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.
The task of assisting the many poor and hungry across the Nation, as a wealthy Nation, (yes we really still are) we should not have the problems we have. Before the social programs we have today be instituted we had people standing in soup and bread lines and people living in shanty towns, the charity of some Christians and Citizens was not enough and being the selfish people we are never will be enough
The claim that government had to do it, and thus, did it, is one you absolutely cannot support.
The idea that government has solved the problem of want... Is one that no honest person can even voice in jest, much less say with any credibility. Government has seriously harmed us, and we cannot see any benefit to this "assisting the poor", as people such as yourself have never stopped claiming the need for ever more, even though we are now bankrupt as a nation.
And, I would say it is YOU who is selfish. You want other people to fund your claim to being a good person and generous.
Pure Fantasy, the nobles you described never existed, anyone that true knows history knows this, you give the Nobles characteristics that they did not posses and make claims which are simply false. Like I said, nice fairy tail and something I am sure the children and grandchildren will love to hear told, but as an example of how the world really works it is not even close. Maybe you should try a different time frame or set of characters, that is if you can find a case where reality does not come into play.
Then what is your political discussion? Diktat of the powerful?
Quote:
In the real world, our rights under the Constitution were ratified.
You are 100% incorrect.
The REAL world, the Constitution formed the federal government, gave it a very few things to do, and relegated all other powers and duties to the people or their state governments. None of these created our rights, they ACKNOWLEDGED them and prohibited the federal government from violating them, or assuming any powers not given it in writing.
Quote:
We did, as a group, using democratic methods, grant ourselves the rights we chose.
This, too, is utterly false. Show me the debates and the poll-driven list of rights we 'gave' ourselves...and who was this "we"?
Quote:
We, as a group, have taken them away (prohibition), and granted them again (repeal of prohibition). This is how it works.
No, you're wrong again.
Quote:
We can philosophize to our hearts' content, but if we lose sight of reality, all the philosophy in the world becomes meaningless.
Not only have you no grasp of this reality, you have no philosophy of value to add, here.
But the slaves only respect the dishonorable rich. The slaves say no to welfare for the poor, no to high min wages, no to workers unions, and no to healthcare for all. The slaves only fight for their masters, to give their masters more money like this,
The fools write diatribes like the above. It can only be a fool who chooses to place other human beings in a different class than himself, thus justifying his effort to control others by his own whims.
Apparently rich people get to have the massive advantages of growing up and getting the opportunity to be rich in large part because of our country and its society, but by god if you want to improve that society or ask them to help fund it you are a thief.
Got it.
You are free to ask.
You are a thief when you do not ask, but simply take by mob action.
The problem with the concept of natural rights is that it is egocentric; i.e., it places the individual in the center of importance.
Who is? Politicians? The majority political party? If the purpose of governance is not to defend the rights and freedoms of the individual, the the ONLY purpose of government is accrue power, wealth, and control for the benefit of whoever is in control of said governance.
Quote:
It assumes, falsely, that man, as Locke espoused, has certain inherent rights; or, as Jefferson phrased it, unalienable rights.
It is not false.
Quote:
However, that is not how things are ordered.
That is the correct moral order.
Quote:
There are no inherent rights; there are no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights.
The Declaration of Indepdence says that there are certain inalienable rights. Among them are life...
The USSR had a constitution that declared the rights of the people.
The words "inherent" and "unalienable" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution.
No, they do not. And that's because they thought nobody was dumb enough to not know that. Thus, the Constitution refers to the rights of the people existing WITHOUT BEING ENUMERATED. The Constitution is based on the notion that the rights of the people exist superior to, and not because of, government.
Quote:
The framers of the Constitution created a nation of laws and not men. It is the recognition, from the time of Magna Carta to this day, that no person can be above the law; for it is not the individual that is sovereign, it is the law.
Do you realize that there is no law granting you the right to live? Yet, if there is ANY recognizable right, the right to live is the ultimate expression of it. Yet, there is no law that declares you have a right to live. We only have punishment for someone who takes away your right to live. Why? Because your right to live is neither in question, nor a legal privilege. It is inherent to YOU, as a result of being born.
Quote:
To say that one has a right to anything need must admit that such right exists by law.
I love it when your arguments are refuted so easily.
Quote:
Indeed, there is nothing in the varied course of human events, from the moment of life’s conception to the final disposition of one’s mortal remains and property after death, that is not governed by law.
That's because our government violates our rights with impunity. And you applaud.
Quote:
Natural rights are a fiction - a philosophical construct - airy nothings.
Actually, I'm inclined to say it's your arguments that fit that description.
Quote:
Real rights are legal rights; rights that are provided and protected by law.
Let's get back to that USSR Constitution that grants the rights of the people. What is the USSR famous for? The people having no real rights at all. Why? Because any government granted the powers to define our rights, are granted powers to define our rights - any way they wish, meaning the concept of a "right" is only whatever politicians wish it to mean at whatever moment they speak.
This is why our federal government was created with its structure. That it was given only certain powers - and whatever those powers were, that's all it could do. Thus, any legitimate government, is also limited. It is not granted the powers to define our rights, because our rights are inherent to being human. Its powers are to be only those which are necessary to restrain anyone else from violating our rights. Any authority given to define our rights, is also the grant of authority to remove all rights - and if our rights can be removed, they are not rights, but merely license from politicians to do as they wish.
Your philosophy leads to totalitarianism, irreversible, except by violence. Thus, it is not about rights, but merely a belief in the absolute power of government, cloaked in an irrational argument, for the purpose of disguising said belief.
Quote:
As Bentham put it: Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense - nonsense upon stilts." Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies (1816).
And what I just argued lays waste to such banal and dishonest assertions.
The problem with the concept of natural rights is that it is egocentric; i.e., it places the individual in the center of importance.
And what is wrong with this? The individual is important for they are center of creation, innovation and improvement of their lives and the lives of the people around them.
Quote:
It assumes, falsely, that man, as Locke espoused, has certain inherent rights; or, as Jefferson phrased it, unalienable rights. However, that is not how things are ordered. There are no inherent rights; there are no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights.
Wrong they do exist, they are their, and just denying this does not change this.
Quote:
The words "inherent" and "unalienable" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution created a nation of laws and not men. It is the recognition, from the time of Magna Carta to this day, that no person can be above the law; for it is not the individual that is sovereign, it is the law. To say that one has a right to anything need must admit that such right exists by law.
Rights do not exist by or are created by law, but protected by them..Wrong again Wendell.
Quote:
Indeed, there is nothing in the varied course of human events, from the moment of life’s conception to the final disposition of one’s mortal remains and property after death, that is not governed by law.
And that is a good thing...How?
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”
― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”
― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
“As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose--that it may violate property instead of protecting it--then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder.”
― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
“The mission of law is not to oppress persons and plunder them of their property, even thought the law may be acting in a philanthropic spirit. Its mission is to protect property.”
― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
Quote:
Natural rights are a fiction - a philosophical construct - airy nothings. Real rights are legal rights; rights that are provided and protected by law. As Bentham put it: Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense - nonsense upon stilts." Jeremy Bentham, Anarchical Fallacies (1816).
You are right, YOU dont have the natural right to speak your mind, now stop pollution this nation with your poison.
You hate liberty and rights so much? Why do you still live in at nation that was based on them and their protection?
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.
