Alienable Rights?

[Ned]

By your worldview, all rights are manmade and subject to the whims of man,Ok the point being that you don't believe in absolute rights.
Well, that's nice. Are there any rights that you would consider more important or "sacred" than others?

And how would you propose to secure your rights (other than as the kooks have suggested)?

[suijurisfreeman]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (suijurisfreeman,)
I have exercised my rights for over 10 years now, I have not harmed another Human Being, their rights or property.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

-offtopic- No offence, but could you make 1 post without this sentence in it somewhere? :)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

What else would you like me to leave out? Perhaps I should submit my posts to you first, you could then edit them before I post again?

Have I ever told you that I have exercised my rights for over 10 years now, I have not harmed another Human Being, their rights or property, tusaki? No offence, but I just had to make sure&#33;

[suijurisfreeman]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Ned,)
I expected intelligent discourse on this topic and the above is what I got.
I have to say fellas, y&#39;all are a disappointment&#33;

I declare the worst of the above to be: "I believe that I have he "right" to do whatever I please as long as I do not infringe upon the right of any other Human Being to do the same"

I guess when any boob can get an internet account this is the kind of idiocy that can be expected.

If there is sombody who is not a kook, I would like to hear from you on this topic.

For those not intelligent enough to understand my implication in my initial post, I will plainly state that I believe that if we are to claim any &#39;Rights" we MUST also acknowledge that these rights are given by God. Not to do so means that our &#39;Rights&#39; are subject to the folly of humanity.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Ned,
Bad words, make for bad feelings&#33; We all have our opinions, I have mine, you have yours, opinions are like assholes, everyones got one&#33; Mine are not any less valid than yours or anyone elses. You stated that you believe that any rights claimed MUST be acknowledged as given by god. Bullshit&#33; I understood precisely where you were headed with your "Where do rights come from" statement. Obvioiusly you&#39;re hung up on god as the giver of Human Being&#39;s rights. I just love this "theory"&#33; How many times have I heard that phrase, "God given rights"? And yet those very same professing christians don&#39;t do jack shit about exercising or defending their "god given rights"&#33; If god is the giver of rights, what do you think he thinks of those who are too spineless to so much as lift a finger to exercise or defend them? Isn&#39;t that kinda like hiding your candle under the basket? Isn&#39;t that kinda like the servant who buried his talents? god is the giver of human rights, but I ain&#39;t gonna do diddly-squat about exercising or defending them?



"boob, kook, idocy, MUST acknowledge rights come from god"? Why didn&#39;t you just give us your opinion up front and then post that you only wanted opinions posted that support your "god given rights theory"?

Hey, I just loved your statement, "no man may usurp the will of god"&#33; If god is actually god, how could any mere Human Being "usurp the will of god"?

[Ned]

Ok, Lets disect the statement, "I believe that I have he "right" to do whatever I please as long as I do not infringe upon the right of any other Human Being to do the same".

So, according to this brilliant logic, I can do what I want as long as I don&#39;t prevent someone-else from doing what they want. I can crap on your lawn as long as I don&#39;t prevent you from crapping on my lawn.I can imagine that this would make for a smooth running civilization.

Look, Rights are laws on individual liberty. They must be the same for all and they must have limits. It is my opinion that a kook would feel the above quote is workable.

As for suijurisfreeman:
Ok,I&#39;ll give you that I may have been a little harsh (boob and all). I shall try to reign in my inflamatory retoric (although extremeism gets me fumming).

Also you said,"&#33; We all have our opinions, I have mine, you have yours, opinions are like assholes, everyones got one&#33; Mine are not any less valid than yours or anyone elses"
If you mean valid in the sense of correct, I disagree. Opinions are very often invalid, yours notwhitstanding.

Of course you have the god given right to both your opinion and your asshole, this doesn&#39;t mean I&#39;m gonna go sniffing around either one.

[suijurisfreeman]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Ned,)
We all hear so much rhetoric about "RIGHTS" these days, but in order to lay claim to these rights, we must acknowledge that these rights have a source.

