You think you have rights?

reply to post by ExistenceUnknown


society trumps nature, just ask the rain forests.

EDIT: we are not in a state of nature, we are in a society. you say that there are elements in this society that have the authority to give or inhibit my happiness or dignity.

i ask you then, by what authority may they do this?

[edit on 8/12/08 by pieman]

reply to post by pieman


If you perceive nature as an immovable object then yes... However I could argue the opposite by saying.


Nature Trumps society just ask Katrina.

Remember nature will always get the last laugh. We are the result of it, not the other way around.

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by ExistenceUnknown

 

we are not in a state of nature, we are in a society. you say that there are elements in this society that have the authority to give or inhibit my happiness or dignity.

i ask you then, by what authority may they do this?

[edit on 8/12/08 by pieman]

No authority is required. Happiness and Dignity can all be taken from you. To say that they are a right is to say that you are entitled to happiness and dignity, Which in a moral society (Which is CREATED by man) you are entitled to these things because society follows this same thought. In nature you are entitled to nothing.

reply to post by ExistenceUnknown

we do have these rights, thats my point. we do not have an entitlement to these things, but we do have a right. it is up to us to use or waive that right. they cannot be justly taken from you.

a society is a product of it's parts, no part is of more value than the others in production of a society because by it's nature a society cannot exist, as it is, without every part of it.

because all parts of a society are equal, and of equal importance to the whole, no-one in a society has the authority to disrupt anothers pursuit of these things.



[edit on 8/12/08 by pieman]

The author is obviously trying to communicate the idea that "rights" are something you are supposed to have that are inviolable by the government, and it is THESE "rights" that the government is now violating. That is his point, not the philosophical "rights" that we have as virtue of being human, but rather the rights that are guaranteed us by our constitution, but which are now being regularly stripped away. Being shot, abused, or imprisoned for speaking against the government is socially the absence of the right of free speech. Just as we compare ourselves to other countries by saying we have the right to speak here but they dont there, we have the right to an attorney here, but they dont there.
Example, last year the UN voted on whether access to clean water should be a basic human right. It was vetoed naturally by western interests who had large corporate investment in bottled water, and so people in certain third world countries now have no rights to collect rainwater (Bolivia) or to drink from clean streams, etc. Hence, a "right" is something voted on, apparently by those in power and ostensibly to support corporate agenda.

Now, as we can see, and as the author is pointing out, our powers that be are deciding that the "rights" guaranteed us by our constitution have been deemed lately to be against corporate and government agenda, and so the wealthy elite that run our country has begun to refuse to recognize those "rights" that were declared self evident and universal in the past. Without government recognition, the only "right" you have is to be brutalized, persecuted, and perhaps murdered for standing up for your beliefs.

Originally posted by pexx421
Now, as we can see, and as the author is pointing out, our powers that be are deciding that the "rights" guaranteed us by our constitution have been deemed lately to be against corporate and government agenda, and so the wealthy elite that run our country has begun to refuse to recognize those "rights" that were declared self evident and universal in the past. Without government recognition, the only "right" you have is to be brutalized, persecuted, and perhaps murdered for standing up for your beliefs.

my point is that it doesn't matter if the government recognise these rights, they are self evident. it didn't matter in times past, they had to be fought for despite brutalisation, persecution and murder.

my point is that human rights are human rights, regardless of the recognition of governments or committees. these rights are not singly codified in any constitution or legislation, they are a product of our ability to reason and contemplate justice.

we have these rights because we are human, it is our prerogative to force government and elite to acknowledge them, not for government or elite to allow them.

pieman, your definition of rights in a society and all parts being equally important and no group being able to interrupt those rights are quite naive if you truly think that this is how our country runs. The huge consolidations of wealth and power in the hands of a few have severely disrupted the democratic process, as it always does, and put much more power into certain peoples votes than others have. In our great western society, it has been demonstrated again and again that you have as much freedom as you can afford.
Time and again, the minority of wealthy owners has controlled the rights of the many, often against the many's best interest, and in direct contrast to the many's desires. This IS the world we live in, its not a democracy, in fact its more of a fascist system, and truly always has been. The ideology that we are all equal and have the same power to vote is the rhetoric that has been used to keep the middle and lower classes in their place as they maintain the illusion of participatory government, but has really been a farce, as the majority of votes truly have nothing to do with any essential issues. We may vote locally to outlaw smoking in public, whether english is the official language, and whether people have the right to abortions.... however the poor and middle class are never truly engaged on the votes of whether we have tax reform, health care reform, wage war, or negotiate with dictators or despots. All these decisions are made by a small minority of our "elected representatives" none of which makes under 750000 a year, the majority of which are multi millionaires, and very few of which truly represent those who elected them. And while yes, you may choose to elect a different multimillionaire to represent you next term, they will continue to go on representing their own interests, as they have in the past, as the mid and lower classes growl in frustration and impotence as the government goes on restricting the rights of the future, tearing down the poors prospects of the future, waging wars that the public largely opposes, and telling the mid and lower class that its all for their own good. Naturally it is, and we, we poor and working poor are just too ignorant to know any better, just as we are too uneducated to make the decision to buckle our seat belts, or eat healthy foods, or give our lives for the corporations oil profits, and so it is a good thing we have these wonderful sheppherds to let us know how we are supposed to feel about these things, and how lucky we are to live in a land where health is on the decline, debt is constantly rising, and our freedoms that once were guaranteed by government are rapidly vanishing.

