all born with certain inalienable rights that no man can take from us. The right to our own body and the right to breathe and eat and feed our family is ours and ours alone."

Silly me, I thought that - inalienable rights - was the "subject" which is different than "natural consequences" although I would probably be of the same opinion . . . that natural consequences are significantly different than the artificial consequences imposed by society.

a reply to: sraven

Might be a bit of a roundabout way to get there, but to me evidence of our rights is maybe best seen when they are violated.
Hence the evidence of natural consequences when this happens.

a reply to: sraven

I think this is related to the concept of "negative rights", which are the only rights any of us have. This means the right to not be _____, as opposed to having the right to have _____. Nobody can make you do this or that or except this from you, as you are sovereign.