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 21st, 2017, 08:22 AM   #81
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin View Post
it will mean nothing whatsoever, considering the plethora of stupid, idiotic, ignorant, dishonest and deceitful things that myriad people with legal educations and work experience have committed.
I've committed no such actions. Did you think about that?
discollector is online now  
Old October 21st, 2017, 08:48 AM   #82
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 642
Wow! These guys had a great take on my question:

https://freedomoutpost.com/declarati...t-or-congress/

A right is defined as:

"a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way"

https://www.bing.com/search?q=what%2...7A567D8869EC3A

So, what would make one entitled to a right?

Our government was founded on specific presuppositions. If one is a liberal, they will argue "rights" are social constructs. If, one the other hand, you interpret our laws the way the founders did, they had a Christian / biblical presupposition about where our Rights come from.

And that brings me to the most important link I've encountered thus far:


Principle 3. Unalienable Rights From God

Last edited by discollector; October 21st, 2017 at 09:43 AM.
discollector is online now  
Old October 21st, 2017, 08:51 AM   #83
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 22,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
I've committed no such actions. Did you think about that?
irrelevant

a mere recitation of legal education and work experience is proof of nothing
tristanrobin is offline  
Old October 21st, 2017, 09:39 AM   #84
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
And that brings me to the most important link I've encountered thus far:


Principle 3. Unalienable Rights From God
My comment: Some are natural, some were granted, all can be limited/taken.

Your link:
Quote:
Each Individual Consents to Some Limitations

8. In creating governments as their tools, or instruments, and equally in continuing to maintain them--for the purpose primarily of making and keeping their unalienable rights--all Individuals composing the self-governing people impliedly and in effect consent to some degree of limitation of their freedom to exercise some of their rights. This does not involve the surrender, or the alienation, of any of these rights but only the partial, conditional and limited relinquishment of freedom to exercise a few of them and solely for the purpose of insuring the greater security and enjoyment of all of them; and, moreover, such relinquishment is always upon condition that public officials, as public servants and trustees, faithfully use the limited powers delegated to government strictly in keeping with their prescribed limits and with this limited purpose at all times. It was in this sense that George Washington, as President of the Framing Convention in September, 1787, wrote to the Congress of the Confederation--in transmitting to it, for consideration, the draft of the proposed Constitution: ". . . Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest." Here he meant merely conditional relinquishment of liberty of action in the exercise of certain aspects of unalienable rights--not the surrender of any unalienable rights, which would be impossible because a nullity, a void act.

An Offender's Just Punishment

9. Whenever Man violates either the equal rights of others or the above-mentioned just laws, he thereby forfeits his immunity in this regard; by his misconduct, he destroys the moral and legal basis for his immunity and opens the door to just reprisal against himself, by government. This means that any person, as such offender, may justly be punished by the people's proper instrumentality--the government, including the courts--under a sound system of equal justice under equal laws; that is, under Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution). Such punishment is justified morally because of the duty of all Individuals--in keeping with Individual Liberty-Responsibility--to cooperate, through their instrumentality, government, for the mutual protection of the unalienable rights of all Individuals. The offender is also justly answerable to the aggrieved Individual, acting properly through duly-established machinery of government, including courts, designed for the protection of the equal rights of all Individuals.

It is the offender's breach of the duty aspect of Individual Liberty-Responsibility which makes just, proper and necessary government's punitive action and deprives him of any moral basis for protest. By such breach he forfeits his moral claim to the inviolability of his rights and makes himself vulnerable to reprisal by the people, through government, in defense of their own unalienable rights. By this lack of self-discipline required by that duty, he invites and makes necessary his being disciplined by government.
Again, my comment: Some are natural, some were granted, all can be limited/taken.

Now, where exactly is my comment wrong as you claim?
TreeDoc is offline  
Old October 21st, 2017, 09:40 AM   #85
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin View Post
irrelevant

a mere recitation of legal education and work experience is proof of nothing
You're being silly. Besides this isn't your fight AND another poster seemed to want to challenge me. You can't change the goal posts. Thank you for your input.

When others tap out with denials, you can't fix it for them by changing the goal posts.

Last edited by discollector; October 21st, 2017 at 10:04 AM.
discollector is online now  
Old October 21st, 2017, 09:44 AM   #86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
Wow! These guys had a great take on my question:

https://freedomoutpost.com/declarati...t-or-congress/

A right is defined as:

"a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way"

https://www.bing.com/search?q=what%2...7A567D8869EC3A

So, what would make one entitled to a right?

Our government was founded on specific presuppositions. If one is a liberal, they will argue "rights" are social constructs. If, one the other hand, you interpret our laws the way the founders did, they had a Christian / biblical presupposition about where our Rights come from.

