Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans - 7/25/2015 10:09:52 AM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
According to how I interpret your post, you disagree with the Declaration of Independence.

I disagree with references to a "Creator." If there is a "Creator," then rights are merely a matter of what is physically possible.


So, yes, my interpretation is correct.


If your interpretation is meant to imply that I disagree with the Declaration of Independence in its entirety, then it would be incorrect. I'm only referring to a part about a "Creator," since there's no proof that a "Creator" actually exists.

quote:


quote:

quote:

What's the point of government, in your opinion?

An organizing influence for the collective defense of society.


How is society defended? If an individual doesn't have all rights and authorities inherent to their humanity, how do they grant authorities to something else?


Through politics; the process of individuals getting together and forming agreements, alliances, and pacts for their own protection and mutual benefit. A significant and observable aspect of the human condition throughout history has been in finding better and more efficient ways of organizing - in order to build bigger temples, bigger cities, bigger armies, bigger empires.

As far as where the rights and authorities come from, I don't know that they're "inherent" to humanity. If it's something that we presume to come from either God or Nature, then that opens the question whether or not animals have "rights" under the same principle. If not, then it must presumed to be something that we humans decided all on our own that we had. However indirect and convoluted the processes may be, humans ultimately "agree" on what rights we have and to grant authority to some form of governmental body.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans - 7/25/2015 10:28:30 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
According to the Framer's of our current Government, George Carlin is partially right.
Anything you get from government is a privilege, and, yes, you get them when it's okay with government for you to have them.
But, according to the Framer's, all rights are inherent in individuals. Governments only have the privileges granted it by the governed.
Can I grant you the privilege to drive Ken's car? Of course not. I don't have the authority to do that, unless it's been given to me by Ken (the one who has the rights to the car). You can't give out what you don't have.
Government is created to secure inalienable rights, not grant them.

I don't think they're "inherent," otherwise we'd be able to find rights in our DNA. With all due respect to our Founders' religious beliefs, I don't believe that any "Creator" endowed us with rights either. All we really have is our intelligence and physical abilities. If it's physically possible to do it, then one might say that nature gives us the "right" to do it. On a more primitive level, "government" is nothing more than the toughest guy in the group taking charge and imposing his will on everyone else. Nobody has to "grant" anything, but the more intelligent tyrants eventually came to realize that they could get more done and gain more power by granting some indulgences now and again. There's strength in numbers, and "you get more flies with honey..."


According to how I interpret your post, you disagree with the Declaration of Independence.

What's the point of government, in your opinion?



I was reading with interest and was hoping you were going to explain how and why an individual has inalienable rights - would have been a good discussion.

I tend to agree with Zonie. People aren't born with any guarantees. Everything has to be earned and maintained including voting and even staying alive.

I do agree, though, that the government is not there to grant anything. It's a body created to serve the needs of the community (or at least should be).

But, these two things aren't mutually exclusive. We have the opportunity, not the right, to build a prosperous and harmonious society; and the government is there to act as a referee towards this goal.

As Zonie said, it's a man made construct.




_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans - 7/25/2015 1:12:18 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
May I?

This is hardly exhaustive....but.....

Its very important not to get the legal terms confused.

A right is a claim.

An Un or Inalienable right is a claim that belongs to you and you alone that cannot be converted or transferred for any reason.
Inherent rights are rights from the creator, God.

An example is a tiger attacks the cave man, the cave man kills the tiger in defense of his life. The right to life is possibly the most obvious 'inherent' right, likewise with speech (we all talk), likewise with travel, we all walk, likewise with property, (dont steal my roadkill), likewise the need to be in places where others will be present, (liberty) and so forth. These are things people will rightfully kill for, these are 'inherent' rights.

So now we take the tiger situation and use cave man a v cave man b.
A attacks B, and B kills A in defense of B's life.

This is natural in every avenue of nature to defend ones own life.
The right to life etc is an observation and recognition of the nature of mankind, hence a universal understanding, thus a basis for a universal law applicable to everyone despite their political or religious persuasion.

There are many kinds of rights, but the top of the pecking order is inherent rights. Those which are or 'ought' to be universal.

So in recognition of those rights man A and man B get together, and make a contract under which they both will abide to protect those inherent rights. This contract becomes the 'governing' body of law, and the governing body of law creates a formal agreement to protect inherent rights.

