Do rights exist?
George Dance
Libertarians believe in universal, individual, human rights. But
rights cannot be observed - we can't see, hear, touch, or smell them,
or detect them with any kind of instruments. So how do we justify
claiming that they are not just an idea, but actually exist?
One reasonable answer would be: rights exist if there is evidence that
they do, and no evidence that they don't. The only available evidence
is testimonial - people speaking and acting as if rights exist - and
it's not reasonable to believe that, if there's similar evidence to
the contrary. If, however, there is no contrary evidence - if all the
testimony is to the same effect - it is reasonable to believe the only
conclusion supported by evidence. And we can observe whether that is
the case.
First, though, we need to define what we're looking for; so what is a
right? When is a statement like "John has a right to do F" true? We
know for sure when it can't be true; when "It is wrong for John to do
F" is true. So: John has a right to do F if and only if it is not
wrong for John to do F. But that can mean either:
a) "John has a 'liberty right' to F" (It's not wrong for John to do F,
or wrong for anyone to interfere with John's F-ing, either.); or
b) "John has a 'claim right' to F" (It's not wrong for John to do F,
and it is wrong for anyone to interfere with John's F-ing.).
In a hockey game, for example, every player has a 'liberty right' to
score a goal - no one is penalized for trying to score or for
preventing a goal, either. In contrast, there's no 'liberty right'
to cross-check - cross-checking is wrong and does incur a penalty -
which means that every player has a 'claim right' to skate without
being cross-checked.
Like hockey penalties, laws and moral rules restrict liberty rights by
declaring some acts wrong. But no matter how restrictive, they are
not evidence against liberty rights. Take a law that fined me for not
voting. That law says nothing about how I tie my shoelaces, or
countless other
things; so it's no evidence that I do not have liberty rights at all.
And the same law cannot also fine me for voting - it cannot deny my
liberty right to not vote, without affirming my liberty right to vote.
So each law is evidence for my having liberty rights.
As well, every law or moral rule establishes a claim right. If I
don't have a liberty right to do something to someone, it must be
wrong for me to do that; in which case, that someone has a claim right
against me (that I don't do that to him). And if no one has a liberty
right to do an act X at all, each and every person has a claim right
that X not be done.
If laws exist, legal rights exist. If morality exists, moral rights
exist. Since both laws and morality exist, rights exist; and everyone
who believes laws or morality exist - who speaks or acts as if they
exist - believes that rights exist.
But what about the skeptic who insists that he does not recognize any
laws or moral rules? Well, he's saying that nothing we do is wrong -
so he's agreeing that we do have liberty rights. And he also must
agree that's it not wrong for us to punish him if we think he does
wrong - which is all
we need to have claim rights against him.
People can and do disagree on what our legal rights (what rights a law
says we have) or moral rights (what rights we should have) are. But
we cannot dispute that there are such rights, as we all agree that
there are.
------------------------------------------------
from Libertarian Bulletin, Summer, 2004. Permission is granted to
reprint, provided appropriate credit is given.
- 30 -
Liberty1st
remove faith from society. If we cannot claim our rights are from God...we
cannot claim we have rights. That is the left wings dream imho.
"George Dance" <georg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.04061...@posting.google.com...
Paul Tiger
"Liberty1st" <liber...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:U_qdnbcGo4u...@comcast.com...
Liberty1st
However, the premise that we have rights that are from our creator were
formed from Judeo Christianity and that is what gave atheists the right to
not believe. A right they wish to take away from Christians I might add.
"Paul Tiger" <paul....@paultiger.com> wrote in message
news:cafhpn$arh$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
Dale
> remove faith from society. If we cannot claim our rights are from
God...we
> cannot claim we have rights. That is the left wings dream imho.
I don't believe in your Creator, therefore you have no rights. You see how
weak your argument is? Now go back and read the whole essay instead of just
the subject line.
Abakus
from the state which is the form of organization civilized societies give
themselves.
regards
leo
Courageous
>All this libertarian mumbo-jumbo cannot hide the fact that rights derive
A "state" is a collection of persons. Rights derive from _people_,
who have common preconceptions of what they themselves, both as
individuals and as a collective, believe they deserve. Some of these
things can be predicted, because they tend to exist in nature per
se, by virtue of our neurocognitive predilictions towards certain
beliefs. For example, we instinctively have a desire not to die.
Likewise, we have neurocognitive predilictions as a society not
to mate with individuals as close as or closer than our first
cousin, as the field of cognitive anthropology would reveal to
you if you were to study it.
A "state" doesn't think, and cannot conceive anything. It has no
brain, no thought, no rights, no power. Only the people in it
have those things. The moment one uses an abstraction at higher
level than this, one has forgotten the most essential aspect of
the equation. As well as changing its nature in such a way as to
risk a grave mistake about how the whole thing really works.
C//
Liberty1st
take your rights away. So since only your creator can take them away,
Government doing so is tyranny.
That's the principles upon which the US was founded despite many on the left
wishing to water it down..
"Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
news:69omc0plk1jrln779...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 14:34:19 -0400, "Liberty1st"
> <liber...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >Of course they do. They come from whatever creator they believe in.
> >However, the premise that we have rights that are from our creator were
> >formed from Judeo Christianity and that is what gave atheists the right
to
> >not believe. A right they wish to take away from Christians I might add.
> >
>
> Either rights are inherent or not. If rights were given by God then
> they are not rights, they are privileges. And being privileges, they
> can be taken by God as well.
>
>
> --
> "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
> percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
> forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson
Liberty1st
do not come from man. Thus man has no right to take those basic rights
away.
And despite the efforts of the left, I still have my firearms and when you
want to come take my rights you should remember that, :)
Again I note a lefty had to make a personal attack to deflect from the
topic. Showing again that those of you on the left really do support
censorship of views you disagree with. Think about it...what infamous
rulers of history had that same attitude of "crush any dissenting views"
like you exhibit?
Yet I am suppose to see your side as reasonable and who I should vote for?
YIKES!!
Have a nice day.
"Dale" <dmg...@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:cafl9p$t...@library1.airnews.net...
Liberty1st
bloodshed if the state tries to trample them.
"Abakus" <aba...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:pIJyc.808$QQ2.745@newsfe5-win...
Liberty1st
"Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
news:mgsmc05qkdbvt9eun...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 16:59:51 -0400, "Liberty1st"
> <liber...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >Call it whatever you wish. The bottom line is that only your creator can
> >take your rights away. So since only your creator can take them away,
> >Government doing so is tyranny.
> >
>
> If the creator can take my rights away then they aren't really rights,
> are they? They are privileges granted by the creator, not rights.
Topquark
So if no state exists, people have no rights? That definition of rights--as
coming from the state--is even more arbitrary.
Topquark
> You believing in my creator is not the point. The point is that our
rights
> do not come from man. Thus man has no right to take those basic rights
> away.
I think that the previous poster's point was not to deny that rights exist
but that they are not dependent on the existence of a God, and that in fact
the original essay did not claim that they were. Nor do libertarians
generally believe that they are.
Liberty1st
"Topquark" <jrus...@XXyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40cb7772$0$3037$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
George Dance
> Rights exist and are granted by our creator. Thus the left's drive to
> remove faith from society.
Perhaps; if that account gets you to believe that rights exist, then
I'm not going to quarrel with you; I don't think we have to agree on
why rights exist, so long as we agree that they do, and go on from
that point of agreement to figure out what they are.
> If we cannot claim our rights are from God...we
> cannot claim we have rights. That is the left wings dream imho.
Well, no; even if the 'leftist' succeeds in getting everyone to
disbelieve that there are no Gods or creators, he cannot get them to
actually disbelieve that there are any rights; as soon as he claims
any authority whatever to do anything to the rest of us, or to have us
do anything for him, he's asserting that there are rights - which he
has and the rest of us don't. He can't consistently assert that there
are no rights, period.
Abakus
"Topquark" <jrus...@XXyahoo.com> wrote in message
Rights, like any other forms of legal arrangements between invididuals, or
between individuals and the state are established in the legal bodies which
each country generates. If you were the ony individual walking the earth,
who would grant you your rights, and who would make them respected?
Regards
abakus
Abakus
"Courageous" <dont...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:igmmc0hn6vu47hid6...@4ax.com...
>
> >All this libertarian mumbo-jumbo cannot hide the fact that rights derive
> >from the state ...
>
> A "state" is a collection of persons. Rights derive from _people_,
> who have common preconceptions of what they themselves, both as
> individuals and as a collective, believe they deserve. Some of these
> things can be predicted, because they tend to exist in nature per
> se, by virtue of our neurocognitive predilictions towards certain
> beliefs. For example, we instinctively have a desire not to die.
So far so good
> Likewise, we have neurocognitive predilictions as a society not
> to mate with individuals as close as or closer than our first
> cousin, as the field of cognitive anthropology would reveal to
> you if you were to study it.