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with those that say that the ptb can't really take away your rights, or that our rights are "priviledges".
The govt. can't shut people up, they can't stop us from speaking our minds or from exercising our 2nd ammendment rights. They can't stop any of this. If they could, then there would be no crime since all criminals as well as the law abidding citizenry, would already have had their weapons taken away.

But have they succeeded in taking away this "priviledge"? Nope, if anything, they only exacerbate things. Gun sales went up just fairly recently, and apparently 45 Federal Reserve offices around the U.S. were staging grounds for protesters wanting to see the fed banned. They can't take away what is Innately (born with, as in, in nature) instituted in all human beings. We as humans are innately born wanting to express and communicate our ideas, or defend ourselves as well as our families (this too happens in nature, since the OP seems to think Nature trumps society). The govt. can't stop this no matter how hard they may try. If they do, then I can easily see people resorting to getting their weapons off the black market.

As other posters have said, you, yourself can subvert yourself into obeying the govt. But this doesn't mean there is an absence of your innately born rights. This too happens in nature, a wolf for example, looking to become the alpha male of the pack, can attack, fight and subvert the current alpha male and take his position. It's up to the current alpha male, to either fight and retain his position, of submit himself and let the challenger take his position.

As others have said, the rights can be ignored by the current govt. but this doesn't mean that they are not there, it doesn't mean they have been taken away. Heck, even if the govt. burned down the constitution, so as no one could read it, it doesn't mean that the rights are gone. People will still express their ideas and concerns, people will still try and defend themselves, whether from criminals or the police, people will still do their best to stop anybody from illegally going into their homes (4th ammendment) this is something that already innately exists within our psyche and our behavior as social animals that it won't stop even if the govt. wanted to.

a governments job is to do as the citizens tell them.
a citizens job is to tell the government what they want them to do.

the rich ensure that the government know what they want them to do. they donate to politicians and join political parties. they pay people to continuously remind politicians what they want.

the poor don't even vote.

it is our prerogative to make sure the government respects our human rights.

reply to post by Question


The more I read the more I believe you are confusing the word "right" with "ability":

Ability - power or capacity to do or act physically, mentally, legally, morally, financially, etc.

While the Wolf has the Ability to overturn his alpha male, He is not born with that right.

Rights - freedom, justice, and equality: the rights that are considered by most societies to belong automatically to everyone.

Our society says you are born with these rights. But with no Society comes no rights.

reply to post by pexx421


Yes thank you, that was the point that I was trying to make with the OP but we got sidetracked into this whole philosophical debate. Our founding fathers gave us these rights and now they are being infringed upon.

reply to post by ExistenceUnknown


Yes you might have a point there, and I think perhaps the founding fathers should have perhaps made that a bit clear. It doesn't change much of the fact though that your rights (or abilities) cannot be taken away. At least freedom of speech, freedom to defend yourself and yours, hell even the freedom to subvert the govt. and institute a new one cannot really be taken away from us (as stated in the constitution). We can be threatened and told we don't have them, but that's really up to the individual whether he believes them or not.

The Question now is, do we revert back to a more "dog eat dog" mentallity and try to take on the alpha male that is stomping on us? Do we flee the pack and make our own? (as some animals do) or do we submit ourselves to this cruel rule?

[edit on 8-12-2008 by Question]

Unfortunately we can do nothing but wait it out. The majority doesn't see this for what it really is. They will continue to give up their rights unknowingly in the name of security. As long as the majority thinks that the government is better off making our decisions for us (I.E. Seatbelts) then we will never fix this problem. All we can do is inform and hope that enough people get angry. Because like pieman posted below:

Originally posted by pieman
the rich ensure that the government know what they want them to do. they donate to politicians and join political parties. they pay people to continuously remind politicians what they want.

the poor don't even vote.

the rich have the money and the resources to ensure legislation they want gets passed. All we have is our voice and it far outnumbers their dollars if we can pull ourselves together.

way to confuse pieman, OP. i thought you were suggesting that are rights are given to us by the government, what are you suggesting?

reply to post by pieman


How have i confused you?

not a one liner

reply to post by ExistenceUnknown


You have a valid point as do others who say it is their rights set out by the rulebook.

