Rights Are God-Given

The elimination of an unwarranted intrusive aspect of government under Obama left most of Bush's spying on American citizens in place, and Trump has given little indication that he respects personal rights, to be sure.

Nevertheless, Section 215 was changed to stop the NSA from continuing its mass phone data collection program. "The Senate's hard-fought passage of the USA Freedom Act represented a major victory for privacy rights advocates in Congress, as "McConnell was outnumbered by a coalition of liberal Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans who wanted to rein in what they saw as an abuse of the government's surveillance power. "

Ironic nomenclature such as "The Patriot Act" and "the USA Freedom Act" is every bit as bogus as Trump® U sales hype.

 

Ignorance may be bliss but, it is not a good argument for much.

 

You don't deem your every electronic move, phone/computer/etc, being logged and recorded as a violation of rights?

 

I agree that it was a win but, a small win in a much larger pool of loss. Kind of like a Football team that is losing 89-0 getting a first down and celebrating how good they are.

The beast does not win every battle. Make it to congress and insider trading becomes effectively legal. https://theintercept.com/2015/05/07/congress-argues-cant-investigated-insider-trading/ From time to time you have a voice stand up and say "this practice should end".

Everyone then points to that person and says "LOOK LOOK ... we have freedom of speech .. what a good system we have". That lone voice is then quickly drowned out by the cacophony on the take. It is the natural outcropping of self interest and greed .... this is how the beast operates. I can not blame them. I would not be the one to shoot the goose laying the golden eggs either. I would not be the one to run against a herd of stampeding bulls.

Every time a tax law or regulation is changed or made the Oligopoly is sitting at the table (and perhaps they have a right to be there). The problem is that the fellow who is supposed to be protecting the little guy is either under the influence or in the pocket of the Oligopoly.

The Oligopoly does not win every table but, over time, table after table, the rules of the game get skewed in favor of the Oligopoly.

I use these examples to illustrate that, although there are small wins from time to time the forces of the dark side are winning.

Extreme capitalism and extreme socialism (totalitarian communism) meet at the far end of the spectrum. In both cases you have a few elite owing most resources and means of production.

We have managed to combine some of the worst of both into what I call the "Oligopoly-Bureaucracy Fusion Monster". Many, including some who actually have a clue what they are talking about, are now calling the US an Oligarchy.

We are moving towards a quazi totalitarian police nanny state and a system of indentured servitude (like the feudal lords of old)

 

Imo which rights are, or are not natural do not depend upon any individuals opinion. Or any groups opinions, or any human written documents... including the Declaration of Independence

If the founders wrote that every human has the natural right to be wealthy... that would not make this a natural right

I am not convinced that there is such a thing as natural rights... but regardless it is very strange to propose that any human group is an authoritative arbiter of what is or is not a human right

 

It is a classic case of .. seeing someone else's rights being violated but, because they have not made it to you yet ... its OK. In the spirit of not adhering to Godwin's law ...one can point to this phenomenon in most, if not all, of the totalitarian regimes that arose.

At first the budding regime targets some small group. The larger group "whipped up into a fervor by some inequality, fear or societal inequity .... usually blamed on said group" goes along with this on the basis of "it will not happen to me". By the time they realize ... OH NO .. it is happening to me . it is too late.

Look at the Bolshevik revolution for example. "the rich are oppressing the proletariat" which was true but, the way over the top oppression and violence that was used was way out of control. The proletariat did not protest these abuses too much because - the State was going after them and not me.

Well... we know how that turned out. The communist party became the new bourgeois (same as the old boss if not worse) .. and started to oppress the proletariat.

 

All respect... but at what point do such rights emerge?
If I shop at Macy's... can I demand that they keep no records?
If I use a credit card, can I demand that they keep no records?
If I use google, can I demand they keep no records?
If I use gmail, is it practical to demand there be no records?
If I use a credit card to buy child porn, do I have a right to privacy of that transaction?
If I use gmail to commit treason, do I have a right to privacy?
If I am organizing a wmd attack do I have a right to privacy?

The fact is that most every detail of our electronic life is inherently logged simply to have these systems work

If I open a Swiss bank account.... I get some added privacy... otoh each and every transaction is logged and recorded, and may be revealed to law enforcement.... each and every bitcoin transaction is logged, and that log is publically available!

We walk or drive around and have our movements tracked by cameras. Apples facial recognition technology illustrates that these cameras will soon be able to attach an identity to our daily movements

If we don't like that, or think our rights are being violated.... we need to take personal responsibility for protecting our rights by leaving the "grid". But most of us do not care enough about this issue to inconvenience ourselves by going off the grid. Imo

 

Ah! So it's all about you. I didn't know. Your reply is typical of righties, and that is that other people are of no concern.

 

I'm not jumping back on the merry-go-round. I'll leave you with this quote from Herbert Spencer "There is one principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation.

 

Okay, I'm sorry for misunderstanding that. And yes I agree.

Again i agree.

 

Of course,,,,,mark twain the godless.

 

Most folks don't believe in most gods.

 

By all means Bumpo...follow the masses, the standards don't have to be very high.

 

Forgive me if I eschew your advice. You are free to follow it, of course, but I shall go a different path.

 

Disagreeing with what was written is quite different from denying that what was written was what was written.

Try this - if you actually disagree with something I said, pull the line from the OP thay you disagree with. Not a conclusion, but a line of argument. Almost no one has done that in this thread. They've instead read something into the op that was not there, and which was in direct contradiction with the op.

 

It's fine man. Threads just been real frustrating because practically no one arguing with me has actually addressed anything written in the op. They've just made strawmen in direct contradiction to what I actually said

 

Pretty sure that literally no one in this thread said anything to which the above would be an actual response - a strawman, maybe.

 

Ironic given that it is poorly educated theists who are demonstrating a contempt for information and knowledge and thus remaining in their self imposed ignorance.

 

Merely a cogent comment on the proposition that "Rights Are God-Given."

The notion that gods give humans rights is not officially endorsed by any gods, and gods, being omnipotent by definition, are empowered to reverse any such decisions that they might make.

 

Its the govt collecting the data. Or being able to get it from the companies by using the patriot act or similar.

 

Thers are no natural rights given by anything.
Every one has a right to defend their life. And the winner gets the rights.

 

I see your concern in some respects, but also think that it is somewhat inevitable. And do not see why it would be less concerning that companies such as Google collect increasingly more information then the government does

 

In my opinion, terrorist attacks like recent attack in London tube Will Drive evermore go collection of data. And the free enterprise system will mean that companies such as Google will require massive data bases about our information

 

When you have some meaning information please feel free to share.

 

All too common I am afraid.