Agreed
> A "state" doesn't think, and cannot conceive anything. It has no
> brain, no thought, no rights, no power. Only the people in it
> have those things. The moment one uses an abstraction at higher
> level than this, one has forgotten the most essential aspect of
> the equation. As well as changing its nature in such a way as to
> risk a grave mistake about how the whole thing really works.
>
> C//
The state as you say is the collection of people. And this collection of
people embodied in the state generate a body of legislation which includes a
section we call "rights". This is what gives you your rights.
regards
abakus
Abakus
> Nonsense. My rights derive from my creator. The state should expect
> bloodshed if the state tries to trample them.
Please explain who this creator of yours happens to be, where his residency
is and where is the text where this creator grants you your rights.
abakus
Abakus
> Call it whatever you wish. The bottom line is that only your creator can
> take your rights away. So since only your creator can take them away,
> Government doing so is tyranny.
>
> That's the principles upon which the US was founded despite many on the
left
> wishing to water it down..
This is alt.philosopy, not alt.USrightwingbabble, so that comment is neither
here nor there. Who cares what principles were the US founded upon ?
regards
abakus
Liberty1st
beliefs?
"Abakus" <aba...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:xQLyc.2318$jF2....@newsfe5-gui.server.ntli.net...
Liberty1st
the public through control of the schools so they do not know where their
rights come from and thus, will be easier to usurp them.
Liberty1st
is the same courtesy.
Since my creator is even mentioned in the constitution... I feel pretty
confident that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution spell it all
out quite well. And since they are the law of the land.........
"Abakus" <aba...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:_LLyc.2317$jF2....@newsfe5-gui.server.ntli.net...
Topquark
> "Topquark" <jrus...@XXyahoo.com> wrote...
> > "Abakus" <aba...@ntlworld.com> wrote...
> > > "George Dance" <georg...@hotmail.com> wrote...
> > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > All this libertarian mumbo-jumbo cannot hide the fact that rights
derive
> > > from the state which is the form of organization civilized societies
> give
> > > themselves.
> >
> >
> > So if no state exists, people have no rights? That definition of
> rights--as
> > coming from the state--is even more arbitrary.
> >
> Arbitrary or not, where do you expect your rights to come -from "god" ?
> Rights, like any other forms of legal arrangements between invididuals, or
> between individuals and the state are established in the legal bodies
which
> each country generates. If you were the ony individual walking the earth,
> who would grant you your rights, and who would make them respected?
You're confusing legal rights with ethical rights. Even atheist ethicists
use the concept of ethical rights. The meaning of the word is arbitrary in
the same sense that all definitions are arbitrary--that does not imply it's
meaningless. For example, the concepts of territoriality or memes are
dependent on human definitions. But they describe real phenomena in the
physical world.
In the absence of a state, would you really believe that there's nothing
wrong with murder or rape? If a state determines that certain people no
longer have rights--even the right to life--as the Nazi government did for
Jews and other groups, does that really mean they have no such rights?
Abakus
> As a Christian my creator is God. You can believe as you wish. All I ask
> is the same courtesy.
>
> Since my creator is even mentioned in the constitution... I feel pretty
> confident that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution spell it
all
> out quite well. And since they are the law of the land.........
What do you mean by "the constitution"? This is an international newsgroup.
Please specify the constitution of which country you are talking about. You
may not be aware of it but there are some countries other than the US. A
map would help perhaps.
regards
Abakus
"Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 22:50:56 +0100, "Abakus" <aba...@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >Arbitrary or not, where do you expect your rights to come -from "god" ?
> >
>
> to endow people with rights?
>
From the people of course. All laws come from the people. And so do rights.
regards
abakus
Abakus
"Topquark" <jrus...@XXyahoo.com> wrote in message
cultural arrangement which governs our behaviour towards other people and
the behaviour of other people towards us assume the existence of a community
of people and stem from the thoughts, traditions and decisions of a
community of people. Rights are a cultural construct. Even if your specific
state happened to deny your rights there is still a community which would
understand that you have rights. My point was simply that rights are made,
protected and enforced by people; they are a human construct. They are not
inherent, inborn, natural or god-given. They are a construct which we have
created as a necessary element of civilization.
regards
abakus
tg
> laws or moral rules? Well, he's saying that nothing we do is wrong -
The argument of a clever 12-year old.
-tg
> so he's agreeing that we do have liberty rights. And he also must
> agree that's it not wrong for us to punish him if we think he does
> wrong - which is all
> we need to have claim rights against him.
>
> People can and do disagree on what our legal rights (what rights a law
> says we have) or moral rights (what rights we should have) are. But
> we cannot dispute that there are such rights, as we all agree that
> there are.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> from Libertarian Bulletin, Summer, 2004. Permission is granted to
> reprint, provided appropriate credit is given.
>
>
> - 30 -
George Dance
> "Courageous" <dont...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:igmmc0hn6vu47hid6...@4ax.com...
> >
> > >All this libertarian mumbo-jumbo cannot hide the fact that rights derive
> > >from the state ...
> >
> > A "state" is a collection of persons. Rights derive from _people_,
> > who have common preconceptions of what they themselves, both as
> > individuals and as a collective, believe they deserve. Some of these
> > things can be predicted, because they tend to exist in nature per
> > se, by virtue of our neurocognitive predilictions towards certain
> > beliefs. For example, we instinctively have a desire not to die.
>
> So far so good
>
> > Likewise, we have neurocognitive predilictions as a society not
> > to mate with individuals as close as or closer than our first
> > cousin, as the field of cognitive anthropology would reveal to
> > you if you were to study it.
>
> Agreed
>
> > A "state" doesn't think, and cannot conceive anything. It has no
> > brain, no thought, no rights, no power. Only the people in it
> > have those things. The moment one uses an abstraction at higher
> > level than this, one has forgotten the most essential aspect of
> > the equation. As well as changing its nature in such a way as to
> > risk a grave mistake about how the whole thing really works.
> >
> > C//
>
> The state as you say is the collection of people.
No, a state is an idea, or 'mumbo jumbo' as you put it. A government,
OTOH, is a collection of people that generates a body of legislation,
for themselves and others. And the content of this legislation
determines what legal rights governors and non-governors have.
> And this collection of
> people embodied in the state generate a body of legislation which includes a
> section we call "rights".
Sometimes. Often, though, rights are given a more entrenched legal
position.
Immortalist
"George Dance" <georg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.04061...@posting.google.com...
> Do Rights Exist?
>
Rights are boundries we bump against, restrictions upon the state's behavior.
> Libertarians believe in universal, individual, human rights. But
> rights cannot be observed - we can't see, hear, touch, or smell them,
> or detect them with any kind of instruments. So how do we justify
> claiming that they are not just an idea, but actually exist?
>
A right is an agreement between people to regulate harm.
> One reasonable answer would be: rights exist if there is evidence that
> they do, and no evidence that they don't. The only available evidence
> is testimonial - people speaking and acting as if rights exist - and
> it's not reasonable to believe that, if there's similar evidence to
> the contrary. If, however, there is no contrary evidence - if all the
> testimony is to the same effect - it is reasonable to believe the only
> conclusion supported by evidence. And we can observe whether that is
> the case.
>
> First, though, we need to define what we're looking for; so what is a
> right? When is a statement like "John has a right to do F" true? We
> know for sure when it can't be true; when "It is wrong for John to do
> F" is true. So: John has a right to do F if and only if it is not
> wrong for John to do F. But that can mean either:
>
> a) "John has a 'liberty right' to F" (It's not wrong for John to do F,
> or wrong for anyone to interfere with John's F-ing, either.); or
>
> b) "John has a 'claim right' to F" (It's not wrong for John to do F,
> and it is wrong for anyone to interfere with John's F-ing.).
>
John only has a right not to be harmed by other people or the state. Where do you
get this "has a right to do anything?"
Unregulated behavior not percieved to be harmful is not a right.
Smash him in the face because he won't press charges?
> Well, he's saying that nothing we do is wrong -
> so he's agreeing that we do have liberty rights. And he also must
> agree that's it not wrong for us to punish him if we think he does
> wrong - which is all
> we need to have claim rights against him.
>
> People can and do disagree on what our legal rights (what rights a law
> says we have) or moral rights (what rights we should have) are. But
> we cannot dispute that there are such rights, as we all agree that
> there are.
>
How abouts not confusing "rights" with "rules?"
These are the ten moral rules that all rational persons would want to be part of
the public system that applies to all rational persons. No one should be
surprised by these ten rules. These are all obvious, simple rules that everyone
is supposed to follow regardless of what their personal goal in life is. Careful
attention to these rules shows that they primarily set limits on what one is
morally allowed to do. They do not provide a positive goal for life. This is done
by another part of the moral system, what I call the moral ideals.
By an evil or a harm, I simply mean something that you would always avoid for
your self or your friends unless you had some reason for not avoiding it. I
define a good or a benefit in a similar way, as something you would not avoid for
yourself and your friends unless you had some reason to. I claim that, in the
sense I have given to the terms, we all agree on what the goods and evils are,
i.e., we all have the same basic values.
