Natural/inherent rights

I suggest you read Aristotle, John Locke, and Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, Yaron Brook, and many others; then you can quit worrying about them, and start enjoying them.

Ayn Rand: “Rights” are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html

As an aside: Of all things to attack, you choose the principle of individual rights...because you're anti-gun? A very dangerous path to take; it will ultimately leave you with the gun in your hand demanding others live according to your whims and wishes. Not good.

And lastly: The constitution is a document that creates a government limited to the defense of individual rights--it is a proscription on the government, not a prescription of edicts the citizens must obey. The same is true of the Bill of Rights--it is not a list of actions that individual may do or must do, it is a warning to the government: Do not touch these rights, or you will be shot or imprisoned (or both), and replaced. And further warns the government not to touch any rights not mentioned; those rights belong to the free man, not to the government. It has no rights, at all, ever, and forever.

In essence, the government is chained, by law, to serve, defend, and protect the rights of man.

 

Based on their writings, by Creator they meant a monotheistic "God". That God could be a Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. I doubt it meant a Greek or Roman god.

 

The English word, not words, being asked to cite is the word, god in the DoI.
Which of course, the poster failed to produce.

 

Could be a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim?
Doubt they meant?
Perhaps, or they meant, let each human decide what 'their' creator is. Since there are many to chose from, or none at all. Basically, coming down to what one believes.

 

I do understand the danger of my position. What you do not seem to understand is that my position is reality.

You say "basic human rights are not enforceable" - They are enforceable. Unfortunately - the only ones in the position to enforce these rights are other humans. God is not going to come down and do the enforcing.

It is not that I do not accept that rights can be derived via nature - and from natures God ... as stated previously - I do accept this and can show you how that derivation goes.

The fact of the matter is that the derivation of rights and enforcement of those rights are separate questions - and you seem to be conflating the two.

This is not a Position - this is reality. We can say "essential liberty" comes from God - and I have no problem with this position.

The next question however is - So what ? It does no good to say "rights are God given" - if there is no enforcement of those rights.

The so what the the founders gave us was - essential liberty is "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't = Gov't is not to have any authority to make law messing with essential liberty. The caveat here - the one you disagree with I think - is- "of its own volition" .. meaning that the people can grant authority.

The problem with this disagreement is that you HAVE TO have this. The reason you have to have this is because "What is essential liberty" ? who decides what this is and what this is not ?

We have already stated that by definition this is not the liberty to cause direct harm to another human - murder, rape, theft and so on .. OK that is a good start.

What about paying taxes ? - this is messing with essential liberty. What about selling Meth ? - this is messing with essential liberty. What about regulating monopolies? - this is messing with essential liberty (albeit it could be argued that this is within the legitimate purview of Gov't as it can be equivalent to direct harm). What about bestiality, polygamy, abortion, the age of consent,

Who gets to decide what essential liberty is - and is not ?

 

That is correct. We have had many rights taken away by our government over the years, most under Liberty, some under Pursuit of Happiness. Some of those lost rights the people willingly gave up. Some they demanded the government take away. Boggles the mind.

Someone can pursue my plot of land, sure. He can offer to buy it. Man's natural right is the pursuit of happiness, not happiness. Though Pursuit of happiness is #2 in losses it is coming on strong. There is much animosity toward rich people who successfully pursued their happiness and the belief that should not be allowed. Pursuit of Happiness includes for many the right to innovate and develop products and services to make money (private property), yet their are millions today clamoring for socialism which pretty much takes all that away from people.

 

So, you are reality. Got it. The wall of meaningless text aside.. the position you hold is still one from which all human misery can flow. You find that "real" somehow. I find that bleak. It speaks of absence of faith. It speaks of absence of a moral compass from which we might ensure our humanity doesn't ever devolve back into animalism. It's why, as you now agree, you're position is a danger to hold. If you cannot recognize that there must be limits on what can be collectively given away, or limits on why you given them away, you destroy hope. And misery floods in. Without faith, or hope, why?

 

You are speaking in gibberish, creating a big strawman, and talking over my post.

Simple question - since you can not seem to handle more than a sound bite.

What is essential liberty ? and/or Who gets to decide what this is.

In other words - What on Earth are you talking about ?

 

Essential liberty just is. It isn't something that we decide on, It is. Sorry, you feel left out. It just might require some faith.

 

What a pathetic and mindless response. Faith in what ? - faith in something that can't be decided on ?

If you can't define what essential liberty entails - what rights and freedoms fall under this heading- what is the point of saying "essential liberty comes from God" ?

This is the same as saying "I don't know what it is but - it comes from God"

Left out of what ? The club of mindless idiocy ? No need to be sorry for leaving me out of that club

 

Sorry to butt in, but I'd like to respond to your call to faith; it is not faith the human being needs to prosper, it is a rational mind. The only thing I have faith in is logic, and I have no faith in logic. I use logic because reality dictates its practicality.

 

Sez you, that rights need to be stated and granted.

The Ninth Amendment says otherwise.

Pardon me if I go with the Constitution and the spirit of 1787. Dairymen are very good people, but very damn few are legal scholars.

 

How many of those LEGAL GUN OWNERS have denied fellow Americans their right to "LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" by shooting them to death with their beloved gun???Think Sandy Hook,Las Vegas,Parkland,Pittsburgh Synagogue,Charleston Church etc,etc.

