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.
Not advocating for universal rights does not make you a socialist. This is based on the definition of socialism. I wouldn't even say it makes you a collectivist or left wing.
ENDOWED RIGHTS are not "universal rights."
If you do not own yourself, your labor, the fruits of your labor or your land, who does?
If you cannot produce, trade and enjoy those fruits without paying tribute to another, you have no "right" to live, work, trade, or own.
. . .
COLLECTIVISM - the socialist principle of control by the people collectively, or the state, of all means of production or economic activity.
SOCIALISM - a theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively or by the government.
COMMUNISM - a theory or system of social organization based on holding all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community or to the state.
. . .
All such “isms” are opposed to the INDIVIDUAL ownership of private property.
"PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217.
"OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. "
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106
Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
LAND. ... The land is one thing, and the ESTATE in land is another thing, for an ESTATE in land is a time in land or land for a time.
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.877
PROPERTY TAX - "An ad valorem tax, usually levied by a city or county, on the value of real or personal property that the taxpayer owns on a specified date."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1218
Of course, qualified ownership of estate (i.e."real estate") is subject to an ad valorem tax. But no American government can levy a tax upon private property.
So either you can absolutely own (an endowed right and constitutionally protected) or you can only have qualified ownership (a revenue taxable privilege) subject to the government.
Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, people have Creator endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure. That is America's definition of "Traditional" government.
LEFT WING - the section of a political party, government or group that holds the most left or radical views.
- - - Webster's Dictionary
RIGHT WING - the section of a political party, government or group that holding the views of the Right.
- - - Webster's Dictionary
THE RIGHT - that section of a political party ... which associates itself with traditional authority or opinion and which in legislative bodies is seated traditionally to the right of the presiding officer.
- - - Webster's Dictionary
THE LEFT - that section of a political party ... which differs most from traditional authority or opinion and which in legislative bodies is seated traditionally to the left of the presiding officer.
- - - Webster's Dictionary
Is that clear?
Left = opposition to traditional authority
Right = support of traditional authority
In America, all groups opposed to Creator endowed rights are LEFT WING.
So-called "right wing" groups that oppose endowed rights are actually LEFT WING.
:-:-: RIGHTS SUPREMACY :-:-:
- - - It’s an endowed thing - - -
I am an advocate of rights supremacy - Creator endowed rights trump government granted privileges.
The world is divided into those who are content with their endowment, and those who want to take away other people’s endowment for their own benefit.
. . .ANTI-FA / SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS / KKK / NEO-NAZIS. . .
FWIW : the leftist Anti-fa / Social justice warriors are no different from the leftist white supremacists / neo-Nazis - same goal : a tax and bribe socialist government - but with different beneficiaries.
Neither group supports Creator endowed rights for all men. Both groups espouse violence and intimidation to achieve their goals. Both claim to be “champions of the oppressed.”
We’re not fooled. Both groups are but opposite wings of the same vulture feeding on America’s carcass.
. . . LET FREEDOM WING . . .
If you prefer Creator endowed rights* you may be a FREE WINGER.
(* Rights to life, natural liberty, personal liberty, inherent powers, absolute ownership, privileges and immunities not dependent upon consent, etc.) I am not sure any other "wing" advocates securing endowed rights for all men.
One wing is advocating "tax and bribe" and the other is advocating "bribe and tax." The only difference are the recipients and the donors, all under glorious collectivism, perpetually bankrupt, and enforced by a “benevolent” Totalitarian Police State.
In the Declaration of Independence, it states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
There is nothing open to controversy - Creator endowed rights are self-evident. Rights to life (and all harmless acts in support thereof), liberty (natural and personal), and the pursuit of happiness (which replaced the original ownership of private property - so as not to antagonize those without property) are our endowment that American governments were instituted to secure - not tax, regulate or infringe.
That government is the servant of the sovereign people, and its citizens are servants of the servant. We know this because the Declaration of Independence ends with: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” The Founders who established the government surrendered their sovereignty (lives, liberty, property, etc.) to serve the government they instituted, as do all subsequent citizens. That is why mandatory civic duties that abrogate endowed rights are legal, via consent of the governed (subject citizens).
So let's not be fooled by wing flapperism, and the demagogues who whip up the mob.
