Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Technosoul · Apr 10, 2006, 05:14 pm

Many people have become dependant upon a government to give them their rights, meaning also that the government would protect them from those who might violate such rights.

This gives the government a lot of power to control people. If they must control, by force if need be, all the other people who might otherwise violate your rights that you have been provided with. Also, if it is deamed that you are violating someone else's rights then the government would be controlling you - and forcing you to conform to those laws at the very abandonment of your freedom.

Those who have the power to give you your rights also have the power to take away those rights, because our dependancy gave them that power of controlership.

Example: You have the right to earn money and put it into your bank account. But if you are able to get a lot of money from the population you are expected to re-cycle some of that money back into the population, otherwise you prevent others form their rights to get their fair share of our economys wealth. So then the government can tax you and take that uncycled loot and cycle it back to the less wealthy majority in the population, because they have a right to some of the pie also.

If and when a government might hold that perspective.

If you must depend upon a government to give you your rights and to protect your rights for you, then you become like a woman housewife who depends upon her husband to protect her rights, or as little children who need mama to protect them when some bully kid is threatening thier rights.

So when people become adults they leave the overview of their parents and then they subsitute the government to play that role in their adult life. Making the government their big brother, mama and papa. And they remain dependant upon that parent-child kind of behaviorism.

Always dependant upon a higher authority, and in the process you loose independance to think for your self (to act on what you believe).

So you want a government that will protect your rights, but what you are effecting is a government that can super regulate all kinds of activites within the population. Some believe they are "God given" rights - but can a secular government that cannot mix religion with law making really "give you some rights on behalf of a God"? That is odd.

Plus, we have a continued battle or competition as to who's rights are the most important, and thusly, be given and protected.

You have the right of free speech, but cannot say "fire" in a crowed movie house.

You have a right to bear arms, but not to walk into a public courtroom bearing arms.

And so forth.

You have the right to appear naked in public, but if just one person calls in a complant then you have violated their rights, and subject to arrest.

Most of our rights can be admended with limitations. Because we do not have the right to set the standards about what rights will be delt out and to whom. The authorian system of governments and police departments do that for us, underwhom we are both protected and arrested - depending.

So those are your rights. And a philosophy about it.

Whatcha think? PS - remember the limitations on what you are allowed to think and express before speaking (writing).

tman_ndsu08 · Apr 10, 2006, 08:43 pm

Rights are a figment of the immagination.

No one deserves anything. You only get what you earn.

phoenix_fire · Apr 10, 2006, 09:03 pm

The idea of having rights is merely the greed of wanting to posess the intangible.

Technosoul · Apr 10, 2006, 10:51 pm

So the rights expressed in the bill of rights was a figment of their imagination and the Bill of Rights was created out of greed to posess the intangble. That would likwise also fit that discription partly.

That is fantastic to think that people are off dieing in wars so that others can live out this fantasy that we got rights. People are waving flags that represent nothing more then something imaginary.

Thousands are marching in the streets for their immigration rights, not knowing that they are demanding a illusionary concept that is not even of tanable substance.

Might as well try to catch the wind.

At least we can catch the wind with our sails to power our boats.

At last, however, people are thinking "outside the box" for a change.

SoccerfreakAB2 · Apr 10, 2006, 11:01 pm

Quote:

Quote by: tman_ndsu08

Rights are a figment of the immagination.

No one deserves anything. You only get what you earn.

Theoretically, yes. But when rights vanish, government vanishes, infrastructure vanishes, economy vanishes. Chaos ensues. I'm sure you wouldn't want to lose your right to live, free speech, free press, etc.?

SoccerfreakAB2 · Apr 10, 2006, 11:02 pm

Quote:

Quote by: phoenix_fire

The idea of having rights is merely the greed of wanting to posess the intangible.

the right to say what I want is greedy?

Morgan_Freeman · Apr 11, 2006, 01:14 am

Quote:

Quote by: Technosoul

Whatcha think? PS - remember the limitations on what you are allowed to think and express before speaking (writing).

I think you're dead wrong. My rights don't come from any government.