 

And that precisely makes my point about who the "We...." in that Declaration were and renders the Declaration itself artificial and pompous.

 

What in the Declaration is wrong? Congratulations on finding some hypocrites, the document allowed for tearing down the existing government to build a better one if the current one is beyond amending. I guess I don't understand your point. Because some Americans were hypocrites in the late 18th Century our founding documents are a waste of paper? The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are documents that I support. If I were king, I would make a few tweaks to the Constitution, but we've had a pretty good run so far, in spite of a few setbacks.

 

How many people have used those same guns to defend themselves and their families from criminals and wildlife?

How many more people used those same guns to defend themselves without firing a single shot?

How many armed invasions have been deterred because the whole world knows we are armed to the teeth?

How many times have criminals decided to not invade your house because they think it might be my house?

How many nations killed millions of their citizens after confiscating guns from their citizens in the 19th Century alone?

 

Ah, so they had to bullshit? A con job? Is that what you are saying? Was it not after this pompous, pretty and self righteous Declaration that Whitey proceeded to wipe out Indians and deny them their right to the pursuit of their happiness, or is it the case that when I pursue my right to happiness I am entitled to deny you your right to the pursuit of your happiness? Doesn't my capacity to ask such obvious questions erode the integrity of that Declaration? It seems to me that it has become the crutch those who seek to push their Agenda (like to bear arms) when in fact, the Declaration was never meant to be used in that way, just like it was argued by Slavers and Slaver Owners and White War Mongerers that the Declaration did not intend to grant rights to 'savages.'

 

The answer to all your questions is those numbers pale in comparison to the numbers of lives taken by LEGAL GUN OWNERS and their careless and callous use and mishandling of the weapons they own.

 

I disagree, that more socialism is taking away rights. But affording more people additional rights.
One can argue if health care is a right or not, we, man, the citizens of the USA get to determine if health care is a right.
And if we adopt some form of single payer plan and still offer the private plans, I'd say that's the best of both worlds.
As for all rights, we, human, citizens of the USA, determine all of our rights. And all of our rights are granted by us, humans. They can be added to and subtracted from. Not with ease, but that can happen.
And there has to be an enforcing mechanism, which is gov't. Fortunately, we get to choose our gov't. Sort of. The system has been gamed by elites and money.

 

Is it 'wrong?' No it is not, but it is flambouyant pomposity penned by a gifted writer, Jeffersen, and is typical of the time in waxing lyrical. It aspires to inspire the Revolutionaries and to explain sticking it up the King of England, seeks to justify the maintenance of a brutal War of Independence. 'No taxation without representation' would have been enough for the great unwashed including me if I had been there at the time. It was written as a call to arms and to be a cornerstone of that War, not a blue print for say the 21st Century. Heck, it was not even a blue print for contemporary life in general in the US (excluding the War) given the way the US acted in complete contradiction of its terms concerning slavery and Natives who were not one of the 'We......' rather, savages.

 

One doesn't need to be a legal scholar to know that rights are stated and granted.
What right, besides life, is not stated or granted that all humans have?
The 9th is man made. Man describing limits placed on man's congress. Basically, stating limits.

 

Thank God the Founders didn't think like that.

 

We are talking about natural God-given rights. You can't have a workable system if people get to define their own rights. Though a society can bestow rights on people separate from the natural rights and their derivatives. The problem is an individual does not have a natural right or bestowed government right if someone else is required to provide it. That is why health care cannot be a right. If I have a right to health care then every practitioner and hospital and clinic and drug manufacturer must do whatever I ask. If that is the system that government puts in place then every doctor, for example, is an indentured servant -- paid probably, but none the less a slave.

If I want to exercise my natural right to pursue happiness by inventing, making, and selling a useful product. and a socialistic economy does not permit that, then I have lost my right because of socialism.

 

Ok. here's the construct then. Logic doesn't define rights. Logic might be bent to demonstrate why individual liberty or human rights shouldn't exist because logic might wish us to be communal, or efficient. Logic doesn't become a rational way to ascribe why humanity is, does it?

Rights are inherent. There is no logical construct for that. Rights are naturally assumed. Again, there is no logical construct for that. The knowledge of those rights isn't derivative of a logical construct then.

Something else has to then be the source of our rights, something logic cannot dictate.

 

The source of rights is man's nature as man, i.e., an being of volitional consciousness, i.e., he must choose to think to live as a happy, rational being. They are not a divine spark of God; though one might argue they are a blessing of nature. I accept neither. Metaphysically, it's an attribute of being Man, much like speed is an attribute of being a cheetah. Ethically, rights are a political principle that recognizes that Man, as a being of reason, must use his mind in order to live as Man. And in practice it means, no one has the right to point a gun at anyone's head and demand they live as a dictator, a tyrant, a society, a culture, a neighborhood committee says they must.

Or as stated by Ayn Rand: 'Rights” are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html

In essence, all men are born with the ability to choose to think; when they choose to do so, they are behaving morally; when they choose not to, they are evil. And when others demand any man sacrifice his rational judgment to the will of others, the others betray their rationality and become monsters.

This is the state of today's healthcare. And it is evil. And it is evil because it violates Man's rights--it demands, at the point of a gun, that he sacrifice his well-being to the puss, tears, and pains of the sick and dying. I'd rather not.