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 20th, 2017, 09:01 AM   #51
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDoc View Post
Then how can the Federal Govt put to death someone for treason, espionage, murder, etc. The states can also do it. They have done this since the inception of the US and long before dating back to 1608 and the first colony (Capital Punishment - Death Sentence - Captain George Kendall in the Jamestown colony of Virginia in 1608.), what makes you think they don't have the authority to do so, especially when one is condemned by a jury of his peers?

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/part-i-...-death-penalty
Have you bothered to read the many links I've left up? Here I'll help you out:

"...rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are "life, liberty, and property."

Locke believed that the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind. To serve that purpose, he reasoned, individuals have both a right and a duty to preserve their own lives. Murderers, however, forfeit their right to life since they act outside the law of reason.

Locke also argued that individuals should be free to make choices about how to conduct their own lives as long as they do not interfere with the liberty of others. Locke therefore believed liberty should be far-reaching.

... The purpose of government, Locke wrote, is to secure and protect the God-given inalienable (sic) natural rights of the people. For their part, the people must obey the laws of their rulers. Thus, a sort of contract exists between the rulers and the ruled. But, Locke concluded, if a government persecutes its people with "a long train of abuses" over an extended period, the people have the right to resist that government, alter or abolish it, and create a new political system
."

Natural Rights - Constitutional Rights Foundation

All that required was accessing a link left in post #35. Caveat: the words inalienable and unalienable were interchangeable during the lives of Locke and Jefferson... today not so much.

You have unalienable Rights; I have unalienable Rights. Governments are instituted so that if one person endangers the unalienable Rights of another, the person who ignores / endangers those unalienable Rights is held accountable.

You keep trying to dabble in absolute nonsense. Your argument is analogous to someone not wanting to give someone the death penalty for a mass shooter because the Bible says "thou shalt not kill." The argument you are trying to make is ridiculous. The Declaration of Independence provides:

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

If you were to endanger my Rights, morally I could use force to stop you. Just because you have Rights does not mean you can take the Rights away from another. This is the sum total of government - they did not create the Right, their purpose is to guarantee it AND to avoid confusion in society. Constitutionally, before the government can shoot you, hang you, poison you or fry you, YOU must have jeopardized / denied the unalienable Rights of another.

We both know where you're going to go with this, but it is childish and dishonest. Nobody is penalized until AFTER they have compromised the Rights of their fellow man under our Constitution.

Does it work out that way in practice? No, but then again, that is why we are having this discussion. Where do YOU get your Rights from?
discollector is offline  
Old October 20th, 2017, 10:07 AM   #52
Mayor of Realville
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
A 'right" you cannot or will not defend is meaningless.
If you fail to stand up for your own rights , then you are responsible for the meaninglessness of your own life.
Thanks from Sabcat and discollector
webguy4 is online now  
Old October 20th, 2017, 10:36 AM   #53
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 22,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
If you fail to stand up for your own rights , then you are responsible for the meaninglessness of your own life.
What did I just say???
Hollywood is online now  
Old October 20th, 2017, 12:05 PM   #54
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
If you fail to stand up for your own rights , then you are responsible for the meaninglessness of your own life.

I agree with you and I know where my Rights originate from.

When your Creator is the source of your Rights you are beholden to no man for the exercise thereof. The inability of people to understand the origin of Rights gives those who are dependent on government the pretext they need to deny the existence of those Rights.
discollector is offline  
Old October 20th, 2017, 12:54 PM   #55
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
Have you bothered to read the many links I've left up?
In fact I have, none dispute anything I have stated, in fact most of them agree with what I have stated. Now, have you bothered to comprehend your own links, or do you simply search phrases and then link to them thinking you have accomplished something?

Quote:
Here I'll help you out:

"...rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are "life, liberty, and property."

Locke believed that the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind. To serve that purpose, he reasoned, individuals have both a right and a duty to preserve their own lives. Murderers, however, forfeit their right to life since they act outside the law of reason.

Locke also argued that individuals should be free to make choices about how to conduct their own lives as long as they do not interfere with the liberty of others. Locke therefore believed liberty should be far-reaching.

... The purpose of government, Locke wrote, is to secure and protect the God-given inalienable (sic) natural rights of the people. For their part, the people must obey the laws of their rulers. Thus, a sort of contract exists between the rulers and the ruled. But, Locke concluded, if a government persecutes its people with "a long train of abuses" over an extended period, the people have the right to resist that government, alter or abolish it, and create a new political system
."

Natural Rights - Constitutional Rights Foundation

All that required was accessing a link left in post #35. Caveat: the words inalienable and unalienable were interchangeable during the lives of Locke and Jefferson... today not so much.

