Inherent rights, do they exist.

But a policeman shooting a black guy in the back while running away is not going to say its coz I think blacks are worthless scum, atleast not in public.

 

You are right there, it would be hard to tell. But at the same time, if that wasn't the case, I think it is wrong to label him as racist. There are not any perfect solutions. I just think we should be VERY careful what we label as racism, and what isn't, because with all the division and how everyone is on edge, I think it can make the situation a lot worse. We need to find the truth in each situation, and not rush to judgement to score points for "our side", whichever that may be. But yeah, on the other hand, if it actually is racially motivated, that needs to be exposed and punished, for sure.

 

Here's the problem with your diatribe here. You seem to believe you have some contextual authority here. You don't. Simply put, Rights are inherent. They do not need to be derivative of the divine. You admit as much. But when you have to define rights as grants given by the collective, that's where you fail. Simple. To protect our natural rights, we join with others. Those rights aren't then granted because we joined. That is your failing here. The idea that you cannot, nor will not accept that your membership in the group doesn't grant you rights, is problematic at best. Where do the rights end then? When the group demands that some have more rights than others, you're simply demonstrating the point, and the abuse of that process, vis a vis slavery. Your position is the beginning where slavery can exist.

Yes, all men, including those captured by their african tribe mates in africa were free when they were enslaved. It takes your perversion of rights to get to that. It requires the fallacy of authority to overcome the rights of others. As you have. And what then has to be fought over is the destruction of those, like you, who feel their member group are the authority of how folks obtain their rights. You really are quite the little tyrant aren't you....

 

There is a pattern here. A general misunderstanding then of what inalienable, or inherent rights are. We unite because it improves our ability to defend our rights. The right of the group doesn't extend those rights to us. It defends them for us. Not understanding this is why this conversation ends where it does, for those who follow the rights of the group and not the liberty of the individual. Our founders understood this, and declared it and then encased it in law to enforce the idea that the individual is the source of all authority. I get that you might not want to live that way. I understand that individual freedoms requires work, and effort, and sometimes sacrifice. None of the things modern folks believe in any more. The state doesn't give you rights. Simple as that. The state protects your rights. Simple as that. If you choose to ignore that, it generally always ends in tyranny. History shows us this is truth. It is when people fail to exercise their rights that they are lost to them.

Bad behavior, is a function of the law. You seem to not understand this. You misconstrue bad behavior as an inherent right. And that's why your line of reasoning fails. If you believe you can do all of these things unabated, what stops you from otherwise imposing your will on others? If you believe those rights were provided to you by your association to your group, that's where your problem, and the need to restrain your bad behavior begins. And when the group decides that they can become more privileged than you? Then what? By your reaosoning, you didn't enjoy the right not to be oppressed, did you. This is what I find so unappealing about so many of this nations younger folks. They simply don't understand what a right it. Because of poor absent parenting, the notion of civility and social graces were not taught, and now we see folks who demand that their arson of a building, or theft from a store because one is angry suddenly are a set of rights that their participation in some ridiculous groups extended them.

 

Again, you simply have no understanding of history or society when you claim that all men were born free. Thousands of
Black Americans were BORN into slavery in this country - and they died in that same state of slavery. Acknowledging
that REALITY in no way condones it.

And you completely ignore the use of "inherent rights" as used by white supremacist, Nazi, black power, and 4,000 years
of monarchs and Emperors as justification for all types of atrocities against fellow humans. Your argument is
based in ignorance and arrogance.

 

Standards are human creations. "Rights" are part of human standards.

 

In this case the only way to judge is to look at the behaviour of the officers in the force and see if there is any pattern. Its why many of us see some US police forces as institutionally racist, the number of incidents reported, recorded and filmed raises serious concern.

 

And, as stated, it was wrong. Which is like folks like me went to war against folks like you to stop the slavery. How many times are you going to ignore this? If folks like you who choose to derive their rights from your group act badly like implementing slavery and your team did, why are you thrashing around trying to ignore the obviousness of that observation? Yes, democrats acted like entitle Shytes, and enslaved people which was inhumanely wrong, just as it's wrong today when democrats insist on flooding this nation with undocumented and unskilled folks who then have to work in the shadows and yet it is still democrats whipping that post to get more to come. Your view of rights is that if your team get to craft the rules, and enact the plays, it's all good, and yet, we still run smack back into your team's penchant for slavery of any moment where choosing to ignore inherent rights gives your team the entitlement to make whatever rules about rights it wants. That is you're fallacy. No one is going to ignore what you're doing here. And when you cry, oh not me, yes, it is you. The very second you take on the role of authority of who's rights, you choose that mantel. You were never a republican. I guarantee that..

 

You seem confused. So, like many places in the world, folks decide you don't have rights anymore, because they got to define what the standards are, will you cry? What will you do then? You seem to ignore the idea that inherently we are free. As individuals, we are not brought to life to suffer the oppression of others. Get used to being challenged. This is NOT China.

 

The disconnect here is that rights are simply a human construct. They do not exist outside of this. I agree people ought to have certain rights. But there is nothing inherent, inalienable or divine about them. People decided that they want certain rights, and fought wars to secure them. You only have those rights that you can actually defend.

 

Your demagoguery knows no bounds, does it? Answer the question. If police unions are democratic party participants, fund democratic party leaders, and their leadership imposes dependency and the police are used to enforce it, do you subscribe that this perhaps is the model that you're referring to?

If not, then what? What mechanism do you insert into society to ensure the tranquility of the land, if not the police? If police are being used to oppress, why won't you express that thought here? You suggest its officers of the law who acting absent direction are the institution. Your notion is horribly flawed. When a police union enacts protections for itself to create a reservation of privilege because it attempts to protect itself from the burden of the law, do you expect there won't be abuses of the law? And who protects the unions?