FUNDAMENTAL
Do not Kill
Do not Cause Pain
Do not Disable
Do not Deprive of Freedom
Do not Deprive of Pleasure.
DERIVETIVE
Don't Deceive
Keep Your Promise
Don't Cheat
Obey the Law
Do Your Duty--where Duty includes those actions you are required to do by your
job, your position, your family, your circumstances, etc., e.g., a teacher has a
duty to show up for class.
THE MORAL IDEALS
Now I am going to make explicit the moral ideals. Moral ideals are those precepts
that tell you to help others, to prevent the suffering of pain and disability
etc. Following the moral ideals goes beyond what is required by the rules, but
that does not mean that in a conflict between the rules and the ideals, one
should always follow the rules. For example, everyone agrees that you can break a
promise to meet someone at the movies, if it is necessary to save a life. The
moral ideal of saving a life justifies your breaking this moral rule. The moral
rules and moral ideals are both important, and sometimes one should take
precedence over the other, sometimes the reverse. It depends on what rules and
ideals are involved. It depends on the particular circumstances. But there is an
important difference between the rules and the ideals. The rules tell you not to
cause an evil, e.g., do not cause pain; the ideals tell you to prevent or relieve
evil being suffered, e.g., relieve pain.
You will notice that the moral rules can be obeyed with regard to all people, all
of the time, equally. You can obey the moral rules impartially with regard to all
people all the time, twenty-four hours a day, seven day a week, fifty-two weeks a
year. You can obey them when you are alone on a desert island, in fact, you
cannot help but obey them when you are alone on a desert island. The situation is
really different with regard to the moral ideals. You cannot be following the
moral ideals twenty-four hours a day. You have to sleep sometime, and when you
are sleeping you are not following the moral ideals. This is a significant
difference between the moral ideals and the moral rules, e.g., all of you reading
this essay are right now obeying all of the moral rules, but none of you right
now are obeying any of the moral ideals. Reading this essay may lead you to
follow moral ideals, but right at this minute, you are not following them,
whereas you are obeying all of the moral rules.
This difference between the rules and the ideals leads to another difference: it
is appropriate to punish people for not obeying the moral rules, but it is not
appropriate to punish them for not following the moral ideals. When would you
punish them?
http://aristotle.tamu.edu/~rasmith/Courses/251/gert-paper.html
Donkey Agony
> Do Rights Exist?
Of course they do. Whether *you* have rights in the society you live in
is another story altogether. A Jew in Nazi Germany, or an ordinary
citizen in the USSR had very few (if any) rights. In a *free* society,
you have rights.
Rights are based on property. The difference between a "right" and a
"privelege" is that you have to *ask* someone to grant to you a
privelege. If it's a right, you don't have to ask anyone.
In a free society, if you own your own land you can do what you want it.
(I'm purposefully ignoring things like "eminent domain", wetlands
declarations, etc. existin in partially free/partially slave societies.)
You *don't* have a right to walk across someone else's land. You have
to get the owner's *permission*, either explicitly or implicitly, and
with the knowledge that that permission can be revoked.
In a free society, you don't have to be granted permission to live.
It's your body, your property. It's your right.
Free healthcare provided by the government -- is that a right? Well,
consider that it involves taking money from others by force to pay for
it...
PS. Two caveats:
1) Your rights imply the equal rights of others. If you steal from
someone (i.e., take their *property*), you forfeit your rights.
2) A right implies a responsibility. They are two sides of the same
coin.
--
da
~~
"OE Quotefix" http://flash.to/oe-quotefix
to fix Outlook Express' broken quoting.
Woodard R. Springstube
news:H_ednZHXdJb...@comcast.com:
> I care. As do millions of others. Surely you're tolerant
> of others beliefs?
>
I have never, ever, in my whole life seen a left-winger who was
truly tolerant of any belief other than the dogmas of the left.
Woodard R. Springstube
news:pIJyc.808$QQ2.745@newsfe5-win:
>
> "George Dance" <georg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6312c50b.04061...@posting.google.com...
>> Do Rights Exist?
>>
>> Libertarians believe in universal, individual, human
>> rights. But rights cannot be observed - we can't see,
>> hear, touch, or smell them, or detect them with any kind
>> of instruments. So how do we justify claiming that they
>> are not just an idea, but actually exist?
>>
>> One reasonable answer would be: rights exist if there is
>> evidence that they do, and no evidence that they don't.
>> The only available evidence is testimonial - people
>> speaking and acting as if rights exist - and it's not
>> reasonable to believe that, if there's similar evidence to
>> the contrary. If, however, there is no contrary evidence
>> - if all the testimony is to the same effect - it is
>> reasonable to believe the only
>> conclusion supported by evidence. And we can observe
>> whether that is
>> the case.
>>
>> First, though, we need to define what we're looking for;
>> so what is a right? When is a statement like "John has a
>> right to do F" true? We know for sure when it can't be
>> true; when "It is wrong for John to do F" is true. So:
>> John has a right to do F if and only if it is not wrong
>> for John to do F. But that can mean either:
>>
>> a) "John has a 'liberty right' to F" (It's not wrong for
>> John to do F, or wrong for anyone to interfere with
>> John's F-ing, either.); or
>>
>> b) "John has a 'claim right' to F" (It's not wrong for
>> John to do F, and it is wrong for anyone to interfere with
>> John's F-ing.).
>>
>> recognize any laws or moral rules? Well, he's saying that
>> nothing we do is wrong - so he's agreeing that we do have
>> liberty rights. And he also must agree that's it not
>> wrong for us to punish him if we think he does wrong -
>> which is all we need to have claim rights against him.
>>
>> People can and do disagree on what our legal rights (what
>> rights a law says we have) or moral rights (what rights we
>> should have) are. But we cannot dispute that there are
>> such rights, as we all agree that there are.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------
>>
>> from Libertarian Bulletin, Summer, 2004. Permission is
>> granted to reprint, provided appropriate credit is given.
>>
>>
> All this libertarian mumbo-jumbo cannot hide the fact that
> rights derive from the state which is the form of
> organization civilized societies give themselves.
>
> regards
> leo
>
>
>
Then, when the *state* decides that you no longer have the
right to live, you will stroll into the gas chamber with no
objections?
If rights derive from the state, then they may be taken at the
whim of the state. From that, it follows that the American
Revolution was evil. From that, it also follows that the
holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis, and the mass murders
committed by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were good because they
were the actions of the state. My friend, you are too smart
for your own good, unless you are a statist who expects to be
part of the ruling elite that gets to decide what rights
others will, or will not, have. Then, your position is
completely self-serving.
My own belief is that rights exist whenever people are willing
to fight and die to secure those rights. That is why I am a
strong supporter of the Second Amendment as a protection for
the rights of individuals.
Dale
> As a Christian my creator is God. You can believe as you wish. All I ask
> is the same courtesy.
>
> Since my creator is even mentioned in the constitution... I feel pretty
> confident that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution spell it
all
> out quite well. And since they are the law of the land.........
The US Constitution was written by the Creator?
@
news:Xns95078341286C...@64.245.249.102...
You just met one - me - so you can never make that statement again
truthfully. Actually, I'm a moderate (according to tests I've taken); but
compared to radical right wing fascists like the neocon Bush junta, I'm
definitely to the left.
I tolerate (perhaps even entertain the thought of) many ideas, beliefs and
theories if the person who proposes it can back it up with a sound argument
in the proper context (ie: real life, or a likely future scenario). While I
encourage diverse beliefs; I have trouble with religious myths. It's fine
for those who believe them - hey, it's your religion, have at it - but not
when they start trying to criticize me for not falling in line with their
particular fantasy novel (Bible, Q'ran, etc.) BTW: This definitely includes
crystal worship, mysticism, the occult, etc, etc. Show me the facts and the
logic. What really happened? No, I don't believe in communicating with
spirits, ghosts, etc. I'll listen to your beliefs, and respect them; but
you'll have a very hard time getting me to believe it. It's not necessary.
Different strokes, y'know.
Tolerance is pretty easy if you don't start out with religion forming your
core beliefs, since religion is self-serving, dogmatic and exclusionary
almost by definition. Education in sociology and psychology provides
important understanding of human behavior.
@
Rarin Horse
>
> "Liberty1st" <liber...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:YI6dnT9Dh6B...@comcast.com...
> > Call it whatever you wish. The bottom line is that only your creator can
> > take your rights away. So since only your creator can take them away,
> > Government doing so is tyranny.
> >
> > That's the principles upon which the US was founded despite many on the
> left
> > wishing to water it down..
>
> This is alt.philosopy, not alt.USrightwingbabble, so that comment is neither
> here nor there. Who cares what principles were the US founded upon ?
>
I do. And I think it's relevant to this discussion of rights.
Paul Tiger
> Of course they do. They come from whatever creator they believe in.
> However, the premise that we have rights that are from our creator were
> formed from Judeo Christianity and that is what gave atheists the right to
> not believe. A right they wish to take away from Christians I might add.