And that brings me to the most important link I've encountered thus far:


Principle 3. Unalienable Rights From God
We're going to work around the trolls.

I normally don't agree with the Tea Party on some issues, but it appears they got this one right:

Where Do Our Rights Come From? U.S. Constitution Introduction ? Transcription of the Publius Huldah video
discollector is online now  
Old October 21st, 2017, 09:51 AM   #87
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
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)

If the Constitution does not grant a Right, it has no authority over it. When any human being jeopardizes the Rights of another human being, they are held accountable. That is not the same thing as government taking away your Rights; it is the government holding you accountable for your misuse and / or disregard for your Rights and the Rights of the victims of your actions.

The government cannot limit your life. That is left to you and God - and if someone else violates that Right, government acts in your stead to hold those accountable. In any event, government is not limiting your Right. Well, they do, but if we ever get beyond the trolls and establish the facts, it will be easier to see which government is operating out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption.
Your unalienable Rights absolutely cannot be limited or taken. It's in the meaning of the word itself:

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523

"Alienate - To transfer (property or a right) to the ownership of another, especially by an act of the owner rather than by inheritance"

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/alienated

Therefore, you cannot transfer your Rights to a government. It is the whole definition of the word unalienable.
discollector is online now  
Old October 21st, 2017, 09:57 AM   #88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 642
Jose Azel, in an article published in 2013 had some of the same questions:

"Are rights man-made, the social creation of a particular vision of society as Marxists claim? Or, are rights a self evident endowment of our Creator as Jefferson asserted? The question of whether rights are creations of particular societies, or independent of them, is fundamental to our stance on standards of moral conduct and political organization."

https://panampost.com/jose-azel/2013...hey-come-from/

I'm leaving the link so that you can determine where Rights come from. This is an issue where collectivists / Marxists / atheists will always be at war with the First Principles upon which our Republic rests.
discollector is online now  
Old October 21st, 2017, 09:57 AM   #89
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
Your unalienable Rights absolutely cannot be limited or taken. It's in the meaning of the word itself:

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523

"Alienate - To transfer (property or a right) to the ownership of another, especially by an act of the owner rather than by inheritance"

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/alienated

Therefore, you cannot transfer your Rights to a government. It is the whole definition of the word unalienable.
And yet your most important link I've encountered thus far: says
Quote:
Each Individual Consents to Some Limitations

8. In creating governments as their tools, or instruments, and equally in continuing to maintain them--for the purpose primarily of making and keeping their unalienable rights--all Individuals composing the self-governing people impliedly and in effect consent to some degree of limitation of their freedom to exercise some of their rights. This does not involve the surrender, or the alienation, of any of these rights but only the partial, conditional and limited relinquishment of freedom to exercise a few of them and solely for the purpose of insuring the greater security and enjoyment of all of them; and, moreover, such relinquishment is always upon condition that public officials, as public servants and trustees, faithfully use the limited powers delegated to government strictly in keeping with their prescribed limits and with this limited purpose at all times. It was in this sense that George Washington, as President of the Framing Convention in September, 1787, wrote to the Congress of the Confederation--in transmitting to it, for consideration, the draft of the proposed Constitution: ". . . Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest." Here he meant merely conditional relinquishment of liberty of action in the exercise of certain aspects of unalienable rights--not the surrender of any unalienable rights, which would be impossible because a nullity, a void act.

An Offender's Just Punishment

9. Whenever Man violates either the equal rights of others or the above-mentioned just laws, he thereby forfeits his immunity in this regard; by his misconduct, he destroys the moral and legal basis for his immunity and opens the door to just reprisal against himself, by government. This means that any person, as such offender, may justly be punished by the people's proper instrumentality--the government, including the courts--under a sound system of equal justice under equal laws; that is, under Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution). Such punishment is justified morally because of the duty of all Individuals--in keeping with Individual Liberty-Responsibility--to cooperate, through their instrumentality, government, for the mutual protection of the unalienable rights of all Individuals. The offender is also justly answerable to the aggrieved Individual, acting properly through duly-established machinery of government, including courts, designed for the protection of the equal rights of all Individuals.

It is the offender's breach of the duty aspect of Individual Liberty-Responsibility which makes just, proper and necessary government's punitive action and deprives him of any moral basis for protest. By such breach he forfeits his moral claim to the inviolability of his rights and makes himself vulnerable to reprisal by the people, through government, in defense of their own unalienable rights. By this lack of self-discipline required by that duty, he invites and makes necessary his being disciplined by government.
So you claim they can't after linking to your most important link that says they can.
TreeDoc is offline  
Old October 21st, 2017, 10:44 AM   #90
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 10,864
Unalienable doesn't look right to me. Do you mean inalienable?
Twisted Sister 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.