What just took place is 2 parties created a constitution of sorts and the contract creates 'Authority' which becomes the 'power' to enforce the contract 'granted' by the people within the contracting parties 'subject' to the contract.

Now should the parties agree that their children get free schooling, that is a 'privilege' under the contract, and may rise to the level of entitlement when the contracting parties have a vested interest, such that they paid taxes specifically to 'enjoy' that privilege to promote the happiness of themselves and their posterity.

So the gumbint has no rights what so ever they have authority granted presumable by us to exercize the power of upholding the contract. They exist for no other reason.

The constitution is 'express' recognition within the contract of our 'reservation' of rights (negative sense), that the state presumably dare not step into or interfere with.

ie: I agree you can use 3 square feet of my land to plant your tomato plants, no more, the rest of the land is reserved to my use for my pleasure. Of course what contract has the gubmint EVER 'really' honored?

The pecking order originates with the 'inherent' rights of man, (unalienable) not under contract...... in which we join together to create by grant of 'authority' [to the gubmint] under contract, (constitution) to be 'subject' to the contract 'within' the 'express' provisions and full recognition our the 'preservation' of our inherent rights....such that to avoid the need to have personal armies to defend said rights.

Unalienable rights are the fundamental 'expressed' rights in a legally 'negative' sense, which means we have a blank check at our disposal to claim many more rights under in addition to the expressed rights so related.

*Rights* are the rights of man.

*Privileges* are contractual, though they are often said to be rights and often the rest is left off for brevity...."rights under contract", meaning privileges since its the substance that counts in court, that defines the objects not the title.

*Authority*/*Powers* to do something (jurisdiction) *to do* is what government has.

If not the creator (by moral judgment), then what possible other reason would we conclude that man B above was "justified" in killing man A (who was trying to take man B's life) to steal his road kill, despite no codified laws existed at the time?

That is the simplest terms I can come up with to explain this. Keeping the terms straight makes it so much easier to communicate in these debates.









< Message edited by Real0ne -- 7/25/2015 1:17:31 PM >


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans - 7/25/2015 1:56:55 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
Thanks for the reply, Rea0ne, and interesting too. Although I feel your post doesn't really get down to the bones of what exactly makes 'a right' a right in practice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

An Un or Inalienable right is a claim that belongs to you and you alone that cannot be converted or transferred for any reason.
Inherent rights are rights from the creator, God.



There is nothing on this planet that can't be taken away from you. Of course, you have the opportunity to fight for what you believe you are entitled to, but nothing will be laid on a plate for you; no matter an appeal to a philosophical argument.

As far as I can tell, your argument is a philosophical one, much the same as that set out by the Levellers and John Locke in the 1600s. It's an idea; it's certainly not a given.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

An example is a tiger attacks the cave man, the cave man kills the tiger in defense of his life. The right to life is possibly the most obvious 'inherent' right, likewise with speech (we all talk), likewise with travel, we all walk, likewise with property, (dont steal my roadkill), likewise the need to be in places where others will be present, (liberty) and so forth. These are things people will rightfully kill for, these are 'inherent' rights.

So now we take the tiger situation and use cave man a v cave man b.
A attacks B, and B kills A in defense of B's life.

This is natural in every avenue of nature to defend ones own life.
The right to life etc is an observation and recognition of the nature of mankind, hence a universal understanding, thus a basis for a universal law applicable to everyone despite their political or religious persuasion.



In your example, though, I think you're demonstrating that cave man B doesn't have the right to a life because someone has come and along and attempted to take it away from him. Caveman B has to work to stay in business. There is no creator, God, political philosophy that will protect him when push comes to shove. The only protection he has is the opportunity to save himself through his own hard work.

If you mean he has the right to defend himself, well that's not a right. It's merely a course of action, in the same way that going to the shop for a pint of milk is a course of action. Using your logic everything would be a right because everything is a course of action.

It is natural to defend your life, yes, but this does not translate into having a right to a life. Surely the definition of an inherent right is something which can't be taken away from you, but clearly your life can be taken away from you.

I do agree, though, regarding the purpose of authority and it being a marriage of convenience to serve in the interests of the wider body.

It seems where we disagree is on the philosophical argument surrounding 'a right', not on the role of government.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans - 7/25/2015 3:07:59 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
Woah there! Hold on.