America's governments were instituted to secure Creator endowed rights and only govern those who consent. Which means any imposition of compulsory or mandatory civic duties, rules, regulations, etc, had better be authorized by consent of the governed, otherwise the government is in violation of the prime directive - secure Creator endowed rights, and nothing more.
I'll believe your creator-endowed rights spiel when I hear you defend those rights for non-Americans -- muslims, illegal immigrants, suspected terrorists, criminals, etc.... Show me someone who spouts that creator-endowed rights spiel, and I'll show you someone who wants to make exceptions to recognizing who benefits from those rights.
If you do not own yourself, your labor, the fruits of your labor or your land, who does?
If you cannot produce, trade and enjoy those fruits without paying tribute to another, you have no "right" to live, work, trade, or own....
. . .
Before I proceed, can you specify please - what's the difference between "endowed" and "universal" rights?
I'll believe your creator-endowed rights spiel when I hear you defend those rights for non-Americans -- muslims, illegal immigrants, suspected terrorists, criminals, etc.... Show me someone who spouts that creator-endowed rights spiel, and I'll show you someone who wants to make exceptions to recognizing who benefits from those rights.
There is no contradiction.
A government delegated power to secure endowed rights means adjudicating disputes, prosecuting criminals and defending against enemies, foreign and domestic.
Islam is opposed to endowed rights in infidels, ergo, in violation of American law.
Illegal immigrants are trespassers, and law breakers, and as such, are fugitives from justice - an excepted class.
Suspected Terrorists can mean many things - but one who has intent to violate endowed rights of others is a criminal, and it is within the delegated power of government to defend against them.
Criminals: If you refer to convicted felons, they forfeit their rights upon conviction. Suspects are subject to due process.
Islam is at war with all infidels
“We took the liberty to make some enquiries concerning the ground of their pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador [of Tripoli] answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
- - - Thomas Jefferson, Letter from the commissioners (John Adams, Thomas Jefferson) to John Jay, 28 March 1786, in Thomas Jefferson Travels: Selected Writings, 1784-1789, by Anthony Brandt, pp. 104-105.
"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE EXCEPTED, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; ...."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]
TOLERANCE OF EVIL IS UNMERCIFUL TO THE NEXT VICTIM.
There is no contradiction.
A government delegated power to secure endowed rights means adjudicating disputes, prosecuting criminals and defending against enemies, foreign and domestic.
Islam is opposed to endowed rights in infidels, ergo, in violation of American law.
Illegal immigrants are trespassers, and law breakers, and as such, are fugitives from justice - an excepted class.
Suspected Terrorists can mean many things - but one who has intent to violate endowed rights of others is a criminal, and it is within the delegated power of government to defend against them.
Criminals: If you refer to convicted felons, they forfeit their rights upon conviction. Suspects are subject to due process.
Islam is at war with all infidels
“We took the liberty to make some enquiries concerning the ground of their pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador [of Tripoli] answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
- - - Thomas Jefferson, Letter from the commissioners (John Adams, Thomas Jefferson) to John Jay, 28 March 1786, in Thomas Jefferson Travels: Selected Writings, 1784-1789, by Anthony Brandt, pp. 104-105.
"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE EXCEPTED, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; ...."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]
TOLERANCE OF EVIL IS UNMERCIFUL TO THE NEXT VICTIM.
Even the convicted or guilty have rights, and any curtailing of those rights is supposed to happen AFTER A TRIAL. Like I said, pure hypocrisy and nonsense from the usual suspects. Preach on thing, but damned if they don't try to make exceptions as easy as possible.
Natural and legal rights are two types of rights. Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system (i.e., rights that can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws).
Human rights are moral principles or norms that describe certain standards of human behaviour, and are regularly protected as legal rights in municipal and international law. They are commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being,"
“All human rights are indivisible, whether they are CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS*, such as the right to life, equality before the law and freedom of expression; economic, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS, such as the rights to work, SOCIAL SECURITY and education, or COLLECTIVE RIGHTS, such as the rights to development and self-determination, are indivisible, interrelated and INTERDEPENDENT. The improvement of one right facilitates advancement of the others. Likewise, the deprivation of one right adversely affects the others.”
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the RIGHT TO SOCIAL SECURITY and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
...
No mention of NATURAL and PERSONAL LIBERTY, nor of absolute ownership of PRIVATE PROPERTY. And the right to life is not a civil nor a political right / liberty dependent upon government, but an inalienable right endowed by our Creator.
...
