Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Based on what? Did the courts, the powers vested by the founders, decide that?
Nobody decides what rights you have or not. They always try to act like they can decide that, but they can't. Can people get together and decide that you don't have the right to live? They can say you have no right to be alive and kill you, but that doesn't make it okay. It's a violation of your rights as a human being.
Any person, government or not, who violates your rights is the bad guy. Your rights boil down to being left alone if you aren't harming others by force or fraud (and by extension, their property - what they have earned honestly).
With the exception of the UK, Canada and US pretty much all of them date from after 1946. Sweden for instance current government only dates to 1975 IIRC prior to that it was ruled by the monarch (acting on the advice of a cabinet), Denmark from 1953, now I know the countries existed prior to those dates, but they had different forms of government (Denmark switch from bicameral to unicameral in 1953 for instance).
That's not really a long track record. UK, US, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal have all had periods in their history where the people were oppressed and sometimes eliminated by their governments.
And let's be frank...
Japan...? government formed 1947 after we dropped two atomic bombs on them for being hideously evil further most westerners might be a little shocked at some of the laws in Japan and the powers of government.
Portugal? Military dictatorship 1926-1976
Brazil? Military dictatorship until 1985
Chile? Ever hear of Augusto Pinochet, it's in living memory.
Argentina? Right Wing military Junta in the 80's? Look up Jorge Rafael Videla, he was in office 1976-1981, he was guilty of pretty much everything a good dictator can be guilty of.
So, you've provided some really bad examples.
It's a pretty flawed argument from the OP....
Governments aren't inherently bad and are only as good as the people in charge.
Nobody decides what rights you have or not. They always try to act like they can decide that, but they can't.
Sure they can. They can banish, torture you, imprison you, kill you, fine, etc.
Quote:
Can people get together and decide that you don't have the right to live? They can say you have no right to be alive and kill you, but that doesn't make it okay.
Even when you break the rules?
In your hippie co-op, are there no penalties for breaking agreed upon rules?
Quote:
It's a violation of your rights as a human being.
How so? You don't think there are any actions of a human being can do where his right to life should be taken?
Quote:
Any person, government or not, who violates your rights is the bad guy. Your rights boil down to being left alone if you aren't harming others by force or fraud (and by extension, their property - what they have earned honestly).
Yea I prefer to live in the real world. For like the millionth time.... there's always that door to show yourself out but you prefer to stay..... and simply complain. You have that right.
Sure they can. They can banish, torture you, imprison you, kill you, fine, etc.
That has nothing to do with rights.
Quote:
Even when you break the rules?
In your hippie co-op, are there no penalties for breaking agreed upon rules?
Haha hippie co-op...nice. Of course there are penalties, but the only legitimate penalties are for those doing harm to other people. Penalizing peaceful people is the violation of rights I'm talking about.
Quote:
How so? You don't think there are any actions of a human being can do where his right to life should be taken?
Maybe I should have been more specific, but I assumed I didn't need to say this... As long as you're not initiating violence, stealing, or committing fraud (any action that creates a victim), you have the right to live freely. The only justification for force (in this case, killing someone) is in defense of yourself or others.
Quote:
Yea I prefer to live in the real world. For like the millionth time.... there's always that door to show yourself out but you prefer to stay..... and simply complain. You have that right.
And...I've shown why that argument is wrong a million times, but you choose to cling to it anyway.
A right is something that has to be enforced or defended. A right is something that has to be agreed upon. It was agreed upon what inalienable rights are.
Quote:
Haha hippie co-op...nice. Of course there are penalties, but the only legitimate penalties are for those doing harm to other people. Penalizing peaceful people is the violation of rights I'm talking about.
Maybe I should have been more specific, but I assumed I didn't need to say this... As long as you're not initiating violence, stealing, or committing fraud (any action that creates a victim), you have the right to live freely. The only justification for force (in this case, killing someone) is in defense of yourself or others.
Then why'd YOU bring up people deciding:
Quote:
Can people get together and decide that you don't have the right to live? They can say you have no right to be alive and kill you, but that doesn't make it okay. It's a violation of your rights as a human being.
I was confused.
Quote:
And...I've shown why that argument is wrong a million times, but you choose to cling to it anyway.
Remind me why.
You are the one saying everyone needs to get with YOUR program and how YOU believe people should behave. We both know what YOU believe won't happen unless civilization has to start over so why torture yourself living in place that will never suit you?
A right is something that has to be enforced or defended. A right is something that has to be agreed upon. It was agreed upon what inalienable rights are.
Then why'd YOU bring up people deciding:
I was confused.
Remind me why.
You are the one saying everyone needs to get with YOUR program and how YOU believe people should behave. We both know what YOU believe won't happen unless civilization has to start over so why torture yourself living in place that will never suit you?
And who exactly agreeded upon these rights other then white men
A right is something that has to be enforced or defended. A right is something that has to be agreed upon. It was agreed upon what inalienable rights are.
People agreeing on what your rights are doesn't have any effect on it. That's why they're inalienable...even if everyone but you decides you don't have the right to do something peaceful, you still have the right to do it. They can (wrongfully) punish you for it, which is tyranny, but that's just a violation of your right to do it.
If you use the argument that people need to agree on your rights for them to be rights, that justifies anything the majority wants to do to you. They decide you don't have rights because you're black, that means you truly don't have any rights. If they decide that all non-Christians are savage devil worshippers who have no rights, then it's okay to kill them or whatever they decide they want to do.
Quote:
Then why'd YOU bring up people deciding:
I was confused.
I said they can't decide what your rights are. Rights are not something people just make up. They discover/learn/understand them using logic, reason, philosophy...which I can't explain in a concise post right now, but I've taken the time to learn it over the past couple years out of curiosity.
Quote:
Remind me why.
You are the one saying everyone needs to get with YOUR program and how YOU believe people should behave. We both know what YOU believe won't happen unless civilization has to start over so why torture yourself living in place that will never suit you?
I think the last time I asked you to clarify what you think the social contract is, or to tell me where I'm wrong...the version I get from people all the time is that I somehow consent to the rules of society by not moving. One of a few problems with that is that you can justify any action of a government against its own citizens. They didn't move, so that means they consented to it.
And no, it isn't my program. I have no program for anyone to follow. I want everyone to follow their own programs as long as they aren't initiating force or stealing. I don't care what anyone does outside of that. You can even form your own government...just don't force others into it. No need for civilization to start over.
And who exactly agreeded upon these rights other then white men
Nobody needs to agree. You have inherent rights as a human being who owns herself/her body. If you lived in a society where women were the minority and the men agreed that you didn't have the right to stop them from having sex with you, does that mean you don't have that right?
You do have that right, even if they tell you you don't, because you own yourself, not them.
Western governments were more oprressive 500 years ago than they are now - so I totally disagree. The US government used to support the enslavement of some of its citizens.
The IRS & income based taxing enslaves us today, does it not?
And who exactly agreeded upon these rights other then white men
They are natural rights the laws of nature, that define and separate the individual from bondage to the collective.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