Injecting a whole new set of parameters into the situation I proposed is an illegal argumentative move. k?

This is not about 'UNLAWFULLY' taking something away from someone or any other extraneous conditions you mentioned that shifts my point but does not proffer an argument that actually changes the premise I put out here.

I did effectively demonstrate the origin of a right as far as is possible to know. [within reason for the purposes of a forum anyway]

What needs to be understood here is that there is a structure to law and it has a prescription basis. I described that basis and the associated terms under which it can be understood in context. You should be proud of me since it comes from your country. Yes I learned many of the foundational principles analyzing 'your' law predating the americas which proved to be a nice contribution since they copied and pasted your law to create ours since america was after all colonized mainly by brits.

That said:


"There is nothing on this planet that can't be taken away from you."

Thats not the point however, we are talking about rights, not who has the biggest guns and is willing to use those guns to abuse rights.

"Of course, you have the opportunity to fight for what you believe you are entitled to, but nothing will be laid on a plate for you; no matter an appeal to a philosophical argument. "

In a civil society however that is not true. Aside from an 'entitlement" being dependent upon someone else which is not the case here, you seem to be thinking UKofA imperialism with the motto "let he who has the biggest guns win" which is not civilized, nor does it have anything what so ever to do with rights outside last resort keeping them, like person B.

"As far as I can tell, your argument is a philosophical one"

It is a given however in a "civil" society. It crosses many lines everything from philisophical/metaphysical/theological, all sort of rolled into one donut.

"In your example, though, I think you're demonstrating that cave man B [A?] doesn't have the right to a life because someone has come and along and attempted to take it away from him."

Since B killed A in self defense I presume you mean A had no right to life? If by this you mean nothing is absolute I agree but it becomes circular since both had a right to life prior to A's attempt to kill B in which B "instinctively" protected and preserved his life, where A was killed in the process of B securing his own life.

It would be very odd for anyone to argue that B should simply tell A ok fine kill me its all good. The fact that A did not respect B's right to life, A wound up forfeiting his own in disgrace.


"It is natural to defend your life, yes, but this does not translate into having a right to a life."

That nonsequitor since if B did not have a rightful duty to protect his own life then he should be killed for murdering A to save his own life. As you can see it creates a false premise.

If B did not have a right to his own life then A would determine who lives or who dies and the concept of murder would be nonexistent, as A would have full jurisdiction over B's life. It creates a moral short circuit against the laws of nature


"Surely the definition of an inherent right is something which can't be taken away from you, but clearly your life can be taken away from you."

But thats a misunderstanding of its meaning. While B took A's life he did not violate A's "right" to life, A violated A's own right to life by trying to take the life of B and failed.

Force is the last resort, but I only used it as an example how rights flow.

So getting back to my point there was no codified law in cave man days, there is no codified law in nature and you see animals fighting for 'stuff' all the time and its almost invariably territory theft etc., so where does this code of life that all creatures instinctively seem to know, come from?

No one needs to be taught it just happens its genetic in all that lives.






< Message edited by Real0ne -- 7/25/2015 3:20:19 PM >


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans - 7/25/2015 4:07:44 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

William Clinton lies about having an affair in the White House to Congress and the American people. He gets impeached.

How do you forget that Bill Clinton lied in court under oath, that is what he was impeached for.
It is called perjury, a felony.
And before you start in Democratic Senators stated he was guilty of perjury and that it was impeachable just before voting not guilty.

But the whole lawsuit was a civil action allowed in an unprecedented capitulation of a fed. court. So most who voted not to remove knew a political vote was necessary to stop a political lawsuit.

Not unprecedented. Prior to the Clinton administration this couldn't have happened. However he signed a law allowing the questions that he lied about to be asked. His justice department had been prosecuting people for doing exactly what Clinton did. Regardless of the intent of the lawsuit (and it was a lot less political than the Anita Hill garbage) it did not give him the right to commit perjury.

No it didn't give him the right to commit perjury. But the congress had the right to vote no on the grounds that the civil suit (and the house vote) was merely a partisan political pursuit and not because of a misuse of power.

This was very similar to Johnson's survival and by one vote. Some argue that even then, the politics continued, the 'Dixiecrats' were created thereafter, ending reconstruction and the beginning of Jim Crow.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans - 7/25/2015 4:30:33 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

William Clinton lies about having an affair in the White House to Congress and the American people. He gets impeached.