Instead, we see collectivism, income redistribution, denial of absolute ownership, and inferior civil / political liberties (aka “rights”). In other words, a sly trap to dispossess and enslave.
...
* Civil and political “rights” are actually “liberties.” People have endowed rights. Government has delegated powers, not rights. Government grants privileges, often misnamed rights. But government has no power to grant that which it does not have.
If you use "Universal Rights" as interpreted by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, you're actually opposed to "Creator endowed rights" and advocating collectivism, benevolently administered by the glorious state.
Even the convicted or guilty have rights, and any curtailing of those rights is supposed to happen AFTER A TRIAL. Like I said, pure hypocrisy and nonsense from the usual suspects. Preach on thing, but damned if they don't try to make exceptions as easy as possible.
INCORRECT CONCLUSION.
After conviction, no rights. They have government granted privileges (misnamed rights) under due process. But it is self evident that once convicted, one may not be "at liberty," or even be denied his "right to life" by execution. If you have no right to life, liberty, property ownership, etc., you're no longer in possession of endowed rights.
INCORRECT CONCLUSION.
After conviction, no rights. They have government granted privileges (misnamed rights) under due process. But it is self evident that once convicted, one may not be "at liberty," or even be denied his "right to life" by execution. If you have no right to life, liberty, property ownership, etc., you're no longer in possession of endowed rights.
Do not believe me, go read the law for yourself.
Dig dig dig. You didn't contest the point that those rights are in place until a conviction, so I assume you agree. So on to your other point, your case is that gov't can strip God-given rights by laws they pass...?
Dig dig dig. You didn't contest the point that those rights are in place until a conviction, so I assume you agree. So on to your other point, your case is that gov't can strip God-given rights by laws they pass...?
Close - - - more succinctly, you have endowed rights to life, liberty, yada yada.
BUT
You have no right to trespass upon the rights of another.
If you do, the injured party can petition government (give consent) to stomp you (legally), via filing a criminal complaint (or tacit consent if a corpse).
NATURAL LIBERTY - The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature. The right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner in which they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere in the equal exercise of the same rights by other men. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 123,
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth edition, p.919
Your endowment includes the power to do whatever you want over that which is YOURS. Beyond your domain, you do not have that liberty, and may be a trespasser. And government is delegated power to secure rights of the injured party.
Which can be summed up as :
"What's yours is yours, what's mine is mine, don't trespass. If you do trespass, my servant government will smite you ferociously!"
. . .
Natural and legal rights are two types of rights. Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system (i.e., rights that can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws).
Human rights are moral principles or norms that describe certain standards of human behaviour, and are regularly protected as legal rights in municipal and international law. They are commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being,"
“All human rights are indivisible, whether they are CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS*, such as the right to life, equality before the law and freedom of expression; economic, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS, such as the rights to work, SOCIAL SECURITY and education, or COLLECTIVE RIGHTS, such as the rights to development and self-determination, are indivisible, interrelated and INTERDEPENDENT. The improvement of one right facilitates advancement of the others. Likewise, the deprivation of one right adversely affects the others.”
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the RIGHT TO SOCIAL SECURITY and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
... No mention of NATURAL and PERSONAL LIBERTY, nor of absolute ownership of PRIVATE PROPERTY. And the right to life is not a civil nor a political right / liberty dependent upon government, but an inalienable right endowed by our Creator.
...
Instead, we see collectivism, income redistribution, denial of absolute ownership, and inferior civil / political liberties (aka “rights”). In other words, a sly trap to dispossess and enslave.
...
* Civil and political “rights” are actually “liberties.” People have endowed rights. Government has delegated powers, not rights. Government grants privileges, often misnamed rights. But government has no power to grant that which it does not have.
If you use "Universal Rights" as interpreted by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, you're actually opposed to "Creator endowed rights" and advocating collectivism, benevolently administered by the glorious state.
Where did you find the connection here, I am sorry, between the "right to life" and "absolute ownership of the private property?"
And where these "Creator endowed rights" came from? I mean where is the proof that certain rights are "endowed" by Creator personally?
I can understand somewhat the reference to "God" himself, when it comes to the "Divine right of kings" because we can find the traces of it in the bible.
But when it comes to Republicans "Creator endowed rights," - they are as much "endowed" as of those "Socialists" in Europe, or even Communists if you wish.
So no, things don't add up in your post, sorry.
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.
