• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I have a "right" to...

I have a "right" to...

  • Total voters
    84
Catawba said:
Some peole seem to be under the mistaken impression that we have some kind of rights in this world. BS! We have temporary priviledges determined by your particular flavor of govermnent at the time.
Click to expand...
Funny you say that, given that our particular flavor of government directly disagrees with this proposition.
 
Catawba said:
Some peole seem to be under the mistaken impression that we have some kind of rights in this world. BS! We have temporary priviledges determined by your particular flavor of govermnent at the time.

George Carlin on our "Rights":

YouTube- George Carlin - Rights
Click to expand...

I bet you get your news from the Daily Show.
 
Goobieman said:
Funny you say that, given that our particular flavor of government directly disagrees with this proposition.
Click to expand...

Every flavor of government would disagree with Carlin's assessment. It's what Carlin correctly observes to be bull****, the glue that holds the world together!
 
the right to other peoples wealth isnt a right thats just if you get lucky, everything else makes sense. but they have the right but some people arent lucky enough to get all of them.
 
SE102 said:
inalienable |inˈālēənəbəl|
adjective
unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor : freedom of religion, the most inalienable of all human rights.
Click to expand...

The word, taken from the Declaration of Independence, is unalienable but it does mean inalienable meaning not to be separated or given away or taken away.

Again, if you spend any time at all reading throught he documents left behind by the Founders/signers of the Constitution, you will see that rights that are not to be separated or given away or taken away are what the Constitution is all about. It secures and defends those rights so that the people will then be free to form whatever society they wish to form. No person, no religion, no government authority, no politicial group at the Federal level has any power to take it from them.

And they identified nothing as an unalienable right that requires any involuntary participation or contribution by somebody else.

I wasn't aware that 'the american ideal' was a written document that was effective law
Click to expand...
.

"American ideal" is my metaphor for that irrefutable concept the Founders wrote into the Constitution as described just above.

Thats the declaration of independence :doh.
Click to expand...

Again we have to refer to the documents left behind by the Founders, but from those we see that the famous clause from the Declaration was transferred to the Preamble of the Constitution: " . . .and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

You cannot identify a single clause in the Constitution that affords authority to the Federal government to take any time, talent, property, options, or opportunity from one citizen for the benefit of another or some group or special interest. The Constitution limits government to perform the administrative and regulatory tasks assigned to it, provide the common defense, and promote the general welfare. The Founders were explicit that the general welfare referred to all citizens regardless of political or socioeconomic standing and not a selected few.
 
Catawba said:
Every flavor of government would disagree with Carlin's assessment.
Click to expand...
Then your statement that "We have temporary priviledges determined by your particular flavor of govermnent at the time" is unsupportable.
 
Goobieman said:
Then your statement that "We have temporary priviledges determined by your particular flavor of govermnent at the time" is unsupportable.
Click to expand...

How is that?
 
Catawba said:
How is that?
Click to expand...

Simple:
You claim that we have temporary priviledges determined by your particular flavor of govermnent at the time

You agree that our flavor of government directly disagrees with this proposition.

Thus, the government, according to itself, agrees that we have right, and that rights are not just 'temporary priviledges' given by said government.

That is, our government openly agrees with the argument that we DO have rights that are NOT granted by said government - and so, you are wrong.
 
Goobieman said:
Simple:
You claim that we have temporary priviledges determined by your particular flavor of govermnent at the time

You agree that our flavor of government directly disagrees with this proposition.

Thus, the government, according to itself, agrees that we have right, and that rights are not just 'temporary priviledges' given by said government.

That is, our government openly agrees with the argument that we DO have rights that are NOT granted by said government - and so, you are wrong.
Click to expand...

I makes no difference if the government agrees or not. As the Japanese Americans found out from personal experience, so called "government rights" are just temporary privileges that can be taken away at anytime.
 
Catawba said:
It makes no difference if the government agrees or not.
Click to expand...
Sure it does -- if the government disagrees that it is granting you privileges and agrees that you have rights that pre-exist government -- as our does -- then your proposition that we have no rights, only the privileges that the government gives us -necessarily- fails.
 
Goobieman said:
And yet, both were FAR harder to get than they are today. So much for that.

The main point here is that having a right to x does not equate to having the right to have x provided to you by others.
Click to expand...

Therefore, the states have no responsibility to provide polling stations during elections, the people have to set up and count the votes themselves?

Or, to maintain public forums for the expression of opinions? (aka, townhalls, freedom of speech, etc)

The exercise of rights requires the world be a certain way. Sometimes the world is that way naturally, other times things are not so convenient.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Sure it does -- if the government disagrees that it is granting you privileges and agrees that you have rights that pre-exist government -- as our does -- then your proposition that we have no rights, only the privileges that the government gives us -necessarily- fails.
Click to expand...

