Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > ObamaCare
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

ObamaCare Discuss What is the true source of rights? at the General Forum; Originally Posted by FrancSevin The U.S. Constitution guarantees only what some have described as "negative" rights--i.e. the right to be ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2017, 05:37 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,928
Thanks: 1,423
Thanked 2,101 Times in 1,654 Posts
Default Re: What is the true source of rights?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
The U.S. Constitution guarantees only what some have described as "negative" rights--i.e. the right to be free of some things. It never speaks of any positive "rights."
"What ever?"

The concept of "negative rights" is the fundamental principle of the Document. All rights come from the people. It is what makes our form of government unique at the time of it's founding. Further it is what separates us, at least in theory, from most other governments even today.
The Ninth Amendment recognizes positive rights that don't require enumeration but most people have no clue when it comes to being able to determine if something is a natural/unalienable/inalienable right of the person. There's actually a criteria that we know will exclude anything that isn't a natural/unalienable/inalienable right of the person.
__________________
President Lincoln issued 64 pardons for war-related offences; 22 for conspiracy, 17 for treason, 12 for rebellion, 9 for holding an office under the Confederacy, and 4 for serving with the rebels.

The American Civil War was a White (WASP Male) Supremacist insurrection against the Constitutional government of the United States. Every American that served the Confederate cause was a TRAITOR and every White Supremacist today is a Traitor and a Terrorist.
Reply With Quote
  #52 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2017, 06:07 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,928
Thanks: 1,423
Thanked 2,101 Times in 1,654 Posts
Default Re: What is the true source of rights?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Enumerating rights as in the Constitution doesn't deny their origin, they come from our Creator.
Because we know that Jefferson rejected all religions in his life and he was the author of the Declaration of Independence we also know that his in his use of the word "creator" it was a reference to "mother nature" and not the God of Abraham or of Jesus or of Zeus for that matter.

I'm amazed because I've read the thread through the post quoted (not all of the posts) and I'm amazed that no one's brought up the source of our Rights as Person and as a People (species).

The laws of nature for "survival of a species" are the foundation of our Rights. Our Rights are based upon Natural Law and not Statutory Law. They are unalienable/inalienable because they're inherent in our person.

We do not, for example have an actual Right of Speech and Expression. We have a Right of Thought while speech and expression represents "Liberty" that is the "Freedom to Exercise" a "Natural/unalienable/inalienable Right" of the person. The Right of Liberty is limited to exercising our "Natural/unalienable/inalienable Rights" and does not grant us "License" to do anything that isn't a "Natural/unalienable/inalienable Right" of the Person.

The reason I never became a Republican and eventually rejected the Libertarian Party is because they advocate for Statutory License as opposed to the Right of Liberty.

Freedom of Religion isn't about being able to do whatever you want based upon a religious belief. It's the "Right of Thought" to believe whatever you choose to believe but not necessarily to "act" based upon those beliefs. Freedom of Religion protects the "opinion' and not the "acts" based upon that opinion. No one has ever attacked the "Right of Thought" where a person can have the opinion that Jesus is god in the United States. People have objected to "actions" based upon Christianity but not to Christianity itself. A Christian baker cannot discriminate against a same-sex couple by refusing to sell them a cake. The Christian baker can have any opinion they want about same-sex marriage but they can't act on that belief because it would be disruptive to the civil order of our society (based upon the Supreme Court decision on Freedom of Religion in Reynolds v United States 1878 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../145/case.html )

The Right of Liberty, for example, gives ever person the Right to go where they choose so long as they don't violate someone else's natural/unalienable/inalienable rights. That Right of Liberty provides the "Freedom to Exercise" the "Right to Walk on your own in the World" that was granted by nature to every person. The survival of the species relies upon the ability of the person to explore nature to find that which they need for survival. If your movement is restricted then you might not find what exists in nature that you require for survival then you become extinct. It's a law of nature. If, for example, there's only one waterhole in the desert and, if by force I prevent you from using it, you will die of dehydration.