Technosoul · Apr 11, 2006, 03:07 am

Quote:

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2

Quote:

Quote by: tman_ndsu08

Rights are a figment of the immagination.

No one deserves anything. You only get what you earn.

Theoretically, yes. But when rights vanish, government vanishes, infrastructure vanishes, economy vanishes. Chaos ensues. I'm sure you wouldn't want to lose your right to live, free speech, free press, etc.?

The trees are livng, where is their government?

what would prevent me from speaking freely if we had no government?

How can you say absolutly that people cannot get along in a non-governmental situation?

Technosoul · Apr 11, 2006, 03:20 am

Quote:

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman

Quote:

Quote by: Technosoul

Whatcha think? PS - remember the limitations on what you are allowed to think and express before speaking (writing).

I think you're dead wrong. My rights don't come from any government.

Nice statement, but you forgot to elaborate about where your Bill Of Rights came from if not from a higher authority such as the government. What data do you base your opinon on that my philosophy is dead wrong - elaborate please so people can respond to your reasoning.

Just saying "your wrong" and leaving it as such is not a debate about anything. This topic is about a philosophy of observations open for a debate, not an opinon poll for votes.

Sgt. Rock · Apr 11, 2006, 07:42 am

Quote:

Quote by: phoenix_fire

The idea of having rights is merely the greed of wanting to posess the intangible.

Phoenix I dont get what your saying. Can you clarify? People have two types of rights. Natural rights and rights granted by the state. For example:

Some people claim that there are other things, besides breathing, so closely tied to humanity that they cannot be relinquished. The founders of the United States of American claim that "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" are other natural rights, not based on any moral reasoning, but simply because they are a "self-evidently" part of what it is to be a human being. They called these rights "unalienable" which means exactly what it sounds like: they cannot be alienated! We don't need anyone to reinterpret these words. They mean exactly what they sound like. That's why they were written that way. --Zephram Stark 19:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The Declaration Of Independance states : "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."

The function of government is simple ( well it's supposed to be

) It is supposed to protect these rights and defend the citizens. Unfortunatly this is not the case. The government is now in the buisness of destroying the rights of it's citizens :(

Osborn F Enready · Apr 11, 2006, 07:49 am

I am not contributing to yet another statist anti-rights thread.

They get debated into a corner in one thread, and then start another thread with the same ignorant innocence, and pie in the sky questions.......

(drive-by diss)

tman_ndsu08 · Apr 11, 2006, 10:10 am

Quote:

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2

I'm sure you wouldn't want to lose your right to live, free speech, free press, etc.?

I don't need someone to tell me I have a right to do something to do it.

I'll do it if I feel like it.

If they want to try to stop me, let them come.

I got something real for ya in these hands! (can anyone tell me what movie this quote comes from? I'll be suprised)

phoenix_fire · Apr 11, 2006, 12:40 pm

In this world, you don't actually have any rights. There are certain norms that aren't usually violated, but that certainly doesn't mean they can't be. What are our supposed rights?

Privacy
Speech
Religion
Security
Livelihood

The want of these is in all ways a wish to posess the intangible. In the same way, we think we should have a house, a car, food in the refrigerator, and enough money to perpetuate all of the above and more. Rights are one of the many things that we try to acquire. We vie for them in the same way we vie for material posessions.

tman_ndsu08 · Apr 11, 2006, 01:00 pm

Well said, phoenix.

Morgan_Freeman · Apr 11, 2006, 02:32 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Technosoul

Nice statement, but you forgot to elaborate about where your Bill Of Rights came from if not from a higher authority such as the government.

Our rights are inherent in us as human beings. They stem from our basic nature as human beings -- as individuals and rational actors. These basic rights are the rights to life, liberty and property. This is sometimes called "natural law".

Quote:

Quote by: Natural Rights and Natural Law

Here follows a definition of natural law in properly scientific terms, value free terms:

An act is a violation of natural law if, were a man to commit such an act in a state of nature, (that is to say, in the absence of an orderly and widely accepted method of resolving disputes), a second man, knowing the facts and being a reasonable man, would reasonably conclude that the first man constituted a threat or danger to the second man, his family, or his property, and if a third man, knowing the facts and being a reasonable man, were to observe the second man getting rid of the first man, the third man would not reasonably conclude that the second man constituted a threat or danger to third man, his family, or his property.