If you believe in the fairy tale of "rights" more power to you!!
 
Morality Games said:
Therefore, the states have no responsibility to provide polling stations during elections, the people have to set up and count the votes themselves?
Click to expand...
The right to vote, such as it exists, is a political right, and therefore requires action by the government to exercise it - just like the right to due process or the right to an attorney or the right to trial or to face your accuser. As such these rights exist ONLY because government exists, and are ONLY applicable to interactions with same. In this, the means to extercise these rights must be provided by the government, as that is the only way they CAN be exercised.

This is a completely different animal than the right to life, liberty or property, which are inalineable (or natural or whatever), not political rights. Having a right to thse things does not equate to having the right to have these things provided to you by others.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
If you believe in the fairy tale of "rights" more power to you!!
Click to expand...
Here's a news flash:
You believe in what you call a "fairy tail" as well.
 
Goobieman said:
The right to vote, such as it exists, is a political right, and therefore requires action by the government to exercise it - just like the right to due process or the right to an attorney or the right to trial or to face your accuser. As such these rights exist ONLY because government exists, and are ONLY applicable to interactions with same. In this, the means to extercise these rights must be provided by the government, as that is the only way they CAN be exercised.

This is a completely different animal than the right to life, liberty or property, which are inalineable (or natural or whatever), not political rights.
Click to expand...

I can't live, or have liberty, or have property if there is no domestic security. Somebody has to provide that security, and only the most powerful force will be able to consistently do so.
 
Morality Games said:
I can't live, or have liberty, or have property if there is no domestic security. Somebody has to provide that security...
Click to expand...
Yes. Ultimately, that task falls to you. if no one else provides it for you, then you are charged with providing it for yourself. If you fail, then you lose those rights to others who took them fom you.

None of this creates an argument that since you have the right to life that you have the right to have other provides you with food.
 
Goobieman said:
Morality Games said:
I can't live, or have liberty, or have property if there is no domestic security. Somebody has to provide that security...
{/quote]
Yes. Ultimately, that task falls to you. if no one else provides it for you, then you are charged with providing it for yourself. If you fail, then you lose those rights to others who took them fom you.

None of this crates an argument that since you have the right to life that you have the right to have other provides you with food.
Click to expand...

Unless it had a utilitarian benefit toward preserving other rights, or rather, toward preserving freedom, the precondition of all rights.
Click to expand...
 
Morality Games said:
Unless it had a utilitarian benefit toward preserving other rights, or rather, toward preserving freedom, the precondition of all rights.
Click to expand...
Not even then.
You have the FREEDOM to live. That's it. The rest is up to you, and no one else. Thats why they call it the pursuit of happiness, not the guarantee of happiness.
 
Goobieman said:
This is a completely different animal than the right to life, liberty or property, which are inalineable (or natural or whatever), not political rights.
Click to expand...



"inalineable" rights, or as most people call them, inalienable rights, are mythological in nature, nothing more.

There are no inalienable rights.
 
Goobieman said:
Not even then.
You have the FREEDOM to live. That's it. The rest is up to you, and no one else. Thats why they call it the pursuit of happiness, not the guarantee of happiness.
Click to expand...

Pursuing happiness assumes a capacity to pursue happiness; if people are not endowed with such a capacity, then a society which promises the right to be able to pursue happiness has to provide them with the capability.

Same thing with living. It assumes the capacity to live; if somebody can't defend themselves against attack because they are crippled, a society which promises the right to live must see to their defense.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
"inalineable" rights, or as most people call them, inalienable rights, are mythological in nature, nothing more.
There are no inalienable rights.
Click to expand...
Funny thing is, you dont believe this.
You'd be the first to scream like a stuck pig if someone tried to take your inalienable rights away.
 
Catawba said:
"inalineable" rights, or as most people call them, inalienable rights, are mythological in nature, nothing more.

There are no inalienable rights.
Click to expand...

well technically there are, sorry i have to disagree with you, but everyone has the right to anything they want to own, have, or acchieve, MOST people just arent lucky enough to acchieve their goals.
 
Morality Games said:
Pursuing happiness assumes a capacity to pursue happiness;
Click to expand...
No, it states that the freedom to do so exists.

That some may or may not be able to do it, or that some can do it better than others, in no way changes the fact that the freedom to do so exists.

Same thing with living.

Now...
if somebody can't defend themselves against attack because they are crippled, a society which promises the right to live must see to their defense.
Click to expand...
THIS is why we form government -- to protect out rights.
Protecting rights and providing the means to exercise them are not the sane,m thing.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
No, it states that the freedom to do so exists.

That some may or may not be able to do it, or that some can do it better than others, in no way changes the fact that the freedom to do so exists.

Same thing with living.
Click to expand...

Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, people have rights to those, but dont always acchieve them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom