Inherent rights, do they exist.

I read simple words. Blacks had no inherent rights to be free. You seem unable to comprehend simple words.

A war was needed to give them that so called inherent rights. And the type of folks who wrote about rights were the one's enslaving them.

So I still call BS on inherent rights. Even the writers didn't actually believe it while they wrote the words.

Man decided that freedom is for everyone, they made laws and ammendments to the Constitution to ensure they remained free. They had to codify your so called inherent rights.

If those words written were so true, why is it the writers didn't think it applied to the black, the natives, and even the females?

They wrote those words and then tossed them aside. But others took those words and made the folks of our country start to follow them.

That's why we had a war to let blacks not be slaves. Still not equal though. Women had to fight just to get the right to vote.
And every thing they wrote about needs an enforcing mechanism to make sure they are followed.
In the case of slavery, the enforcing mechanism was the Union States and the Civil war.


Definition of inherent

: involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit :

 

You have those rights, not all Americans even have all those rights, much less all of the people of the world. Consider yourself lucky. I guess they are not rights but privileges. Perhaps you belong to a group that gets to have those privileges while others are restricted from those same privileges.

Heck, many RW still foam at the mouth that gays have a right to marry. And gays are being blocked from adopting.

Just because you have freedoms you think are rights doesn't mean everyone has those same freedoms. Because they are not inherent.

Do transgender people have an inherent right to be transgender?

And yet another post where you have to change the topic to me and try to tell me what I think and do.
Why? Can't you stick to your argument and make a good case about it without ad homs?

 

At some point, you have to recognize that when free folk join together to protect the rights imbued to them, it will make sense to you. When you rely on the structure (government) the potential then always exists that the structure can decide autonomously what your rights are. Of course that's dangerous, as pointed out. This is the logic that created differential rights of people. Do you support that? If you're only interested in the real, then answer this question: what keeps government from creating the duality that I've just identified? If government is the only derivative source of rights, it is also the body that can remove your rights from you. Is that actually what you want? And in our nation, our founders clearly established that if the body, government, wanted to take rights or property from you, it had to do so by establishing the cause and effecting due process which required review of the tyranny then imposed on the individual.

I know that is inconvenient to today's tyrants. Democrats, as they have demonstrated are entirely willing to create any number of second class citizens in their march towards their goal that government is the structure that replaces religion. Engle and Marx identified "belief" as the main challenge to authority. If only the state can be, is that what you then must worship? Is that your goal?

 

Your quote: "blacks had no inherent rights". To which I would point out that there were in fact LOTS of free blacks in this country at the signing of the declaration, and the constitution. Why forget that part? Given your logic then, those free blacks didn't have rights? Really?

Tell you what, you get your historical facts straight, and then rewrite your response. When folks discuss the rights of free men, perhaps you should consider that even today, we have non free men. Do we not? We, by the use of due process of law take freedom and rights from those who abuse our civil society, do we not? And without the laws to define what is acceptable behavior, how else would you ensure the liberties of others? So, what you are failing to grasp is that the law has always assumed, and still does assume that there were and are conditions that liberties might be removed as punishment or condition of servitude. Slavery is an abomination. It was as wrong then as it remains today. If the luxury of time has afforded you the luxury of your discomfort about the past, at least it's a condition that only exists in your perception. Tell us, when Joe Biden affords passage of trafficked folks from central america and mexico, and chooses to ignore our nations law, and consigns said illegal crossers to a life of servitude to those who traffic them, isn't he creating the same slavery for those folks you abhor? I know I do. And where are you now? If we agree that these folks have the same inherent rights, how disingenuous are you in supporting what Biden is currently doing? Aren't these the slaves that your party have always felt entitled to?

 

How nice of you to qualify my rights for me. Your tyranny literally knows no bounds. The fact that you call my rights privileges is astounding. Your defamation is not tolerable. You freely admit in your own writing that I should feel gratitude that I have rights at all. How generous of you. No, it sucks that folks around the world suffer bigots like you, and your allegiance to a party that insist on running the world in the mindset of the plantation. You approve, Obviously, you just wrote it.

To answer your tangential swing at transgender folk, They are. They still have all of the inherent rights that everyone else does. Do you disagree? What rights do you feel they don't have? Your argument is as pejorative as your condemnation of my rights is. Thankfully, we have the law in this nation, that recognizes that folks are born free, enjoy the tranquility of our freedoms and exist in liberty to prosper. Your wold seems a whole lot less inviting. Your dash towards tyranny is the craving you cannot satisfy and by mansplaining to me, that my rights only exist at your convenience, well that is a terrible thing you've said.

Are your rights a privilege to you? do you really believe that? What a horrible world you inhabit.

 

It's becoming increasingly clear the left really believe they're subservient and willing to be dictated to in all matters by their D leaders.. The only time they believe they have rights is when the letter R is dominant!

It sort of stands to reason though! If you consider the roots of the Democrat and their leaders of the old south "Dixiecrats" it really might actually be a DNA thing!

Having rights may actually be alien to them and subservient just a part of their psyche..

 

So a few blacks were free? Some were lucky. But those slaves, the majority, had no inherent freedom. It wasn't granted by society for them. Nor were they allowed freedom because it's an inherent right.

