Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy

Philosophy For discussion about general and fundamental problems connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language


Thanks Tree30Thanks
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 19th, 2017, 11:39 AM   #11
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 28,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
So, do you believe that might makes right? If some have the power to force you to do what they want, that is the way a society should work?
What rights do people have that live in totalitarian regimes? This is not a discussion about what should be rights but a discussion about what rights are.

But that's way to subtle a differentiation for you, I know.
Thanks from Clara007
RNG is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 11:40 AM   #12
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by iolo View Post
The fact that our ancestors wanted them, fought and died for them, and the fact that we still might. Where else could they come from?
The presuppositional foundation America was built upon is that your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) bestows on you unalienable Rights. These are known as First Principles.

The object of our government was to enter into a Social Compact and government, in the form of a Republican government, would guarantee those Rights.

The man the founders most quoted was John Locke. According to my research:

"Locke explained that in a state of nature men and women were free to pursue and defend there own interests, which resulted in a brutal state of war. To escape this warfare, individuals established government to secure the peace. Locke noted that there could be “no freedom” without a Social Compact of laws, because “liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be where there is no law.”

Unlike his English rival Thomas Hobbes, Locke argued that because governments were instituted to protect the unalienable rights of individuals, they had no power other than what was necessary to protect such rights. In other words, a free and just government was necessarily a limited government
."

John Locke, the Social Compact, and the Founding Fathers
Thanks from Sabcat
discollector is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 11:44 AM   #13
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
What rights do people have that live in totalitarian regimes? This is not a discussion about what should be rights but a discussion about what rights are.

But that's way to subtle a differentiation for you, I know.
Since I started this thread, I get to decide what it is about. You can't censor me here, RNG.

The United States has given more military support, money, and missionaries to the various nations of the world in order to defend Liberty and Rights than all other nations combined. As a free people, we cannot export the ideals of Freedom and Liberty if we don't practice them at home.
discollector is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 12:30 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

Another court ruling went further in their ruling:

By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {unverified}

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

".The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence". United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

You have a Right to Life. Somebody can take it, but they will be held accountable. That was not the question. The question is, from where do you get YOUR Rights?
The question was answered, nothing you quoted changes anything I wrote.

Some are natural, some were granted, all can be limited/taken.
TreeDoc is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 12:37 PM   #15
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDoc View Post
The question was answered, nothing you quoted changes anything I wrote.

Some are natural, some were granted, all can be limited/taken.
If you think you have a point, you failed to make it.
discollector is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 12:43 PM   #16
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 28,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
Since I started this thread, I get to decide what it is about. You can't censor me here, RNG.

The United States has given more military support, money, and missionaries to the various nations of the world in order to defend Liberty and Rights than all other nations combined. As a free people, we cannot export the ideals of Freedom and Liberty if we don't practice them at home.
So in this case it's the US government at least attempting to give these rights to people. Thanks for the affirmation of my position.
RNG is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 12:44 PM   #17
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 28,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDoc View Post
The question was answered, nothing you quoted changes anything I wrote.

Some are natural, some were granted, all can be limited/taken.
What do you see as "natural" rights?
RNG is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 12:49 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
If you think you have a point, you failed to make it.
:YAWN:

Nothing you quoted changed what I wrote.
TreeDoc is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 12:51 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
What do you see as "natural" rights?
Natural rights are nothing more than the right to life, liberty, and property. The DoI calls them inalienable/unalienable rights.
TreeDoc is offline  
Old October 19th, 2017, 12:52 PM   #20
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
One Right that the founders and early courts ruled in favor of as an absolute Right was the Right to keep and bear Arms.

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth in 1822. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_..._United_States

The next time that issue was looked at was in 1846 in the state of Georgia:

The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

Shortly thereafter, Texas weighed in:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."
-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.
..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"
. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

It's amazing that the wording of the Second Amendment has not changed, but the laws have. I would submit that is because the people have not been fully informed as to where their Rights come from.
discollector is offline  
Closed Thread

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy

Tags
nature, rights



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is it nature or LongWinded Philosophy 3 September 13th, 2015 03:47 PM
Clinton, Obama Promote Gay Rights As Human Rights Around The World Mom Gay and Lesbian Rights 22 December 8th, 2011 02:40 PM
Gay Animals in Nature tristanrobin Gay and Lesbian Rights 14 April 19th, 2010 05:12 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.