What! who's taking what from Christians? Are you suggesting that atheists
are on a mission to remove the rights of theists? My you are paranoid aren't
you. People are free to believe whatever they like, and no atheist that I am
aware of (self included) could be bothered with what believers think. It
would be a waste of my time (sort of like this thread).
Get a grip man, you're awfully self-important aren't you. Only your beliefs
have value. Tell me what you think of Muslims or Jews?
paul tiger
>
> "Paul Tiger" <paul....@paultiger.com> wrote in message
> news:cafhpn$arh$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
> > So athiests have no rights?
> >
> > "Liberty1st" <liber...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:U_qdnbcGo4u...@comcast.com...
> > > Rights exist and are granted by our creator. Thus the left's drive to
> > > remove faith from society. If we cannot claim our rights are from
Paul Tiger
"Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:29:41 -0400, "Liberty1st"
> <liber...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >Like I said, call it what you like. I see them as rights.
> >
>
> I thought the purpose of the discussion was to try to establish the
> origin of rights. Apparently, you are not interested in any kind of
> discussion. You want to simply assert your beliefs. Well, that's all
> find and dandy but don't expect to convince other people simply by
> stating your beliefs.
Oh no this is fun, because I believe that we (humans) did not originate from
this planet. I believe that we are imports, like the telephone sanitizers in
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. So all I need to worry about is having my
rights revoked by alien visitors.
So the gov't shouldn't be able to remove my rights, but little green men in
flying saucers can. And god cannot (unless he's an alien).
tiger
Paul Tiger
"Dale" <dmg...@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:cafl9p$t...@library1.airnews.net...
> "Liberty1st" <liber...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:U_qdnbcGo4u...@comcast.com...
> > Rights exist and are granted by our creator. Thus the left's drive to
> > remove faith from society. If we cannot claim our rights are from
> God...we
> > cannot claim we have rights. That is the left wings dream imho.
>
> weak your argument is? Now go back and read the whole essay instead of
just
> the subject line.
Bravo! But Liberty1st says that atheists want to remove his/her rights, and
also suggests that atheists do have a creator that they believe in. Very
confusing. The creator that I don't believe in will deny that you have
rights? Help, I need a creator -- so it can give me rights and take away
others. This is exactly why I refuse to believe.
tiger
>
>
Abakus
"Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 00:26:01 +0100, "Abakus" <aba...@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >"Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
> >news:q50nc0hv36o2e2b5k...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 22:50:56 +0100, "Abakus" <aba...@ntlworld.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Arbitrary or not, where do you expect your rights to come -from "god"
?
> >> >
> >>
> >> How can rights come from the State? Where does the State get the power
> >> to endow people with rights?
> >>
> >
> >From the people of course. All laws come from the people. And so do
rights.
> >
>
> endow people with those rights?
>
Because you need some sort of organized body to sit down, discuss, get pen
and paper and write down a declaration of rights, publish it, make it known,
implement it and enforce it. That is the way laws have been established and
implemented since the Hammurabi code.
regards
Abakus
Abakus
"Woodard R. Springstube" <springst...@Diespammer.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95078341286C...@64.245.249.102...
Paranoia is not really curable, but there are a number of drugs which can
keep it reasonably at bay. Consult your doctor.
regards
abakus
Abakus
"Woodard R. Springstube" <springst...@Diespammer.net> wrote in message
My friend, I have not idea what you are talking about. Very patriotic and
stuff, etc but you are not answering the questions. But if shooting your gun
every now and again makes you happy, hey, whatever rocks your boat.
regards
abakus
George Dance
> georg...@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote in message news:<6312c50b.04061...@posting.google.com>...
> > Do Rights Exist?
> The argument of a clever 12-year old.
>
> -tg
Sounds like something a not-so-clever 14-year-old would say.
Topquark
You evaded the question--and I think missed the main point. If a state or a
society decided that certain groups of people did not have rights, would
that make it so? Did Jews or other groups not have rights because the Nazi
state said they didn't? Were various peoples rightly kept in slavery
because for most of human history societies judged that they did not have a
right to freedom?
You're assuming that rights are *just* a human construct. In a real sense,
all concepts are human constructs--even fundamental ones like time. That
does not mean that the phenomena they describe do not exist except in human
minds. As in the examples I gave of territoriality and memes, other more
complex concepts are used to describe animal and human behavior, but that
behavior exists independently of what we call it.
It's the job of ethics to determine general rules that govern how we
"should" behave independently of what any one group or society considers
normative behavior. It's true that there is (and probably will always be)
some arbitrariness to this, but it's evading the problem to say that moral
rights or behavior are just whatever a particular society or state say they
are at some time.
Abakus
"Topquark" <jrus...@XXyahoo.com> wrote in message
I didnt mean to evade the issue. I think that ever since the Carta Magna,
later the French Revolution and later other declaration of principles such
as that of the UN in 1948 and other international treaties there is a vast
body of principles which we can perhaps call "western" in origin which
includes what we call inalienable human rights. There has been a historic
process in which more rights were gradually added as they were considered to
be important. For instance the right to a job, to health coverage, to a
decent house and to unionization are recent developments. Also, at certain
times individual states may add further rights, but in general we
understand that the right to life, to freedom of expression, freedom of
religion, health, etc, etc are part of the body of thought I mentioned
before. A certain state in a certain situation may arbitrarily decide to
remove certain rights from certain individuals. As an international
community we would then judge that the actions of such state contravene the
human rights that we accept as inalienable. In other words, the rights have
become internationalized and are judged to derive from a universal agreement
rather than from the decision of an individual state. Of course, some rights
are violated in most countries, for instance the UN declaration states that
everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and
well-being of himself and of his family and also that everyone has the right
to work and unfortunately in most societies there are unemployed people
and people living in degrading conditions.
regards
abakus
Ron Allen
> I have never, ever, in my whole life seen a
> left-winger who was truly tolerant of any belief
> other than the dogmas of the left.
Ron Allen answers:
"Truly tolerant"? You're not just satisfied with
a left-winger being simply tolerant. You're on a
quest for a left-winger who is absolutely,
certainly, unquestionably, unequivocally, and
positively tolerant, broad-minded, open-minded,
etc. I wonder just how many left-wingers you know
well enough to make a fair judgment of their
genuine tolerance.
<><><><><><><><><>
"Toleration is not the opposite of intoleration,
but is the counterfeit of it. Both are
despotisms. The one assumes to itself the right
of withholding the liberty of conscience, and the
other of granting it."
-- Thomas Paine
Ron Allen
> Rights exist and are granted by our creator.
Ron Allen answers:
What creator? Who is this creator? What rights
does this creator grant to human beings? Where
are these granted rights inventoried and indexed?
When were these rights enumerated and cataloged?
Why must a creator grant us rights? If a creator
grants us rights, and gives us laws, then aren't
we the people still induced and constrained by
need to decipher, expound, clarify, understand,
translate, paraphrase, accept, and obey whatever
rights and laws the creator has vouchsafed to us
either by natural, general, special, or divine
revelation?
If rights are a gift of some deity or other, then
what happens to our rights when every divine being
has passed away? If rights are a gift of some one
of the gods, then why have the followers of, for
example, the christian god been so indifferent and
so thoughtless about most of the rights we now
accept and assume? Why have heretical free-masons
and radical free-thinkers been so instrumental in
the forging of so many of the rights we now take
for granted?
Liberty1st wrote:
> Thus the left's drive to remove faith from
> society.
Ron Allen answers:
There are leftist christians, just as there are
leftist atheists. There are also right-wingers
who are atheists, just as there are catholic,
orthodox, protestant, jewish, islamic, buddhist,
and pagan conservatives.
Can you tell us just one right granted to us, in
writing, from whatever god you worship?
Liberty1st wrote:
> If we cannot claim our rights are from God...we
> cannot claim we have rights. That is the left
> wings dream imho.
Ron Allen answers:
You seem to be wholly unaware that leftists have a
splendid history and a noble record of espousing
and defending rights.
I do not believe "God" exists. I believe that if
"God" does exist, it has not mattered, it does not
matter. "God" is of no importance, and is of no
consequence. If "God" exists, people still murder
and misuse each other. "God" does not count in
human affairs, or in historical events. Sure, the
champions and the adventurers talk of "God", but
so do the villains and varlets. Most of the
people in prison will say that they believe in
"God".
There are capitalists who firmly believe in "God",
and there are socialists who firmly believe in
"God". What rights do these believers suppose are
granted by "God" to humanity?
There are many who sincerely believe that "God" is
on the side of the United States. There are many
others who seriously believe that "God" is on the
side of the jewish state of Israel. There are
many more who solemnly believe that "God" is on
the side of muslim nations and islamic terrorists.
So many wars and murders have happened in the name
and cause of "God". The only right "God" has ever
given to human beings is the right to kill people
with innocence entire and purity intact, much like
a mother with her virginity entirely whole and
eternally perfect.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"When Socialism comes into power, the Roman Church
will advocate Socialism with the same vigor it is
now favoring feudalism and slavery."
-- Ferdinand August Bebel
Abakus
"Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 14:49:08 +0100, "Abakus" <aba...@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Ok, so if rights come from the people, how come we need a state to
> >> endow people with those rights?
> >>
> >
> >Because you need some sort of organized body to sit down, discuss, get
pen
> >and paper and write down a declaration of rights, publish it, make it
known,
> >implement it and enforce it.
> >
>
> and write a declaration of rights, people don't have any rights? Or,
> in a different way, why do you need an organized body for people to
> have rights, given that you acknowledge those rights come from the
> people?
>
> >
> >That is the way laws have been established and
> >implemented since the Hammurabi code.
> >
>
> "what is".
>
The discussion has been about the origin of human rights: where do they come
from, how are they instrumented, etc. I have no idea how you would tackle
the "ought to be" of the origin of rights, in the same way that I have no
idea how you would tackle the "ought to be" of the origin of pyramids,
rivers or operas.
regards
Abakus
BuddhaThu
You are quite correct in your posting regarding "rights" as an
abstract concept.
To me, the concept of "rights" as in "natural human rights" is
deceptive.
For things existing as natural rights, one should by the sufficient
and material implication assume that such a concept could be within
the indicative mood because it can be met by the senses. If it is not,
then it is not in the indicative mood. It cannot be met by the senses.
Only things actualized can be met in the indicative mood. But rights
are a mental issue. When one is fighting for one's rights it is not
like searching for a rock or a stone, nothing natural as a tree.
Rather the search for rights is a search for meaning. Meaning is not
necessarily in the indicative mood, and it is most certainly not
創atural.' Meaning is the search for what you intend, will, or a
possibility for your existence. And natural or not, it is what you
intend to do -- for yourself, for your family.
According to Gilbert Ryle, anything mental is a dispositional state.
He is famous for the statement no ghost in the machine. He was not
acknowledging materialism, or spiritualism. A mind to him was not a
thing, i.e. a ghost, nor can it collapse down to a thing, i.e. a
brain. It exists as what you will or intend as a possibility. He
called them 租ispositions.'
It is nothing actual. To see it actual is what he called ç–Ž mistake in
category.' It mimics Wittgenstein's mistake in grammar. We treat these
things as if they are things when they only exist as mere
possibilities.
However, this does not deny the ç²—xistence' of å–ªeal possibilities.'
If I am to go outside and sit in the sun for 5 hours, it exerts a real
possibility that I will burn. But if I am to go outside and turn into
a bunny rabbit, that does not exert a real possibility. In this, there
are gradations to realism. An actual thing expresses the highest
level, but the real possibility expresses the next highest level. But
the unreal possibility is no possibility at all. It does not exist.
Therefore, the mind exist as a real possibility, it exists to a
certain level. Rights that come from minds exist, also must exist as a
real possibility, but only to a certain level. Unless it actualizes
itself within a real act, or a real event, it holds not reality.
Therefore, rights in terms of what you can express as a will, a
disposition or what you intend are real possibilities before they are
actualized within the act.
I am having real brain farts all over the place and I hope that I am
not skipping any words.
georg...@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote in message news:<6312c50b.04061...@posting.google.com>...
> But what about the skeptic who insists that he does not recognize any
> laws or moral rules? Well, he's saying that nothing we do is wrong -
> so he's agreeing that we do have liberty rights. And he also must
> agree that's it not wrong for us to punish him if we think he does
> wrong - which is all
> we need to have claim rights against him.
>
> People can and do disagree on what our legal rights (what rights a law
> says we have) or moral rights (what rights we should have) are. But
> we cannot dispute that there are such rights, as we all agree that
> there are.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> from Libertarian Bulletin, Summer, 2004. Permission is granted to
> reprint, provided appropriate credit is given.
>
>
> - 30 -
Who Me?
> Ok, so if rights come from the people, how come we need a state to
> endow people with those rights?
>
>
Simple, the people who call themselves the State because they think
they derserve to be says so...with guns!
Joe C
rights. We have grown up with our cultural morality. different
cultures have different moralities. Look at the Spartans, Romans or the
Nazies. They scrapped personal rights for military power. We only have
rights if there are enough people who want rights band together and
create and defend them. Your rights can be taken away in a second if
they have the willand opertunity.
In my opinion criminals take away our rights to life and property. We
have enemies to our rights first as long as there are other people
around. We create governments to secure our rights.
Zaphod "stil prez"
"Joe C" <en...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:iJ3zc.12419$uX2....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Rights don't exiest. We have to form a social contract to guarinee
> rights.
I'd say that rights do exist, outside of any specific social contract.
Zaphod
Donkey Agony
>> Rights don't exiest. We have to form a social contract to guarinee
>> rights.
> I'd say that rights do exist, outside of any specific social contract.
If you get a divorce in the woods of West Virginia, is she still your
sister?
Liberty1st
Independence and the principles of Jeffersonian Liberty and I'll consider
it.
But I don't think labeling them privileges instead of rights changes
anything. I doubt God will be coming down just to take my rights away. :)
"Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
news:k10nc0tm3bgtf6ta9...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:29:41 -0400, "Liberty1st"
> <liber...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >Like I said, call it what you like. I see them as rights.
> >
>
> I thought the purpose of the discussion was to try to establish the
> origin of rights. Apparently, you are not interested in any kind of
> discussion. You want to simply assert your beliefs. Well, that's all
> find and dandy but don't expect to convince other people simply by
> stating your beliefs.
>
>
>
Liberty1st
"Woodard R. Springstube" <springst...@Diespammer.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95078341286C...@64.245.249.102...
> "Liberty1st" <liber...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:H_ednZHXdJb...@comcast.com:
>
> > I care. As do millions of others. Surely you're tolerant
> > of others beliefs?
> >
>
Bert Hyman
<en...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Rights don't exiest. We have to form a social contract to guarinee
> rights.
If rights don't exist, exactly what is this "social contract"
guaranteeing?
Do people in other countries get different "contracts"? Is what's been
happening to the Chinese, for example, OK under their "contract"?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@visi.com
Liberty1st
"@" <@@@.com> wrote in message news:bMTyc.93075$Ly.63139@attbi_s01...
> "Woodard R. Springstube" <springst...@Diespammer.net> wrote in
message
> news:Xns95078341286C...@64.245.249.102...
> > "Liberty1st" <liber...@comcast.net> wrote in
> > news:H_ednZHXdJb...@comcast.com:
> >
> > > I care. As do millions of others. Surely you're tolerant
> > > of others beliefs?
> > >
> >
> > I have never, ever, in my whole life seen a left-winger who was
> > truly tolerant of any belief other than the dogmas of the left.
>
> truthfully. Actually, I'm a moderate (according to tests I've taken); but
> compared to radical right wing fascists like the neocon Bush junta, I'm
> definitely to the left.
So then calling hateful names to someone that has different political and
social beliefs than you is tollerant?
>
> I tolerate (perhaps even entertain the thought of) many ideas, beliefs and
> theories if the person who proposes it can back it up with a sound
argument
> in the proper context (ie: real life, or a likely future scenario). While
I
> encourage diverse beliefs; I have trouble with religious myths. It's fine
> for those who believe them - hey, it's your religion, have at it - but not
> when they start trying to criticize me for not falling in line with their
> particular fantasy novel (Bible, Q'ran, etc.) BTW: This definitely
includes
> crystal worship, mysticism, the occult, etc, etc. Show me the facts and
the
> logic. What really happened? No, I don't believe in communicating with
> spirits, ghosts, etc. I'll listen to your beliefs, and respect them; but
> you'll have a very hard time getting me to believe it. It's not
necessary.
> Different strokes, y'know.
>
> Tolerance is pretty easy if you don't start out with religion forming your
> core beliefs
Western civilization gets its basic ethics and beliefs from religion. All
major civilization does from one religion or another.
So I must ask...where do you get yours? And since you can make them
up...can everyone else.
And is
> , since religion is self-serving, dogmatic and exclusionary
> almost by definition.
That must be more of that Tolerance you started this post mentioning.
> Education in sociology and psychology provides
> important understanding of human behavior.
>
> @
>
>
Liberty1st
"Abakus" <aba...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:FMZyc.406$lH2...@newsfe2-gui.server.ntli.net...
Liberty1st
"Rarin Horse" <reari...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40cc03a7$0$31707$61c6...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>
> "Abakus" <aba...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:xQLyc.2318$jF2....@newsfe5-gui.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > "Liberty1st" <liber...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:YI6dnT9Dh6B...@comcast.com...
> > > Call it whatever you wish. The bottom line is that only your creator
can
> > > take your rights away. So since only your creator can take them away,
> > > Government doing so is tyranny.
> > >
> > > That's the principles upon which the US was founded despite many on
the
> > left
> > > wishing to water it down..