I have to rewrite nothing. At the end of the day, might equals right.
Any other rights have to be granted and enforced by society and an enforcing mechanism. Otherwise, it's every person for themselves.

This discussion isn't about free men. You seem to neglect women in your posts. But it's about all people in the world.
And in particular in our discussion the fact that blacks by and large and women, didn't have this freedom that white men held for themselves because the enforcing mechanism back then only granted those so called rights to themselves only.

 

You qualified all of them.
How you are free to go about and do all those things you listed. While there are many in the world and many in the USA that can't have the privilege you enjoy.

You only get those privileges many other don't is because our society allowed you to have them while society denied other people those priviliges.
That is changing. Blacks are not slaves. Women can vote. Blacks and whites can marry. Gays can marry.
Every few years, discriminated groups are granted more of the privileges you enjoyed your entire life.

There you go with ad homs. Your position on rights are so weak you can't make a post without making it about me. And you make up stuff you think you know about me and you are wrong in every sense of the topic.

When you can back up your claim with a rational position, you might be able to make a coherent point. But when you need to project your BS about others, it a sure sign you have no actual argument.

I guess all the times I tell you that the only right there really is at the end of the day is Might = Right.
And most everyone will fight to keep life.

 

Translation... ooooh, you got me. It seems to me that just saying you're sorry would have made a better moment for you.

 

Hmm.. So here we are. When faced with the actual facts, you flee from the discussion to publicly cry about how abused you feel because your logic isn't up to the task. A couple of observations, first, you conflate the world to the discussion as if that has any effect in the conversation. We are discussing what this nation does, not the world. Because, as soon as you make this the global pity party that you believe you can rely on to make your point for you, you failed. The world, as noted, doesn't, generally, look at this question in the same way that we do in this country. For many around th world, they exist at the end of the lash, China comes immediately to mind. This, it seems is the world that you desire, though for some ungodly reason. The world where rights are simply privileges as you call them, and a grant from the king/tyrant/party that endures you to have them.

The people of this country, however, understand that it is their inherent right to be free. And absent due process, those rights cannot be removed from them. And should some. like you, ever try to abuse them, at least we have due process to thwart folks, like you.

Second, why can't you demonstrate your theory here? You told us that trans folks have no rights, and yet you cannot demonstrate one right they do not currently have. The same story about folks who are gay. The same story about minorities. And when confronted with the actual evidence that your party actively engages in at best simple tolerance of human trafficking and servitude, you simply ignore that altogether. Why do you suppose that you and your peeps are entitled to the misery of others?

Last, you assume that the only process then is "might=right". correct? So, in your mind, are you really telling us that given the superiority of our moral makeup, it would be right for our nation to use it's might to correct the rest of the world? You're new-con ways are showing. And if you don't believe that, why do you constantly rail against the glory of this nation and our beacon to the rest of the world that might show them the way? Your commentary is weak, and fraught with perils. It is as inconsistent as it is rife with logic conflicts.

 

At some point you have to recognize the white free folk in the south got together and denied the immutable rights of slaves. Not their existence but their expression.

 

You mean democrats, of course. This is the plantation narrative that hasn't left the party since they started acting this way. Democrats do love them some perks, don't ya know. And what says perk more than the servitude of others. So perhaps it's less a "free folks got together" discussion than a group of entitled bullies got together to use their power to subjugate others. And when you admit that is the case, perhaps your anxiety will be assuaged...

 

If it makes you feel better to remind us of what Dems stood for, a mantle picked up by Repubs.........knock yourself out. The point is not who denied the immutable freedom of the slaves but rather that it was denied.

 

The fallacy of your argument is demonstrated every day by my involvement. I actively vilify the plantation you wish to enshrine. Gosh, does that make you a republican in your mind?

 

It seems the untenable nature of your position keeps requiring you to make false assertions about what I believe. I'm happy to continue with the discussion if you can manage to stick to the subject and not rely on erroneous diversions.

 

the southern planters were generally whigs. (jeff davis was a democrat, and was not considered socially acceptable to the planters.) the rebel cannon fodder were democrats, but generally not slave owners.

ref shelby foote "the civil war vol 1"

after they lost, there was no whig party, so the southern conservatives became democrats in opposition to the reconstruction republicans. .

 

Good for you. Doubling down on ad homs.
I accept your defeat.

Freedom isn't inherent. As the slaves prove.

 

It's his only argument.
Making up what he thinks others believe.
His position is very weak.

If trans folk have a right to be and live free.
Why is Arkansas taking away choices?

 

Beth Midler?

 

LOL.. When you take the side of slavery itself, 9as you just did) you've lost all that might have made you human. How does that feel? And this is why you want to take guns from people. So people have to ability to keep you and your party from enslaving them. Why do you suppose that you want this in your life? Do you expect you'll be on the right side of privilege? Laughable.

 

I am on the right side of privilege.
I was born with all the correct traits.

 

Gosh, not even the most ardent Eugenicist could have written a more ubermensch comment. Brava.

 

You keep digging the hole you're in a little deeper each time you accuse someone of "taking the side of slavery" when all the posters you attack are doing is pointing out the manifest truth slavery was a denial of inherent rights being exercised. The mental block on this subject is so entrenched in your thinking there appears to be no getting through to you.

 

Technically cooperation > might. We are all better off when we help each other out.

 

No one but you interpreted that in this way.