Human Rights
Constitutional Rights
Civil Rights
(name it and somebody thinks they have a "Right" to it)

All claims to "Rights" are hollow unless these rights have legitimacy. How is legitimacy bestowed upon these "Rights"? Why is it that anyone can invoke any supposed "Right" as unalienable?

The Founding Fathers of the United States understood well that "Rights" do not materialize out of thin air, but must be imposed by an authority beyond reproach.

Does the State bestow these Rights? or Gia? or God?

And if there is not a well from which any Right flows how can anyone lay claim to them? Who is to say then that any "Right" is more or less valid than any other?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Ned,
Analyze this. You posted:

"We all hear so much rhetoric about "RIGHTS" these days, but in order to lay claim to these rights, we must acknowledge that these rights have a source."

I responded, "I am a free Human Being, therefore I am the source of any and all rights that I claim to possess." I acknowledged the source of my rights as being me. Perhaps you didn&#39;t like my answer, but nevertheless that is my answer.

You posted: "Human Rights, Constitutional Rights, Civil Rights (name it and somebody thinks they have a "Right" to it)

I responded, "I make absolutely no claim of any &#39;civil rights&#39;, I am not a member of the body politic. I make absolutely no claim of any &#39;Constitutional rights&#39;, I am not a party to any Constitution, didn&#39;t sign it, never swore an oath to support it." Perhaps you find this "extreme", but my statement is absolutely the truth.

Perhaps defining some of the words in your original post might prove to be helpful. Black&#39;s Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, page 1559, RIGHTS (In Constitutional Law) "There is also a classification of rights, with respect to the constitution of civil society. Thus according to Blackstone, &#39;the rights of persons, considered in their natural capacities, are of two sorts, absolute and relative; absolute, which are such aas appertain and belong to particular men, merely as individuals or single persons; relative, which are incident to them as members of society, and standing in various relations to each other.&#39; Rights are also classified in constitutional law as natural, civil, and political, to which is sometimes added the class of &#39;personal rights&#39;.

NATURAL RIGHTS are those which grow out of the nature of man and depend upon personality, as distinguished from such as are created by law and depend upon civilized society; or they are those which are plainly assured by natural law; or those which, by fair deduction from the present physical, moral, social, and religious characteristics of man, he must be invested with, and which he ought to have realized for him in a jural society, in order to fulfill the ends to which his nature calls him. Such are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.

CIVIL RIGHTS are such as belong to every citizen of the state or country, or, in a wider sense, to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with the organization or administration of government. They include the rights of property, marriage, protection by the laws, freedom of contract, trial by jury, etc. Or, as otherwise defined, civil rights are rights appertaining to a person in virtue of his citizenship in a state or community. Rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action. Also a term applied to certain rights secured to citizens of the United States by the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution, and by various acts of congress made in pursuance thereof.

POLITICAL RIGHTS consist in the power to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or administration of government, such as the right of citizenship, that of suffrage, the right to hold public office, and the right of petition.

PERSONAL RIGHTS is a term of rather vague import, but generally it may be said to mean the right of personal security, comprising those of life, limb, body, health, reputation, and the right of personal liberty."

Now Ned, was my answer extreme? I posted, "I make absolutely no claim of any &#39;civil rights&#39;, I am not a member of the body politic. I make absolutely no claim of any &#39;Constitutional rights&#39;, I am not a party to any Constitution, didn&#39;t sign it, never swore an oath to support it." These are absolute facts. I have never registered to vote, I have never voted, I never "entered into society", I am not a member of the body politic, I never hired an "agent" to represent my interests or pass any laws on my behalf in any congress assembled. I never gave my explicit consent to be governed, any implied consent that may have been presumed by any and all governmental agencies was revoked on June 4, 1993. I make absolutely no claim of US citizenship. My natural, inherent and inalienable rights are not derived from nor dependent upon any constitution - period&#33;

