Something that I really think is contributing to Americas Downfall

[dunks_galore]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

Wide range of issues?
I disagree.
The issue is very very simple:
Either government is there to secure your inalienable rights, or it is the source of those rights.
And if it is the source, you have no rights without government's permission.

To illustrate further, if you have an inalienable right to life, you can support that right by harmless action.

If you have no right to life, then you must have government's permission (license) to live, work, trade, and travel. You must pay a tax in order to work, trade, travel, and so forth.

You didn't respond to basically anything that I posted re: "right" and "left," and your eagerness to simplify things doesn't help matters. Nevertheless, I'll respond to what you've said.

The distinction between securing rights and being the source of them is not clear. What you describe as "inalienable rights" was the decision of a select group of individuals who created a legal document, not the unanimous will of the people en masse. If government is an entity which frees individuals from a state of existence which is lawless and has no recognition of these inalienable rights (Hobbes' "State of Nature"), is it the securer of these rights, the source of these rights, or both? The amendments to the Constitution, do they "create" rights, or secure them? Your notion of traditional authority seems defunct to me, and frankly, the notion of what rights people are due (and who is included in "the people) changes through time. You also set forth a notion of government which is absolutely external to the will of the people, as though people have no ability to participate in government.

This is all a pointless tangent; as I've already stated, this has nothing to do with the various differences between right and left, despite whatever you pull from Merriam-Webster.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by dunks_galore

You didn't respond to basically anything that I posted re: "right" and "left," and your eagerness to simplify things doesn't help matters. Nevertheless, I'll respond to what you've said.

The distinction between securing rights and being the source of them is not clear. What you describe as "inalienable rights" was the decision of a select group of individuals who created a legal document, not the unanimous will of the people en masse. If government is an entity which frees individuals from a state of existence which is lawless and has no recognition of these inalienable rights (Hobbes' "State of Nature"), is it the securer of these rights, the source of these rights, or both? The amendments to the Constitution, do they "create" rights, or secure them? Your notion of traditional authority seems defunct to me, and frankly, the notion of what rights people are due (and who is included in "the people) changes through time. You also set forth a notion of government which is absolutely external to the will of the people, as though people have no ability to participate in government.

This is all a pointless tangent; as I've already stated, this has nothing to do with the various differences between right and left, despite whatever you pull from Merriam-Webster.

Apparently, I will have to simplify it even more, so you can be satisfied.

Do you have a "Right to life", endowed by your Creator or do you have a "privilege to live", endowed by government?

If you have a "right to life" independent of the government, you have the right to do any harmless act in support of that life, without needing prior permission (unless upon another's property).

If you only have a "privilege to live", as endowed by government, you have no "right" to do anything and must get permission (license).

Under the original agreements, government was instituted to SECURE pre-existing rights. The creation of government did not create those rights.

It may be a simplification, but under the original terms, government was a means to mutually cooperate in defending inalienable rights to life, liberty and property ownership from attack by predators, parasites, and plunderers.

The leftist / slaver / pirate wing of philosophy would prefer its victims to surrender their rights and property without a tussle. And "socialism" is an ideal smoke screen to hide their predation.

• Socialism = theft by government and slavery, a "left wing" philosophy
• Republican form of government = people are sovereign, and government is their servant, helping secure their rights, a "right wing" philosophy

Again, feel free to use all manner of bafflegab to deflect.

[313Weather]

Originally Posted by CelticViking

...and something that just frankly is not fair...THERE ARE TOO MANY GOVT. WORKERS OUT THERE! Too many pensions we are having to pay for that are absolutely ridiculous. Too many state workers who get absolutely unreal salaries for doing NOTHING! This is crippling our economy. Many, many things could be priviatized that arent. Between the Beuracrats on the Federal level, and the state govt. workers who make sure "We go by the right code"...it is destroying us. I personally think that this is one of the worst things going on in America right now, and it isnt because simply my political beliefs are on the libertarian/conservative side of things. I think it is just an obvious problem. We the people are paying for many things we should not have to, and we the people are contributing to a lot of salaries that we should not have to. The avg. govt. worker makes somewhere north of 80 or 90 grand a year...for what? You look at what these people do, and tell me that there salary is legit...cmon...

Or perhaps it's too many corpoartions with overtly large executive board members that are making 10 times as much as they should.

Now see how easily I can spin that. That's how silly your topic is.