It was for that reason, Liberty, that the founders like Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton opposed the government restricting immigration and why the US Constitution doesn't delegate any authority to Congress to regulate immigration. Restricting immigration is a fundamental violation of the Right of Liberty of the Person. The omission of the authority for Congress to regulate immigration was not accidental. It was intentional because the regulation of immigration is a violation of the Right of Liberty of the Person.

It is really strange that over 240 years after the founding of our nation that so many people have never taken the time to investigate and learn about our natural/unalienable/inalienable rights because it's those rights that this nation was founded upon. In a real sense Americans are generally as stupid as the common man in the American colonies in the 18th Century that didn't understand what Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton or the other ideological founders were talking about. 240 years and Americans are just as dumb as they were when this nation was founded.
__________________
President Lincoln issued 64 pardons for war-related offences; 22 for conspiracy, 17 for treason, 12 for rebellion, 9 for holding an office under the Confederacy, and 4 for serving with the rebels.

The American Civil War was a White (WASP Male) Supremacist insurrection against the Constitutional government of the United States. Every American that served the Confederate cause was a TRAITOR and every White Supremacist today is a Traitor and a Terrorist.

Last edited by ShivaTD; 09-19-2017 at 06:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #53 (permalink)  
Old 09-20-2017, 06:59 PM
Bat Bat is offline
Zealandia-American
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 670
Thanks: 27
Thanked 433 Times in 268 Posts
Default Re: What is the true source of rights?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bat View Post
Is not 'protecting', almost the same as 'granting'?

Because I am a US citizen, I have the right of free speech. Technically, it is protected by our Constitution (and in a sense, granted by the same authority).
My 'protection' of that right is somewhat reliant upon the granting authority (being the US government in my situation). I can legally stand on a milk crate in the center of town and shout hate speech without harm to myself (legally), but only so long as the government (granting entity) protects me from people that would do harm to me for being hateful.
Semantics

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
No. In fact they are each based on the opposite perspective.
WETHEPEOPLE empower the government to protect our rights. The government cannot "grant" something WE THEPEOPLE have not empowered them to regulate.

For instance, the government cannot prevent me from purchasing a car, because I have the innate right to hold property. But it can "grant" or "withhold" from me, a license to operate it, as that power to regulate use of my property, was enumerated to them.
So, WETHEPEOPLE grant the rights, then empower the government to protect those rights.

It is still semantics about where rights come from.
I agree with much of what you say.
__________________
..-. --- ..- -. -.. .. - -.... -.... / .- -.-. - ... / .-.. .. -.- . / .- / .... --- -- --- ... . -..- ..- .- .-.. / - .-. -.-- .. -. --. / - --- / --- ...- . .-. -.-. --- -- . / .- -. / .. -. ..-. . .-. .. --- .-. .. - -.-- / -.-. --- -- .--. .-.. . -..-
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bat For This Useful Post:
  #54 (permalink)  
Old 09-22-2017, 04:49 PM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,004
Thanks: 6,238
Thanked 8,862 Times in 5,094 Posts
Default Re: What is the true source of rights?

With the Obamacare repeal and replace activity, it seems appropriate to view our RIGHTS as it applies to "health care." The idea that health care is a right from the government, like food and housing, a job and an education,( what we call positive rights),,; is how that may be regulated.

Here's an example of how the British do it in the UK helath care system,,,;


In Britain’s case, the government – not the patient or doctor – has the final say on what treatments are covered. According to National Health Service Constitution for England:
“You have the right to drugs and treatments that have been recommended by NICE for use in the NHS, if your doctor says they are clinically appropriate for you. You have the right to expect local decisions on funding of other drugs and treatments to be made rationally following a proper consideration of the evidence. If the local NHS decides not to fund a drug or treatment you and your doctor feel would be right for you, they will explain that decision to you.” [emphasis added]
The British government justifies its decisions through “comparative effectiveness” studies. But in modern medicine, which is becoming increasingly personalized, this is extraordinarily dangerous. If studies show Drug A is 70 percent effective at treating a disease, while Drug B is only 50 percent effective, the government may decide to cover Drug A over Drug B, regardless of what your doctor recommends. Medicine is rarely one-size-fits-all, and if you are a person for whom Drug A does not work, then you may be paying big for Drug B.


