Natural/inherent rights

You are inferring that is what it is saying but to me “freedom from fear” is not cowering behind a gun it is standing up and being counted, even if that takes egging a politician

It says nothing about actually owning arms

 

Yes they did include people of all races. It just took some time to change our government as was also suggested in the Declaration of Independence. They got the words right, but initially failed to execute.

 

You'll have to explain that a tad for me.

 

Slavery didn’t agree with the Declaration of Independence and needed to be abolished because it was a violation of the rights of slaves. The government allowed slavery and needed to be changed by force if necessary. It was changed during the Civil War.

 

Ah I see. So ONLY those blokes who actually wrote those words, meant ONLY to refer to Whitey? (Also, maybe I have imagined it...but haven't there been comments at this Forum that the Civil War was not about slavery, per se?) While you have (to some extent) dealt with slaves, you have not mentioned the "Indians."

 

The UDHR is a joke. A bad joke. Far inferior to the US bill of rights, the UK bill of rights, heck even our informally held rights here in Aus.

We should withdraw from it immedietly and without apology.

 

Hmmm... I see you again failed to address the question at hand. Included in all of those lofty soundbites, every one of those men you cited above believed in naturally assumed rights. Which, given your advocacy, you'd see put in peril because you'd have us believe that they actually aren't naturally derivative, but "granted" by the social compact that you don't understand. Got it. Which still means that if every right is a grant from that compact, that every one of those rights can be both eroded or otherwise removed. Because it's a compact.

 

That's rather a naïve statement, that natural rights need no protection. The Rastafarian and others claim a right to ingest marijuana, but the government tramples that right.

A government of the people and by the people, assuming for the sake of argument that's the theory in this country, does not grant rights, it protects rights. Indeed, before the present government was created by the people in 1787-1789, those rights were still held by the people. Natural rights PRECEDE the existence of the federal government.

The people created the government, and thereby gave it certain powers.

Powers and rights are two different things.

As an old friend of mine used to point out, liberty grants power, NOT power grants liberty.

It seems you are putting the cart before the horse.

 

Where were Indians mentioned in the Constitution or any of our founding documents. The conflicts came from racist interpretations of those documents. We all have our skeletons. Natural rights still exist, it’s just that most all governments overstep their boundaries and people fail to recognize those rights. We should aspire to support those rights and I’m not talking about reparations or tipping the scales in the other direction.

 

If God isn't our "Creator", who are they referring to?

Who is the "Creator"? Be specific.

 

So, to be clear, you would prefer not to be armed when assaulted but you WOULD reserve the right to assault others if you disagree with their political beliefs? Or is the egging an attempt to change political direction?

 

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. The People are the Militia and responsible for the security of our free States.

 

I did address the question at hand. Rights come from the social contract. Can those rights be removed by the social contract - absolutely they can.

The bar is now far lower than the bar set by the Social Contract - re-establishing this as a bar would be a dream.

Rights are being removed - the safeguards protecting these rights eliminated. The idea that rights come from somewhere other than this - is faulty logic. If some authority can bestow or remove essential liberty - this authority is where rights come from. Running around claiming "yes but God gave us these rights" - matters not if some authority can take those rights away.

 

There is no such thing as natural or inherent rights. All rights are man made constructs, agreed upon by society. it's why they differ in every society on earth.

 

That's only if all humans respects others perceived rights, perhaps by the old saying...do unto other's...
or
if there is some governing force protecting perceived rights.

 

Parents are an example of a creator.

Definition of creator


: one that creates usually by bringing something new or original into being

is the definition.
Some can claim some god as a creator, but that can't be proven.
So, to encompass all of humanity and their many different creators, it's whatever one believes to be their creator. IMO.
As for our Universe, the big bang could be a creator. Or the pre activities that caused the big bang.
It does state in the DoI, 'their' creator. Not 'a' creator. Or 'the' creator.
Again, those words were chosen very very carefully, IMO.

 

I will proffer that you don't actually understand the danger of your position then. By not accepting that there are basic, fundamental rights because we are people, you offer up the servitude that enslaves people around the world today. If, as you say, it's up to man to always determine which rights you are willing to grant, then, basic human rights aren't ever possible, or enforceable. If you cannot accept a divination of these, or a basis that they are naturally occurring, then you are the tyrant you seem to protest you are not. That you don't recognize this, well, that's a problem.

 

How does that relate to natural or bestowed rights?
My guess is you are in a semantics battle. You are perfectly free to define natural rights as you see fit and what it means to you. But if you are discussing natural rights as in the minds of the founders and framers, you are obligated to use their definition, not yours.

 

Strange you are asked to cite the obvious plain-written English words.

 

For those that believe government can be relied upon to secure personal rights, the means become irrelevant.
It was no coincidence so many innocent people got put in front of show trials and sent to the gulag in the Soviet Union.

 

Rights need to be stated and granted, before they can be protected.

I have stated many many times, the only real natural right any of us have is the right to life, the right to defend said life. And when a conflict arises, say between to lives, one will ultimately win. And the winner continues with that right to life, while the loser is done.
Ergo, might makes right. If there's no governing force to control rights. Actually perceived rights. Or even, aghast, entitlement.

Every one of us can come up with a list of what rights should be. The DoI listed some, life is about the only natural right that I see. Others can be added to the list and have been added, but as I said, it takes a governing force to uphold that list.
And the list can be added to or subtracted from.

 

Why would Indians or any group need to be mentioned? Nothing was overstepped, it's just those who created rights, didn't mean all of humanity.
Natural rights would apply to every human.
Else, they're made up rights, and protects only those that the governing force thinks needs the protection.

 

How about you be specific and prove which god they meant? By proving said god exists.
Prove they didn't mean Jupiter or Neptune or Poseidon or Zeus.

And it's not 'Our' creator, it's 'Their' creator.

 

the words are, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator." The founders and framers meant what they said -- all men: white, black, yellow, red, purple, male, female -- have natural God-given rights. They did not say nor assume that no one can deprive this person or that person of their God-given rights. The framers did the best they could. If they would have tried to free the slaves, e.g, in the Constitution we never would have had a constitution, a country, or freed slaves.

 

Isn't everyone defining natural rights as they see fit? Which really means, they are all man made and needs man to protect them.

Who can read the minds of the founders? Yes, they wrote many things to convey the best they could, but as one can see, it leaves a wide margin for interpretation.
We have given up much Liberty over the years. The latest being the Patriot Act. So, we let our Liberty get taken away in the name of perceived security.
And what is the Pursuit of Happiness?
If one would be much happier with your plot of land over another plot of land, do they have the right to pursue it?

In the founders list, the only real Natural right I can see, if the right to life. For most every human will fight to keep it.