One thing that gets under my skin however is this, look at it on an entirely basic level here, who chooses what to believe, who chooses to abide by the laws of society, who chooses to obey, who gives the government the power to decide laws and who pays taxes etc?

You!

Abandon the conditioning and see it for what it is, a topsy turvy little soup bowl of utter nonsense and once you truly see it then you will realise that there are no substance in any of the arguments if you choose to ignore and obandon their rulebooks entirely.

If you dont like it dont take part.

What is really in place to stop us abandoning all of this??

I bet someone is going to dish out some rules here that someone wrote saying he owns the food, he owns the land, he wrote that i cannot grow a cabbage in a patch of grass because mr x paid money for it.

If you are going to choose to play the game by their rules then you can never win.

Ill stop my rant here and hope you get my point.

Do not take this as an insult or anything offensive I am just trying to break through as much as possible without coming off too arrogant.

SF



[edit on 8-12-2008 by XXXN3O]

We all have total freedom. The concept of rights is more about the consequences of exercising our freedoms than anything else. No on can make me do anything, or stop me from doing anything, but they can enforce consequences.

I would suggest that dignity is exercising your freedoms regardless of consequences. If you fail to do that, then you have relinquished your "rights." No one can take them from you.

Originally posted by Alexander_Supertramp
Reminds me of the late George Carlin when he said that 'the Bill of Rights is really only a Bill of Temporary Privileges."

I hate to say it but I'm of the belief that we are not born with rights. If we were, who gave them to us? God? Which God? The argument falls apart once questions like these are raised. But, I do believe that people should have rights, and fight for them. We may not be born with them but that doesn't mean we can't do our best to try and get them, or in this case keep them.

This is a good example of the difference between Christianity, and Athiesm. You are born with God given rights. Athiests' believe there is no God, so they are not.
Athiests have no problem taking your rights away for their own selfish benefit.
Luciferians are a tad more realistic. They just don't like the way God does things, and want it done their own way. Some of them try to label Lucifer as a super intelligent alien that is just trying to do us humans right. They actually believe that. Other Luciferians know that Lucifer is the rebel leader of a huge war, and think that they can prevail. Lucifer knows better, and wants to take as many suckers down with him, as he can.
To hurt God.
Lucifer was never offered forgiveness, and so he and his fellow rebels resent humanity in general, and want to hurt God by doing as much damage as they can. God loves you, and wants you to help rule the universe. That is why all the interest by 'aliens' in this speck of dust. Never happened before.

I wont even reply to that "atheists vs. theists" garbage, as most people who believe in a thinking entity called god call anyone who has a different view of divinity atheistic.

On to the point, many of you work off of the assumption, that the alpha male dog in the example, or in this case the citizen, has the ability, as an above poster stated, to exercise their rights. How much of a right is it when you can be killed for it?

The whole point of our forefathers even stating the existence of "rights" was as something to be held sacrosanct by our government....not that they ever have, but that was the idea. I have a god given right supposedly, to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but what is that worth when the government (ie: many people with much money and firepower) disagree with me on that?
So basically what everyone here is saying is you have a right to die for your beliefs. Well WHOOOPTIE DOOOOO!!! that in one hand, sh!t in the other. its worth about the same.

The posters point was that our country espouses our great freedoms and guaranteed rights out one side of its mouth, promising to uphold them....but out the other side of its mouth it has stripped away our bill of rights. and no one, present company included as your all so tied up in your philosophy of rights, has even noticed, much less caused a stir about it.
I tell this to my friends every day, and they reply "if your not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about"....which reminds me of the old adage:

They came for the jews, but no one acted because they werent jewish
then they came for the russians, and the rest didnt act because they werent russian.
next they came for the italians, and i didnt act because i am not italian.
Now they come for me, and there is no one left to act on my behalf.

or something like that.

reply to post by pieman

All of your posts are entirely accurate. My brother was a county patrolman and is now a detective for a large northeastern city. He doesn't always agree with all he has to do to get a paycheck too support his family, but he will confirm privately that "No , you have no chance, the fix is in, you're screwed ." A good lawyer may reduce the damage, but he can't really fight D.A. and police lies in court, which is all judges goes by. And by the way, cops ARE trained to lie in court, as they won't be questioned thoroughly. A defendant has no chance even if he is completely innocent. And yet, cops can't understand why they aren't respected after they verbally and mentally abuse innocent citizens. This "lack of respect" argument blows my mind after what innocent citizens endure.
Funny, cops never respond with an INTELLIGENT ANSWER too refute these facts........................