> >
> > This is alt.philosopy, not alt.USrightwingbabble, so that comment is
neither
> > here nor there. Who cares what principles were the US founded upon ?
> >
>
> I do. And I think it's relevant to this discussion of rights.
>
>
Liberty1st
intolerant and bigoted.
"Paul Tiger" <paul....@paultiger.com> wrote in message
news:cah83d$c7$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
> "Liberty1st" <liber...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:xOOdndLIOtU...@comcast.com...
> > Of course they do. They come from whatever creator they believe in.
> > However, the premise that we have rights that are from our creator were
> > formed from Judeo Christianity and that is what gave atheists the right
to
> > not believe. A right they wish to take away from Christians I might
add.
>
> What! who's taking what from Christians? Are you suggesting that atheists
> are on a mission to remove the rights of theists? My you are paranoid
aren't
> you. People are free to believe whatever they like, and no atheist that I
am
> aware of (self included) could be bothered with what believers think. It
> would be a waste of my time (sort of like this thread).
> Get a grip man, you're awfully self-important aren't you. Only your
beliefs
> have value. Tell me what you think of Muslims or Jews?
>
> paul tiger
>
> >
> > "Paul Tiger" <paul....@paultiger.com> wrote in message
> > news:cafhpn$arh$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
> > > So athiests have no rights?
> > >
> > > "Liberty1st" <liber...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:U_qdnbcGo4u...@comcast.com...
> > > > Rights exist and are granted by our creator. Thus the left's drive
to
> > > > remove faith from society. If we cannot claim our rights are from
Albert
Bert Hyman <be...@visi.com> wrote:
<snip>
> If rights don't exist, exactly what is this "social contract"
> guaranteeing?
>
> Do people in other countries get different "contracts"? Is what's been
> happening to the Chinese, for example, OK under their "contract"?
I think not. Being a party to a contract can be coerced. It is then
arguable if the contract is valid.
--
"Let me give you a definition of ethics: It is good to maintain and
further life; it is bad to damage and destroy life."
-- Albert Schweitzer
Albert
"Zaphod \"stil prez\"" <zap...@safe-mail.net> wrote:
<snip>
> I'd say that rights do exist, outside of any specific social contract.
I'd say that the basis for rights exists, outside of any social
contract. But that the contract is required to protect any rights
derived from that basis.
Zaphod "stil prez"
news:20040613163...@lfs.mydomain.com...
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 16:43:08 -0500
> "Zaphod \"stil prez\"" <zap...@safe-mail.net> wrote:
> <snip>
> > I'd say that rights do exist, outside of any specific social contract.
>
> I'd say that the basis for rights exists, outside of any social
> contract. But that the contract is required to protect any rights
> derived from that basis.
Even through it sounds stupid (which never stopped me) but only in the sense
that we are gregarious creatures. If we were more solitary like the big
cats, or if man had evolved intelligence but not society etc. What would
rights look like to that man or that, however loosely affiliated, society?
There's a Hugo prize winning Si/Fi book in there I bet. Free for the taking.
Zaphod
PS. I don't think that solitary man's only right would be might makes right.
Bert Hyman
<alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
> On 13 Jun 2004 22:05:39 GMT
> Bert Hyman <be...@visi.com> wrote:
><snip>
>> If rights don't exist, exactly what is this "social contract"
>> guaranteeing?
>>
>> Do people in other countries get different "contracts"? Is what's been
>> happening to the Chinese, for example, OK under their "contract"?
>
> I think not. Being a party to a contract can be coerced. It is then
> arguable if the contract is valid.
I was hoping to get an answer from the person who claims that rights don't
exist.
Zaphod "stil prez"
"Bert Hyman" <be...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9507B716F11...@209.98.13.60...
Keeping it really simple, I could say that there are no rights.
If you and I are alone and I'm bigger and meaner then you are, your very
existence would only be the merest of rights and none at all it I chose to
act.
Zaphod
Bert Hyman
<zap...@safe-mail.net> wrote:
>
> "Bert Hyman" <be...@visi.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9507B716F11...@209.98.13.60...
>> In news:20040613163...@lfs.mydomain.com Albert
>> <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On 13 Jun 2004 22:05:39 GMT
>> > Bert Hyman <be...@visi.com> wrote:
>> ><snip>
>> >> If rights don't exist, exactly what is this "social contract"
>> >> guaranteeing?
>> >>
>> >> Do people in other countries get different "contracts"? Is what's
>> >> been happening to the Chinese, for example, OK under their
>> >> "contract"?
>> >
>> > I think not. Being a party to a contract can be coerced. It is then
>> > arguable if the contract is valid.
>>
>> I was hoping to get an answer from the person who claims that rights
>> don't exist.
> Keeping it really simple, I could say that there are no rights.
>
> If you and I are alone and I'm bigger and meaner then you are, your very
> existence would only be the merest of rights and none at all it I chose
> to act.
You confuse your assumed ability to violate my rights with the
nonexistence of those rights.
Zaphod "stil prez"
O.K. I will conside that point.
Then what properties are you going to assign to these so called "rights" of
yours? :0)
Zaphod
Abakus
"Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:02:59 +0100, "Abakus" <aba...@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >"Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
> >news:9e2pc0h2g7elpplbo...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 14:49:08 +0100, "Abakus" <aba...@ntlworld.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Ok, so if rights come from the people, how come we need a state to
> >> >> endow people with those rights?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Because you need some sort of organized body to sit down, discuss, get
> >pen
> >> >and paper and write down a declaration of rights, publish it, make it
> >known,
> >> >implement it and enforce it.
> >> >
> >>
> >> So, are you saying that if an organized body doesn't sit down, discuss
> >> and write a declaration of rights, people don't have any rights? Or,
> >> in a different way, why do you need an organized body for people to
> >> have rights, given that you acknowledge those rights come from the
> >> people?
> >>
>
>
> >> >
> >> >That is the way laws have been established and
> >> >implemented since the Hammurabi code.
> >> >
> >>
> >> My objective in this discussion is to establish the "ought to be", not
> >> "what is".
> >>
> >
> >The discussion has been about the origin of human rights: where do they
come
> >from, how are they instrumented, etc. I have no idea how you would tackle
> >the "ought to be" of the origin of rights, in the same way that I have no
> >idea how you would tackle the "ought to be" of the origin of pyramids,
> >rivers or operas.
> >
>
> which they are rooted. Tradition alone is insufficient because someone
> had to start it and I still want to explain "why".
>
What is the origin of the idea of freedom of expression, democracy, trade
unions, academic autonomy, separation of church and state, separation of the
three powers of the state, nation-states, proportional representation, etc
etc etc? In some cases you can find one thinker, one politician, one
philosopher who first came up with the notion; in many cases you can't --it
was an idea which gradually emerged at a given time in a certain society or
in several societies at more or less the same time; and even in the cases
where you are able to identify one individual who first stated the idea and
published it in a well defined form the idea was probably already part of a
climate of opinion in the culture in which such individual lived. The
history of ideas is one of the most fascinating fields of study; why do we
believe what we believe? what is the origin of our beliefs?
regards
abakus
Abakus
The basic rights are something that we consider such an inalienable and
constitutive part of human beings that it is perhaps difficult to visualize
the idea that they are a human construct.
Perhaps it would help to make the point more clearly susceptible to debate
if we chose a right which is currently not settled, one which we could say
is still "in the making", as it were.
Let's consider for example the right of gay couples to get married. And for
the sake of simplicity let's circumscribe the discussion to the US only. As
far as I've read in the press there are perhaps a couple of states in the US
which allow gay marriages. Massachussets I think is one of them, or perhaps
the only one. I'm not sure. Let's assume again for the sake of simplicity
that Massachussets is the only one state where gay couples have the right to
get married.
Now, would you say that gay couples have the inherent right to get married
and all states except Massachussets deny them this right? Or would you say
that Massachussets is the only state where this right actually "exists"?
regards
Abakus
Albert
"Zaphod \"stil prez\"" <zap...@safe-mail.net> wrote:
> "Albert" <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in message
> news:20040613163...@lfs.mydomain.com...
> > On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 16:43:08 -0500
> > "Zaphod \"stil prez\"" <zap...@safe-mail.net> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > I'd say that rights do exist, outside of any specific social
> > > contract.
> >
> > I'd say that the basis for rights exists, outside of any social
> > contract. But that the contract is required to protect any rights
> > derived from that basis.
>
> Even through it sounds stupid (which never stopped me) but only in the
> sense that we are gregarious creatures. If we were more solitary like
> the big cats, or if man had evolved intelligence but not society etc.
> What would rights look like to that man or that, however loosely
> affiliated, society?
Note that I spoke of a "basis" not the specific rights that society
might extend from that basis. Also note that I am not real philosopher,
but just a dabbler and that I have a tendency to expound on what I have
most recently read :-) Therefore....paraphrasing from Michael Berumen's
_Do No Evil_:
---------------------------------------
It is irrational to desire death or suffering *for its own sake*;
Therefore all rational people share the following beliefs:
I can die or lose consciousness.