You have unalienable Rights; I have unalienable Rights. Governments are instituted so that if one person endangers the unalienable Rights of another, the person who ignores / endangers those unalienable Rights is held accountable.

You keep trying to dabble in absolute nonsense. Your argument is analogous to someone not wanting to give someone the death penalty for a mass shooter because the Bible says "thou shalt not kill." The argument you are trying to make is ridiculous. The Declaration of Independence provides:

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

If you were to endanger my Rights, morally I could use force to stop you. Just because you have Rights does not mean you can take the Rights away from another. This is the sum total of government - they did not create the Right, their purpose is to guarantee it AND to avoid confusion in society. Constitutionally, before the government can shoot you, hang you, poison you or fry you, YOU must have jeopardized / denied the unalienable Rights of another.

We both know where you're going to go with this, but it is childish and dishonest. Nobody is penalized until AFTER they have compromised the Rights of their fellow man under our Constitution.

Does it work out that way in practice? No, but then again, that is why we are having this discussion. Where do YOU get your Rights from?
Some are natural, some were granted, all can be limited/taken.

What is wrong in my comment, what in my comment doesn't say the same as any or all of your quoted phrases?

You keep moving goal posts (now it's "Murderers, however, forfeit their right to life since they act outside the law of reason." when prior you simply exclaimed "unalienable rights can not be taken, etc") when you are shown your comments are poorly written or flat out inanity, you admit to what you are saying can't be done, as being allowed to be done, and then turn right back around and deny it again.

Last edited by TreeDoc; October 20th, 2017 at 12:59 PM.
TreeDoc is offline  
Old October 20th, 2017, 07:39 PM   #56
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDoc View Post
In fact I have, none dispute anything I have stated, in fact most of them agree with what I have stated. Now, have you bothered to comprehend your own links, or do you simply search phrases and then link to them thinking you have accomplished something?


Some are natural, some were granted, all can be limited/taken.

What is wrong in my comment, what in my comment doesn't say the same as any or all of your quoted phrases?

You keep moving goal posts (now it's "Murderers, however, forfeit their right to life since they act outside the law of reason." when prior you simply exclaimed "unalienable rights can not be taken, etc") when you are shown your comments are poorly written or flat out inanity, you admit to what you are saying can't be done, as being allowed to be done, and then turn right back around and deny it again.
Had you bothered to READ the links and my many quotes, what you said has been proven to be erroneous, wrong, or whatever word you need to tell you that what you said is not true. I will do repost my replies and then you tell us what you do not understand.
discollector is offline  
Old October 20th, 2017, 07:46 PM   #57
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
Reposts for TreeDoc

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?
What part of absolute do you not understand?

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.". John Adams, founding father and second president of the United States

"Restrain - prevent (someone or something) from doing something; keep under control or within limits"

https://www.bing.com/search?q=restra...F4DA4E108FEA9C

If you cannot restrain something, you can't limit it. That is the meaning of the word. Do you need me to define the word absolute for you?
discollector is offline  
Old October 20th, 2017, 07:49 PM   #58
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
Had you bothered to READ the links and my many quotes, what you said has been proven to be erroneous, wrong, or whatever word you need to tell you that what you said is not true. I will do repost my replies and then you tell us what you do not understand.
You haven't proven anything I have said to be erroneous.
TreeDoc is offline  
Old October 20th, 2017, 07:52 PM   #59
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
Reposts for TreeDoc

Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
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.
TreeDoc, How can government limit something they did not give you? What do the terms absolute and unqualified mean to you in the above contexts? Of course I'm proving you wrong. Absolute is absolute. The government has NO CONSTITUTIONAL / LAWFUL / DE JURE AUTHORITY to limit something they never gave you in the first place.
discollector is offline  
Old October 20th, 2017, 07:54 PM   #60
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
Reposts for TreeDoc



What part of absolute do you not understand?

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.". John Adams, founding father and second president of the United States

"Restrain - prevent (someone or something) from doing something; keep under control or within limits"

https://www.bing.com/search?q=restra...F4DA4E108FEA9C

If you cannot restrain something, you can't limit it. That is the meaning of the word. Do you need me to define the word absolute for you?
I don't know if you are truly as stupid as you appear to be, but your own link says absolute rights are as "such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature", thus they are natural rights.

TreeDoc 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 02:47 PM
Clinton, Obama Promote Gay Rights As Human Rights Around The World Mom Gay and Lesbian Rights 22 December 8th, 2011 01:40 PM
Gay Animals in Nature tristanrobin Gay and Lesbian Rights 14 April 19th, 2010 04:12 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



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