In other words, the individual will have no rights to anything unless the gubmit allows it. Is that really what people want?

Surprisingly the answer may will be, YES!

Inarecent poll, 60% of Democrats do and almost 30% of Republicans agree single payer is the answer. And that is scary.

WOW!
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
  #55 (permalink)  
Old 09-22-2017, 08:32 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,928
Thanks: 1,423
Thanked 2,101 Times in 1,654 Posts
Default Re: What is the true source of rights?

The issue of "Rights" of the People/People were addressed in an ad hoc manner going back to the beginning of written history but it wasn't until the 17th Century that a comprehensive and logical argument was created to address the foundation for the inherent Rights of the People/Person. In 1690 John Locke's "Second Treatise of Civil Government" was published and this was the foundation for the understanding of the unalienable (inalienable) rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence and in the First Principles of government in the United States.

John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government
America’s First Principles

In presenting his arguments Locke did not want people to simply accept what he said was the truth but instead to question what he said and he offered the following challenge to anyone.

Quote:
If any one, concerned really for truth, undertake the confutation of my Hypothesis, I promise him either to recant my mistake, upon fair conviction; or to answer his difficulties. But he must remember two things.

First, That cavilling here and there, at some expression, or little incident of my discourse, is not an answer to my book.

Secondly, That I shall not take railing for arguments, nor think either of these worth my notice, though I shall always look on myself as bound to give satisfaction to any one, who shall appear to be conscientiously scrupulous in the point, and shall shew any just grounds for his scruples.
http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr00.txt

Two conditions. Trivial issues (cavilling) and rants (railing) are not a valid rebuttal to Locke's arguments. Since 1690 no one has ever put forward a rebuttal against Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government (although many have misrepresented Locke by quoting out of context).

Any attempt to discuss "Rights" as they relate to the American Political Ideology without a firm understanding of Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government is like a soccer fan trying to discuss American football. They just don't have the foundation to really understand the game because they don't know the rules.

While the understanding of Rights when America was founded was highly limited to the intellectual founders of America those same founders has a vision that the common Americans, to which they entrusted governing to in the Constitution, would come the learn about what Rights were. They believed that society would come to understand Locke's arguments and that the government and society in America would evolve into the nation they envisioned based upon those Rights.

Unfortunately it appears that Americans today are no more informed or knowledgeable about what our "unalienable/inalienable/natural Rights" are today than they were in the late 18th Century when the American Revolution took place and with the Constitution was created and ratified for the United States.
__________________
President Lincoln issued 64 pardons for war-related offences; 22 for conspiracy, 17 for treason, 12 for rebellion, 9 for holding an office under the Confederacy, and 4 for serving with the rebels.

The American Civil War was a White (WASP Male) Supremacist insurrection against the Constitutional government of the United States. Every American that served the Confederate cause was a TRAITOR and every White Supremacist today is a Traitor and a Terrorist.
Reply With Quote
  #56 (permalink)  
Old 09-28-2017, 10:34 PM
Jeerleader's Avatar
Guide
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA
Gender: Male
Posts: 391
Thanks: 220
Thanked 445 Times in 232 Posts
Default Re: What is the true source of rights?

I feel like I have stepped into an alternate universe. I'm reading Mikeyy quoting Jefferson and ShivaTD quoting Locke and both lecturing on the nature of unalienable rights.

Somebody must have slipped be some special mushrooms . . .
__________________
Allowing an illegal border crosser to stay in the US with amnesty and start the legal immigration process
is like allowing a bank robber to go free and keep the money as long as he fills out a loan application.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Jeerleader For This Useful Post:
  #57 (permalink)  
Old 09-29-2017, 09:49 PM
Mikeyy's Avatar
Enchanted One
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: PNW
Gender: Male
Posts: 69,811
Thanks: 22,241
Thanked 18,768 Times in 13,812 Posts
Default Re: What is the true source of rights?

Rights R Us
__________________
It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
rights, source, the, true, what

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0