I can experience pain.
My physical and mental capabilities can be lost or diminished.
I can have mistaken beliefs.
The things I want to have can be lost or taken from me.
Obligations others have towards me can be broken.
To desire any of these things (death, pain, betrayal, etc.) *without a
reason* is rationally prohibited.
A viable society requires impartiality in application of rational
prohibitions, i.e. we can make no distinction between others and
ourselves, insofar as the rational prohibitions go; To do otherwise
will destroy the society. Therefore a rational person, who desires the
benefit of society, will agree to the impartiality.
----------------------------------------
I'm sure I screwed it up, but that is my current understanding of his
first few chapters, although I am not yet through with the book.
<snip>
Zaphod "stil prez"
May be, May be, but there are a lot of irrational people desiring all kinds
of things that are in no way beneficial to society.
Zaphod
Albert
> kinds of things that are in no way beneficial to society.
Not being beneficial to society is not necessarily bad. However, if and
when a member violates the principle of impartiality regarding the
rational prohibitions then society has the duty to expel, punish or cure
them.
Liberty1st
"Ron Allen" <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:_a1zc.1909$lr2....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> Liberty1st wrote:
> > Rights exist and are granted by our creator.
>
> What creator? Who is this creator? What rights
> does this creator grant to human beings? Where
> are these granted rights inventoried and indexed?
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html
> When were these rights enumerated and cataloged?
> Why must a creator grant us rights?
A better question is what makes you think one man or group of men should
have the right to tell another what rights he can and cannot have?
> If a creator
> grants us rights, and gives us laws, then aren't
> we the people still induced and constrained by
> need to decipher, expound, clarify, understand,
> translate, paraphrase, accept, and obey whatever
> rights and laws the creator has vouchsafed to us
> either by natural, general, special, or divine
> revelation?
Sure. Why not.
>
> If rights are a gift of some deity or other, then
> what happens to our rights when every divine being
> has passed away?
My God is, always has been, and always will be. He is the God western
civilization derived their ethics from, according to most legitimate
historians.
> If rights are a gift of some one
> of the gods, then why have the followers of, for
> example, the christian god been so indifferent and
> so thoughtless about most of the rights we now
> accept and assume?
Public education and left wing secularism being forced upon us for starters.
> Why have heretical free-masons
> and radical free-thinkers been so instrumental in
> the forging of so many of the rights we now take
> for granted?
Last time I checked God only used man to write his will and never penned
much of anything himself.
>
>
> Liberty1st wrote:
> > Thus the left's drive to remove faith from
> > society.
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> There are leftist christians, just as there are
> leftist atheists.
I must humbly disagree and point out that left wing secular philosophy is
contradictory to Christian phylosophy.
> There are also right-wingers
> who are atheists
Irrelevent
>, just as there are catholic,
> orthodox, protestant, jewish, islamic, buddhist,
> and pagan conservatives.
>
> Can you tell us just one right granted to us, in
> writing, from whatever god you worship?
Irrelevent and intolerant.
>
>
> Liberty1st wrote:
> > If we cannot claim our rights are from God...we
> > cannot claim we have rights. That is the left
> > wings dream imho.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> You seem to be wholly unaware that leftists have a
> splendid history and a noble record of espousing
> and defending rights.
Nonsense. The modern day leftist have no similarity to the liberals of the
past. They are more liking to socialists, marxists and communists in
philosophy and as such are opposed to individual rights and freedoms. The
Democrat party of the day is all about Government control and ignoring
rights, such as the 1st and 2nd, that they do not like.
For the record, Bush is no better because he is weakening the 4th with his
so called "Patriot Act" that the majority of congress, both partoes, didn't
even read before they voted in large numbers to pass. (link available on
request)
Just look at the left wing stand on smoking, gun ownership, free speech (you
all support the hate crime laws after all, and they are nothing but
censorship of speech) and many other issues. Political correctness and the
very notion that one can have another fired from a job because they swere
"offended" by a word shows that the modern day left is in no way "liberal"
or for civil rights. Not to mention the trashing of Christians being
carried out by the ACLU and it;s rediculous bastardizing of the 1st.
>
> I do not believe "God" exists.
Irrelevent. 85% of your countrymen do. And while I personally don't
believe laws should be based on religious beliefs, I certainly recognize
that our laws are in large part passed on ethics espoused by religion.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us what ethic espoused by religion you disagree
with?
> I believe that if
> "God" does exist, it has not mattered, it does not
> matter.
I disagree. He matters in my life daily.
> "God" is of no importance, and is of no
> consequence. If "God" exists, people still murder
> and misuse each other.
While I would fight to afford you the right to believe what you do... I do
not agree with you nor do over 98% (if memory serves) of the worlds
population.
> "God" does not count in
> human affairs, or in historical events.
When G W Bush follows what God wants him to do or as you would see it as he
thinks God wants him to do... I'd say most certainly God plays a very large
part.
> Sure, the
> champions and the adventurers talk of "God", but
> so do the villains and varlets. Most of the
> people in prison will say that they believe in
> "God".
Even the devils and demons in the Bibloe believe(d) in God and fear(ed) him.
>
> There are capitalists who firmly believe in "God",
> and there are socialists who firmly believe in
> "God". What rights do these believers suppose are
> granted by "God" to humanity?
There is no accounting for the false beliefs people may have about rights.
Rights are yours unless someone opresses them. Period. If you wish to
surrender yours to some other human... that is your choice. Mine were
notgranted by any other man. Thus my support of the 2nd amendment.
<tongue inserted in cheek> So then... who gives you your rights? Will he
sell them to me? I could use a slave to wash my truck and wash the dirty
cloths and such. But hey... I'll build you a shack to live in.</removes
tongue from cheek>
I trust that makes my point?
>
> There are many who sincerely believe that "God" is
> on the side of the United States. There are many
> others who seriously believe that "God" is on the
> side of the jewish state of Israel. There are
> many more who solemnly believe that "God" is on
> the side of muslim nations and islamic terrorists.
And only God knows who is right.
>
> So many wars and murders have happened in the name
> and cause of "God".
And so many have happened, Like WWII to kill people who believe in God. How
many did Pol Pot kill? 15 million? or was it 25 million?
> The only right "God" has ever
> given to human beings is the right to kill people
> with innocence entire and purity intact, much like
> a mother with her virginity entirely whole and
> eternally perfect.
Intolerant Christ-o-phobic comments aside, God gave us free will. Sadly
there are many who are just plain evil.
>
>
> <><><><><><><><><><>
>
> "When Socialism comes into power, the Roman Church
> will advocate Socialism with the same vigor it is
> now favoring feudalism and slavery."
> -- Ferdinand August Bebel
>
Liberty1st
> > As a Christian my creator is God. You can believe as you wish. All I
ask
> > is the same courtesy.
> >
> > Since my creator is even mentioned in the constitution... I feel pretty
> > confident that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution spell it
> all
> > out quite well. And since they are the law of the land.........
>
> What do you mean by "the constitution"? This is an international
newsgroup.
> Please specify the constitution of which country you are talking about.
I'm an American.
> You
> may not be aware of it but there are some countries other than the US. A
> map would help perhaps.
Personal attacks instead of substance. You must be left of center.
>
> regards
>
> abakus
>
> > "Abakus" <aba...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:_LLyc.2317$jF2....@newsfe5-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > >
> > > "Liberty1st" <liber...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:ndmdnaM52sz...@comcast.com...
> > > > Nonsense. My rights derive from my creator. The state should
expect
> > > > bloodshed if the state tries to trample them.
> > >
> > >
> > > Please explain who this creator of yours happens to be, where his
> > residency
> > > is and where is the text where this creator grants you your rights.
> > >
> > > abakus
> > >
> > >
> > > > "Abakus" <aba...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:pIJyc.808$QQ2.745@newsfe5-win...
> > > > >
> > > > > "George Dance" <georg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:6312c50b.04061...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > Do Rights Exist?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Libertarians believe in universal, individual, human rights. But
> > > > > > rights cannot be observed - we can't see, hear, touch, or smell
> > them,
> > > > > > or detect them with any kind of instruments. So how do we
justify
> > > > > > claiming that they are not just an idea, but actually exist?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One reasonable answer would be: rights exist if there is
evidence
> > that
> > > > > > they do, and no evidence that they don't. The only available
> > evidence
> > > > > > is testimonial - people speaking and acting as if rights
exist -
> > and
> > > > > > it's not reasonable to believe that, if there's similar evidence
> to
> > > > > > the contrary. If, however, there is no contrary evidence - if
all
> > the
> > > > > > testimony is to the same effect - it is reasonable to believe
the
> > only
> > > > > > conclusion supported by evidence. And we can observe whether
> that
> > is
> > > > > > the case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First, though, we need to define what we're looking for; so what
> is
> > a
> > > > > > right? When is a statement like "John has a right to do F" true?