You posted, "All claims to "Rights" are hollow unless these rights have legitimacy. How is legitimacy bestowed upon these "Rights"? As I posted, I am a free Human Being, as such I claim my natural, inherent and inalienable rights. My rights are "legitimate" because I am claiming what is mine as a natural Human Being. I do not look to any other individual, I do not look to any "government", I do not look to any god to grant me these rights. As part of my signature below states, I know my rights, I declare my rights, I exercise my rights and I damn well will defend my rights&#33;

You posted, "Why is it that anyone can invoke any supposed "Right" as unalienable?" I invoke my rights because I am a free Human Being. I seriously doubt if very many people in this country today actually invoke their rights, let alone actually exercise them. See the thread I posted about Anonymous&#39;s essay "Freedom on a Leash", to me this hits the nail square on the head.

You posted, "The Founding Fathers of the United States understood well that "Rights" do not materialize out of thin air, but must be imposed by an authority beyond reproach." Yes the unanomous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America states that men are endowed with certain and inalienable rights by their Creator. That was the opinion expressed in that document, does that make it a fact? I will not enter into a discussion of "faith" with you or anyone else, "faith" cannot rationally be discussed in my opinion.

You posted, "Does the State bestow these Rights? or Gia" or God?" My natural, inherent and inalienable rights are not "bestowed" by any of the above, like I posted I am the source of my rights - period&#33;

You posted, "And if there is not a well from which any Right flows how can anyone lay claim to them?" Again, if there is such a "well", I am that "well".

"Who is to say then that any "Right" is more or less valid than any other?" The rights that I claim are "valid" because those rights are mine to claim, therefore they are "valid" to me.

Ten years ago I gave myself the greatest gift that I could possibly have given, that gift was FREEDOM&#33; I gave myself permission to live my life as a free Human Being.

[The Fyrdman]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Ned,)
By your worldview, all rights are manmade and subject to the whims of man,Ok the point being that you don&#39;t believe in absolute rights.
Well, that&#39;s nice. Are there any rights that you would consider more important or "sacred" than others?

And how would you propose to secure your rights (other than as the kooks have suggested)?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Yes, all right&#39;s are man made, and shift with the focus of power.

There are no rights more important than others, either I fight for them or I don&#39;t, and if I don&#39;t, they are no longer rights because I have relinquished them.

By saying "Are there any rights that you would consider more important or "sacred" than others?" it looks like your trying to lead it down to a point of highlighting absolutes. I cannot imagine me relinquishing my right to free speech, freedom to assemble or freedom to defend myself and what is important to me. This is not a point of absolute rights, I would not give these up because I couldn&#39;t imagine living satisfactorally without them. There are others that I hold important now though that I can imagine living without given the proper situation, such as the right of everyone to be free from torture. If, for example, my sister was raped, it&#39;d be cheesewire fun with attacker.

I secure my rights by being prepared to fight for them, just like your education prepares you to get a job. It&#39;s no different. I&#39;m not sure how you define a kook, but I think of this as realism.

[suijurisfreeman]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (suijurisfreeman,)
I have exercised my rights for over 10 years now, I have not harmed another Human Being, their rights or property.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

-offtopic- No offence, but could you make 1 post without this sentence in it somewhere? :)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

tusaki,
Just for shits and giggles I checked all 27 posts that I&#39;ve made since I signed on here. I only see 6 (1 of which was my answer to your question) in which the above offending sentence was used by me. That&#39;s means that only 22% of my total posts have included this sentence - see I&#39;ve made 21 posts without it&#33; By the way did I tell that .......

[PeterWolf]

Ned...

"For those not intelligent enough to understand my implication in my initial post, I will plainly state that I believe that if we are to claim any &#39;Rights" we MUST also acknowledge that these rights are given by God. Not to do so means that our &#39;Rights&#39; are subject to the folly of humanity."

Erm, that&#39;s very interesting, but firstly we&#39;d all have to believe in the same God. Personally, I don&#39;t base my life and views around some mystical cloud being. And that Ned, is my right. So, your argument is moot is it not?

[JTsteelblu]

Hey suijurisfreeman,

Here&#39;s a quick lesson on PERCIEVED rights VS PRACTICAL rights

Taking advantage of something, and having a RIGHT to something are two different
things. Whereas I don&#39;t agree that rights are truly God given, I really, really don&#39;t agree
that they are taken on one&#39;s own. Rights are given by the governing body deemed to be
the most powerful by those living in any locale. The body that most directly effects the
majority of the people living under it&#39;s banner. If that be God, then the rights are God
Given. If that be the Federal Government, then it Federal Law that gives or removes your
rights. But...if you&#39;re at the Police Station at the time you are considering your rights,
you&#39;ll find out that the power structure there may hold God or the Constitution in lesser
regard than they do their Chief of Police, and they may not consider for a split second
your perception of your rights. As far as YOUR perception of what you have declared to
be your rights is concerned, no one can stop you from perceiving them to be your rights.
They CAN however stop you from acting on them. I understand the point you were
trying to make, and more power to you (pardon the pun). Your right to swing your fist
ends at my nose, true. But if enough people feel that your right to swing your fist ends at
the front door of say, the local theater, then you WILL be arrested for "fist swinging in a
local theater" if you chose to exercise what you perceive to be a right to swing your fist
there, "as long as you don&#39;t infringe on anyone&#39;s right to do the same". Power, be that the
power of God, the Federal, State, or Local Government, Chief of Police, or even Theater
Usher if he&#39;s left in charge by the majority of others, dictates your PRACTICAL rights.
As far as your PERCIEVED rights, no one can take them away, or in enforce that you not
believe in them. Frankly, you should be concerned with your PRACTICAL rights, being
sure that you understand that your PERCEIVED right are only ideology. Ideology is great
fun, and makes for a hell of a good conversation at the coffee shop. But if you want a cup
of coffee you&#39;ll have to bring a buck with you. You&#39;ll have to pay for it like everyone
else. If you declare coffee to be one of the PERCEIVED rights you enforce on your own,
the coffee shop owner will more than likely evoke his PRACTICAL right to introduce
you to the Local Chief of Police (See; Fist swinging in a Local Theater, above)&#33;

[tusaki]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (suijurisfreeman,)


tusaki,
Just for shits and giggles I checked all 27 posts that I&#39;ve made since I signed on here. I only see 6 (1 of which was my answer to your question) in which the above offending sentence was used by me. That&#39;s means that only 22% of my total posts have included this sentence - see I&#39;ve made 21 posts without it&#33; By the way did I tell that .......<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Hehe, sorry then. I guess it felt like you put that sentence in every post you made because I noticed it a couple of times before. And when you used it again in this topic I said something about it. You use it to tell people anarchism doesn&#39;t mean violence. I know.. I know.. it just annoyed me to read it a couple of times in a row ^_^

[suijurisfreeman]

JTsteelblu,
Perhaps you missed the definition of RIGHTS that I posted above, quoting from Black&#39;s Law Dictionary. I will state my position again, my rights are not given to me by god, government or any individual, neither god, government or any individual can take away those rights. But that&#39;s not to say that any of the above may temporarily prevent me from exercising those rights.

Check out the following sites under the thread title of "Unsung Ballad of Suijurisfreeman" for a "FREEDOM/RIGHTS" 101 lesson:

http://www.thementalmilitia.org/clairefiles (General Discussion)

http://www.crackthematrix.com/phpBB2 (Sovereignity Issues)

http://www.strike-the-root.com (What to Do?)

After reading my Unsung Ballad of Suijurisfreeman perhaps you&#39;ll see that my percieved rights are in fact my practical rights&#33;

This is what I&#39;ve lived for over 10 years now, not just babbling about what you&#39;ve termed "percieved rights"&#33; I haven&#39;t been arrested since September of 1995 for doing so either.