Quote from: http://jim.com/rights.html

tman_ndsu08 · Apr 11, 2006, 06:17 pm

I've asked this question to pro-rights people before with no response.

Say I go down to the mall and there is a man there who points a gun at me and says he's going to kill me. Does me saying to him "I have a right to live" stop him from killing me?

No.

I don't "deserve" to live. Deserving to live isn't going to stop that bullet from killing me.

I have to earn my life. I have to try to live.

underbear1 · Apr 11, 2006, 06:49 pm

Rights are from your Creator, and it's your job to keep the government from infringing on them.
When civil rights fail, the 2nd amendment is the back up plan..........time for Plan B ,queer america.

Athena · Apr 11, 2006, 07:08 pm

Quote:

Quote by: tman_ndsu08

I've asked this question to pro-rights people before with no response.

Say I go down to the mall and there is a man there who points a gun at me and says he's going to kill me. Does me saying to him "I have a right to live" stop him from killing me?

No.

I don't "deserve" to live. Deserving to live isn't going to stop that bullet from killing me.

I have to earn my life. I have to try to live.

Well there is an interesting point of view. I would not want many people to hold this point of view, even less to act on it! I guess because people can hold such an idea, that is why we have laws against killing. True not everyone respects the law, but I think we will do better if most people believe others have the right to live, and none have the right to kill, except in self defense. Even when killing in self defense there best not be another option.
Like, women who have killed abusive husbands who truly are a threat to them, have to gone to prison for murder.

The samurai had social permission to kill whomever they saw fit to kill. I don't think I would like to live with this social agreement, unless I alone had this right, and could avoid the negative consequences of using it.

We have rights when we socially agree on them. Cultures have different ideas about what our rights are, but whatever a culture decides, it is a socially enforced right, or a socially enforced taboo. It is as real as putting your hand on a hot burner will burn. The society makes it so.

phoenix_fire · Apr 11, 2006, 07:19 pm

Quote:

Quote by: underbear1

Rights are from your Creator, and it's your job to keep the government from infringing on them.
When civil rights fail, the 2nd amendment is the back up plan..........time for Plan B ,queer america.

Dude. You are some piece of work.

Athena · Apr 11, 2006, 07:20 pm

Technolsoul, are you saying we would have the right to kill whomever we please, if it were not for government preventing us from having this right?

Goodall watched a chimp mother teach her offspring to kill and eat babies of the troop. Her research project stopped before she could observe the consequences of this abnormal behavior. If the behavior went on without being detected and without driving these killers away, the troop would not survive another generation. If all in the troop adopted this behavior as an individual right, obviously it would destroy the troop. Without the troop, the individuals would not survive for long. We are social animals as are chimps, and therefore, it goes against the laws of nature for this behavior to be a "right".

Morgan is right about our "rights" being based in the laws of nature.

Apr 10, 2006, 05:14 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	A philosophy about your poltical rights. Many people have become dependant upon a government to give them their rights, meaning also that the government would protect them from those who might violate such rights. This gives the government a lot of power to control people. If they must control, by force if need be, all the other people who might otherwise violate your rights that you have been provided with. Also, if it is deamed that you are violating someone else's rights then the government would be controlling you - and forcing you to conform to those laws at the very abandonment of your freedom. Those who have the power to give you your rights also have the power to take away those rights, because our dependancy gave them that power of controlership. Example: You have the right to earn money and put it into your bank account. But if you are able to get a lot of money from the population you are expected to re-cycle some of that money back into the population, otherwise you prevent others form their rights to get their fair share of our economys wealth. So then the government can tax you and take that uncycled loot and cycle it back to the less wealthy majority in the population, because they have a right to some of the pie also. If and when a government might hold that perspective. If you must depend upon a government to give you your rights and to protect your rights for you, then you become like a woman housewife who depends upon her husband to protect her rights, or as little children who need mama to protect them when some bully kid is threatening thier rights. So when people become adults they leave the overview of their parents and then they subsitute the government to play that role in their adult life. Making the government their big brother, mama and papa. And they remain dependant upon that parent-child kind of behaviorism. Always dependant upon a higher authority, and in the process you loose independance to think for your self (to act on what you believe). So you want a government that will protect your rights, but what you are effecting is a government that can super regulate all kinds of activites within the population. Some believe they are "God given" rights - but can a secular government that cannot mix religion with law making really "give you some rights on behalf of a God"? That is odd. Plus, we have a continued battle or competition as to who's rights are the most important, and thusly, be given and protected. You have the right of free speech, but cannot say "fire" in a crowed movie house. You have a right to bear arms, but not to walk into a public courtroom bearing arms. And so forth. You have the right to appear naked in public, but if just one person calls in a complant then you have violated their rights, and subject to arrest. Most of our rights can be admended with limitations. Because we do not have the right to set the standards about what rights will be delt out and to whom. The authorian system of governments and police departments do that for us, underwhom we are both protected and arrested - depending. So those are your rights. And a philosophy about it. Whatcha think? PS - remember the limitations on what you are allowed to think and express before speaking (writing).