> We
> > > > > > know for sure when it can't be true; when "It is wrong for John
to
> > do
> > > > > > F" is true. So: John has a right to do F if and only if it is
not
> > > > > > wrong for John to do F. But that can mean either:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > a) "John has a 'liberty right' to F" (It's not wrong for John to
> do
> > F,
> > > > > > or wrong for anyone to interfere with John's F-ing, either.);
or
> > > > > >
> > > > > > b) "John has a 'claim right' to F" (It's not wrong for John to
do
> F,
> > > > > > and it is wrong for anyone to interfere with John's F-ing.).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In a hockey game, for example, every player has a 'liberty
right'
> > to
> > > > > > score a goal - no one is penalized for trying to score or for
> > > > > > preventing a goal, either. In contrast, there's no 'liberty
> right'
> > > > > > to cross-check - cross-checking is wrong and does incur a
> penalty -
> > > > > > which means that every player has a 'claim right' to skate
without
> > > > > > being cross-checked.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Like hockey penalties, laws and moral rules restrict liberty
> rights
> > by
> > > > > > declaring some acts wrong. But no matter how restrictive, they
> are
> > > > > > not evidence against liberty rights. Take a law that fined me
for
> > not
> > > > > > voting. That law says nothing about how I tie my shoelaces, or
> > > > > > countless other
> > > > > > things; so it's no evidence that I do not have liberty rights at
> > all.
> > > > > > And the same law cannot also fine me for voting - it cannot
deny
> > my
> > > > > > liberty right to not vote, without affirming my liberty right to
> > vote.
> > > > > > So each law is evidence for my having liberty rights.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As well, every law or moral rule establishes a claim right. If
I
> > > > > > don't have a liberty right to do something to someone, it must
be
> > > > > > wrong for me to do that; in which case, that someone has a claim
> > right
> > > > > > against me (that I don't do that to him). And if no one has a
> > liberty
> > > > > > right to do an act X at all, each and every person has a claim
> > right
> > > > > > that X not be done.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If laws exist, legal rights exist. If morality exists, moral
> rights
> > > > > > exist. Since both laws and morality exist, rights exist; and
> > everyone
> > > > > > who believes laws or morality exist - who speaks or acts as if
> they
> > > > > > exist - believes that rights exist.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But what about the skeptic who insists that he does not
recognize
> > any
> > > > > > laws or moral rules? Well, he's saying that nothing we do is
> > wrong -
> > > > > > so he's agreeing that we do have liberty rights. And he also
must
> > > > > > agree that's it not wrong for us to punish him if we think he
does
> > > > > > wrong - which is all
> > > > > > we need to have claim rights against him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > People can and do disagree on what our legal rights (what rights
a
> > law
> > > > > > says we have) or moral rights (what rights we should have) are.
> But
> > > > > > we cannot dispute that there are such rights, as we all agree
that
> > > > > > there are.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > from Libertarian Bulletin, Summer, 2004. Permission is granted
to
> > > > > > reprint, provided appropriate credit is given.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > All this libertarian mumbo-jumbo cannot hide the fact that rights
> > derive
> > > > > from the state which is the form of organization civilized
societies
> > > give
> > > > > themselves.
> > > > >
> > > > > regards
> > > > > leo
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Albert
> don't exist.
OK. Sorry if I intruded, however there are still an infinite number of
slots for his reply :-)
Liberty1st
"Dale" <dmg...@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:cagr2d$u...@library1.airnews.net...
> "Liberty1st" <liber...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:hbydneqUu4y...@comcast.com...
> > As a Christian my creator is God. You can believe as you wish. All I
ask
> > is the same courtesy.
> >
> > Since my creator is even mentioned in the constitution... I feel pretty
> > confident that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution spell it
> all
> > out quite well. And since they are the law of the land.........
>
>
Perhaps you should try reading what I wrote instead of trying to
misrepresent it.
"Since my creator is even mentioned in the constitution".
Have a nice day.
Liberty1st
> > to endow people with rights?
> >
>
> From the people of course. All laws come from the people. And so do
rights.
So then if I pay them enough will they sell me your rights? <tongue in
cheek> I can use a dishwasher.</tongue in cheek>
>
> regards
>
> abakus
Abakus
"Zaphod "stil prez"" <zap...@safe-mail.net> wrote in message
news:5z4zc.34050$Kd5....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> "Albert" <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in message
> news:20040613163...@lfs.mydomain.com...
> > On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 16:43:08 -0500
> > "Zaphod \"stil prez\"" <zap...@safe-mail.net> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > I'd say that rights do exist, outside of any specific social contract.
> >
> > I'd say that the basis for rights exists, outside of any social
> > contract. But that the contract is required to protect any rights
> > derived from that basis.
>
> Even through it sounds stupid (which never stopped me) but only in the
sense
> that we are gregarious creatures. If we were more solitary like the big
> cats, or if man had evolved intelligence but not society etc. What would
> rights look like to that man or that, however loosely affiliated, society?
>
> There's a Hugo prize winning Si/Fi book in there I bet. Free for the
taking.
>
> Zaphod
>
> PS. I don't think that solitary man's only right would be might makes
right.
>
It doesnt sound stupid at all. I dont know whether there is a Sci Fi book in
there ,but if you want to know more read Hobbes' Leviathan. The old man had
it all sussed out in 1651.
regards
Abakus
Liberty1st
>
> "Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
> > On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 00:26:01 +0100, "Abakus" <aba...@ntlworld.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >"Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
> > >> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 22:50:56 +0100, "Abakus" <aba...@ntlworld.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >Arbitrary or not, where do you expect your rights to come -from
"god"
> ?
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> How can rights come from the State? Where does the State get the
power
> > >> to endow people with rights?
> > >>
> > >
> > >From the people of course. All laws come from the people. And so do
> rights.
> > >
> >
> > endow people with those rights?
> >
>
> Because you need some sort of organized body to sit down, discuss, get pen
> and paper and write down a declaration of rights, publish it, make it
known,
and
> implemented since the Hammurabi code.
>
>
> Abakus
>
> > --
> > "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
> > percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
> > forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson
>
So then, as corrupt as Government's are.... you want to trust them with what
right they'll give you? Seems to me history shows that millions have been
killed and genocide has peen rampant in such systems of Government.
Liberty1st
> "what is".
Well stated.
Abakus
> > > How can rights come from the State? Where does the State get the power
> > > to endow people with rights?
> > >
> >
> > From the people of course. All laws come from the people. And so do
> rights.
>
> So then if I pay them enough will they sell me your rights? <tongue in
> cheek> I can use a dishwasher.</tongue in cheek>
>
> >
> > regards
> >
> > abakus
> > >
Ah the sharp wit you regale us with!
I guess it is simpler, cosier and more comfortable to make up an
incorruptible sky pixie which has granted us our rights. Sure it is. It
regards
Abakus
Abakus
"Matt D" <mattdi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:32473db3.04061...@posting.google.com...
> The question is not what rights do you have. The question is what
> rights government is allowed to restrict. In the complete absence of
> any form of government (anarchy), you have the "right" to do ANYTHING
> you want to do. Even actions that would otherwise be considered
> illegal with no laws stating otherwise.
>
> It is not the place of government to "give" rights. It is the place
> of governement to take away rights, to restrict rights, to decide what
> rights we are not allowed to have. Usually the rationale for
> restricting a right is that it infringes on the right of someone else.
> As an example, if I claim to have the "right" to kill people (a right
> that I could possibly claim), and another person has the "right" to
> not be killed, then those are two "rights" that are in conflict, and
> government can restrict one of those rights.
>
> Finally the purpose of Constitution is to specify the rights that
> government is not allowed to restrict.
And how do the writers of the constitution know which rights exist so that
they can specify the ones the government cannot restrict? Where does the
original complete list of rights come from?
regards
Abakus
Liberty1st
"Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
news:mknpc09faq891mnr2...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:03:29 -0400, "Liberty1st"
> <liber...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >Offer something stronger than semantics that discredits the Declaration
of
> >Independence and the principles of Jeffersonian Liberty and I'll consider
> >it.
> >
>
> I am convinced that rights do exist and that they are firmly rooted in
> our own very human nature. Meaning that no one gave them to us. They
> are as much part of us as our livers.
>
> Stay tuned!
Liberty1st
I'm serious here... if some group of men (government) is who grants your
rights... what keeps them from selling them to me?
"Abakus" <aba...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:_I7zc.1309$lH2....@newsfe2-gui.server.ntli.net...
Abakus
> Is that some of that tolerance for the beliefs of others the left
mentions.
>
> I'm serious here... if some group of men (government) is who grants your
> rights... what keeps them from selling them to me?
That's the real problem -that you are serious...
regars
abakus
Donkey Agony
> "Since my creator is even mentioned in the constitution".
Sorry, but no creator is mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution --
a *legal* framework -- with absolutely ZERO mention of "creator", "god",
or any other metaphysical claptrap.
You ought to verify before you spew.
--
da
~~
"OE Quotefix" http://flash.to/oe-quotefix
to fix Outlook Express' broken quoting.