It occurs to me that frankly, the most obvious place that we find institutionalized racism is embedded deeply in the university system. That's where it has suddenly become acceptable to advance and privilege folks based only on their social justice labels. Organizations like BLM and ANTIFA. Racist organizations who actively target and attack folks who aren't black. And when confronted with actual immigrants, in their own communities, target them, abuse them, assault them in the streets. Want to know racism? Visit there.

 

So a human being can think it. Are you so sure that no other creature can? The arrogance. The ignorance is that folks seem to always side on the idea that the "other" doesn't have rights because if they did, they'd be just like them. and how awful for those folks to have to admit that aren't any better than anyone else. The challenge is to make sure that groups who believe in their righteousness and entitlement are thwarted to ensure the survival of our individual liberties and rights. When you shift your allegiance to those who would remove those liberties, you become the thing you've said you despise.

 

Your opinion of others knows no constraints, but does not interest me. I read no further.

 

yes. it's why rights don't exist anywhere in nature.

Well you'd have to talk to those folks. I just pointed out that rights do not exist outside of philosophical human constructs.

this has nothing to do with anything ive said.

 

I think a lot of folks are starting to understand that the whole religious dominion thing isn't exactly true, and that we have many varieties of sentient residents in our world. The idea that dominion excludes everything else seems something that tracks with your idea that the group is where you derive your rights from. How convenient. So, yes, it does, explicitly map back to your post.

 

Well, no it doesn’t. It has nothing at all to do with my post. I simply pointed out that rights do not exist in nature. They are purely a philosophical human construct.

 

So you do believe women have "inherent rights" ?

 

If you are referring to Human Rights, they do exist.

These are rights which would be immoral to take away. Right to life, to form a family, to elect those in charge of governing, to eat, to healthcare, ...

 

Those are not inherent rights.
They are granted in our Constitution.

Don't you think a collective wrote the DoI, the BoR, the Amendments to add or correct previous errors on what are rights?

Remember, blacks had no rights to be free. Women largely had little rights to be free. The Natives only had freedom rights if they stayed on their little plots of land they were forced to live on. Here in the USA.
So that blows the inherent free rights out of the water.

 

So much BS in that post.
LGBTQs are still fighting today for the basic rights you claim exist.
Blacks were held as slaves, so they had no inherent rights to be free. And the founders who collectively wrote the words of the USA to be guided by, didn't think black people deserved these so called inherent rights.

Why is that concept lost on some trump people?

 

I oppose the registry because its a total waste. Canada scrapped their long gun registry decades ago because it was too expensive and none of the guns in the registry were ever used in crime (or, at least, were ever useful in solving or convicting a crime). Same here in WA. We've had mandatory BGCs on all sales including private sales for 6 or 8 years now, and unless the documentation of those sales is being destroyed (ya right), its effectively a registry, and certainly involves the same amount of bureaucratic labor as a registry. It costs just our state $10 million per year, and has led to one single solitary conviction since it was established, and that only after the guy shot someone, was arrested, and put on trial. So, what this tracking has accomplished is adding one illegal weapons charge onto one one single criminal who was already going to prison anyway, and that one additional illegal weapons charge for one guy cost our state $60 to $80 million dollars.

That is not money well spent.

 

Thanks for this. If I'm honest I hadn't considered whether registration alone would stop crime, it was more an attitude step towards better gun control that did work. I guess to do that I would have to look at the gun deaths and what causes them.
Do you think there's any link between the amount of criminal gun crime (Robbery, gang murder etc) and the availability of guns?
Would it be enough to try and stop the mass killings that we see pretty much annually in the US?

 

You seem unable to read the simple words. Free folk joined together to exercise their inherent freedoms to make laws that enshrined those freedoms. Freedom was NOT a result of their enjoining. I know this doesn't meet with your collectivist ideology. That you believe in the right of government to parse out rights and privileges. But it doesn't work that way in this country. If you're dying to find a place that does work the way you describe it, move to China. And then explain to us what inherent rights mean to you.

Quote from the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 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,"

Show me where these unalienable rights were a gift, or a grant from government. The words are important here. All men. It doesn't exclude anyone when someone writes, all, does it? The fantasy you wish to impart to the rest of us is that somehow all no longer actually means all. And yet, it still does. There were black free people in the colonies, were there not? The first slaveholder in the US was a black man, was it not? Your distillation of critical race theory is based on BS, that history doesn't support. The documents themselves do not support your position. That you will not accept that yes, you, I, everyone else are all equal somehow offends you, doesn't it. And perhaps your personal issue is what is in need of correction.

 

Which rights? I can marry, I can adopt, I can live wherever I want. I can travel, I can love, I can live. I can vote. I can write excellent commentary on tis site. Where am I being restricted? Who is oppressing me? What right doesn't exist to me today? You claim that folks are still fighting, I suggest you haven't looked out a window in a while. Liberals in this nation wish to enslave millions of illegal aliens to work for them in oppression, you still support this, so don't assume a voice of authority over a group who frankly don't need, or want your assistance these days. Your notion of the plantation is as abhorrent today as it was when your team were enslaving Africans in this country. Why does basic freedom always not exist in a world of Biden people? Let's just start calling you folks out for the tyranny that you'd inflict on the rest of us. Biden folks. Yup, that has the right level of nastiness that you deserve.

 

Human rights are inherent in the abstract, but their expression requires a grant by the collective. You say "we" join together to protect those rights. Groups of people also join together to take them away from other groups, i.e. slavery.