Apr 10, 2006, 09:03 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
phoenix_fire Paladin Location: Narnia Posts: 4,277	The idea of having rights is merely the greed of wanting to posess the intangible. Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame. -- Song 8:6

Apr 11, 2006, 07:49 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	I am not contributing to yet another statist anti-rights thread. They get debated into a corner in one thread, and then start another thread with the same ignorant innocence, and pie in the sky questions....... (drive-by diss) Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Apr 11, 2006, 12:40 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
phoenix_fire Paladin Location: Narnia Posts: 4,277	In this world, you don't actually have any rights. There are certain norms that aren't usually violated, but that certainly doesn't mean they can't be. What are our supposed rights? Privacy Speech Religion Security Livelihood The want of these is in all ways a wish to posess the intangible. In the same way, we think we should have a house, a car, food in the refrigerator, and enough money to perpetuate all of the above and more. Rights are one of the many things that we try to acquire. We vie for them in the same way we vie for material posessions. Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame. -- Song 8:6

Apr 10, 2006, 08:43 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	Rights are a figment of the immagination. No one deserves anything. You only get what you earn.

Apr 10, 2006, 10:51 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	So the rights expressed in the bill of rights was a figment of their imagination and the Bill of Rights was created out of greed to posess the intangble. That would likwise also fit that discription partly. That is fantastic to think that people are off dieing in wars so that others can live out this fantasy that we got rights. People are waving flags that represent nothing more then something imaginary. Thousands are marching in the streets for their immigration rights, not knowing that they are demanding a illusionary concept that is not even of tanable substance. Might as well try to catch the wind. At least we can catch the wind with our sails to power our boats. At last, however, people are thinking "outside the box" for a change.

Apr 11, 2006, 01:00 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	Well said, phoenix.

Apr 11, 2006, 06:17 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	I've asked this question to pro-rights people before with no response. Say I go down to the mall and there is a man there who points a gun at me and says he's going to kill me. Does me saying to him "I have a right to live" stop him from killing me? No. I don't "deserve" to live. Deserving to live isn't going to stop that bullet from killing me. I have to earn my life. I have to try to live.

Apr 11, 2006, 06:49 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
underbear1 BANNED Posts: 2,630	Rights are from your Creator, and it's your job to keep the government from infringing on them. When civil rights fail, the 2nd amendment is the back up plan..........time for Plan B ,queer america.

Apr 11, 2006, 07:20 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
Athena Volcanic Erupter Location: Oregon Posts: 5,148	Technolsoul, are you saying we would have the right to kill whomever we please, if it were not for government preventing us from having this right? Goodall watched a chimp mother teach her offspring to kill and eat babies of the troop. Her research project stopped before she could observe the consequences of this abnormal behavior. If the behavior went on without being detected and without driving these killers away, the troop would not survive another generation. If all in the troop adopted this behavior as an individual right, obviously it would destroy the troop. Without the troop, the individuals would not survive for long. We are social animals as are chimps, and therefore, it goes against the laws of nature for this behavior to be a "right". Morgan is right about our "rights" being based in the laws of nature.