How do you forget that Bill Clinton lied in court under oath, that is what he was impeached for.
It is called perjury, a felony.
And before you start in Democratic Senators stated he was guilty of perjury and that it was impeachable just before voting not guilty.

But the whole lawsuit was a civil action allowed in an unprecedented capitulation of a fed. court. So most who voted not to remove knew a political vote was necessary to stop a political lawsuit.

Not unprecedented. Prior to the Clinton administration this couldn't have happened. However he signed a law allowing the questions that he lied about to be asked. His justice department had been prosecuting people for doing exactly what Clinton did. Regardless of the intent of the lawsuit (and it was a lot less political than the Anita Hill garbage) it did not give him the right to commit perjury.

No it didn't give him the right to commit perjury. But the congress had the right to vote no on the grounds that the civil suit (and the house vote) was merely a partisan political pursuit and not because of a misuse of power.

This was very similar to Johnson's survival and by one vote. Some argue that even then, the politics continued, the 'Dixiecrats' were created thereafter, ending reconstruction and the beginning of Jim Crow.

So you have no problem with Clinton committing perjury and you have moved the creation of the Dixiecrats up about 80 years. BTW the supreme court later proclaimed the law under which Johnson was impeached to be unconstitutional.
Politically motivated or not Clinton still decided to break a law that he signed for the rest of us.
Do you actually think that there has ever been a sexual harassment suit brought without the intent to do severe harm to the defendant?

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans - 7/25/2015 7:09:33 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
According to how I interpret your post, you disagree with the Declaration of Independence.

I disagree with references to a "Creator." If there is a "Creator," then rights are merely a matter of what is physically possible.

So, yes, my interpretation is correct.

If your interpretation is meant to imply that I disagree with the Declaration of Independence in its entirety, then it would be incorrect. I'm only referring to a part about a "Creator," since there's no proof that a "Creator" actually exists.


A main point of the DoI was that our rights are inherent to our humanity and given us by Nature's god. It's a "bottom up" hierarchy, not a "top down" like the monarchy we fought to get out from under.

There is no point to a Constitution if rights come from government. A Constitution isn't going to prevent a government from taking authorities away that it has granted.

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote:

What's the point of government, in your opinion?

An organizing influence for the collective defense of society.

How is society defended? If an individual doesn't have all rights and authorities inherent to their humanity, how do they grant authorities to something else?

Through politics; the process of individuals getting together and forming agreements, alliances, and pacts for their own protection and mutual benefit. A significant and observable aspect of the human condition throughout history has been in finding better and more efficient ways of organizing - in order to build bigger temples, bigger cities, bigger armies, bigger empires.
As far as where the rights and authorities come from, I don't know that they're "inherent" to humanity. If it's something that we presume to come from either God or Nature, then that opens the question whether or not animals have "rights" under the same principle. If not, then it must presumed to be something that we humans decided all on our own that we had. However indirect and convoluted the processes may be, humans ultimately "agree" on what rights we have and to grant authority to some form of governmental body.


Humans ultimately agree on what rights we have? The next generation, then, can agree that we don't have those rights, then, right? Or, the next generation can agree they have the same rights we decided, but that we no longer have those same rights, since we're old and shit.

What prevents people from getting together and agreeing that we all have a right to a free car, a free house, free food, etc.?


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans - 7/25/2015 7:16:58 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
Thanks for the reply, Rea0ne, and interesting too. Although I feel your post doesn't really get down to the bones of what exactly makes 'a right' a right in practice.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
An Un or Inalienable right is a claim that belongs to you and you alone that cannot be converted or transferred for any reason.
Inherent rights are rights from the creator, God.

There is nothing on this planet that can't be taken away from you. Of course, you have the opportunity to fight for what you believe you are entitled to, but nothing will be laid on a plate for you; no matter an appeal to a philosophical argument.
As far as I can tell, your argument is a philosophical one, much the same as that set out by the Levellers and John Locke in the 1600s. It's an idea; it's certainly not a given.


If there are no inherent rights, is it wrong to kill someone, in the absence of government?

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
An example is a tiger attacks the cave man, the cave man kills the tiger in defense of his life. The right to life is possibly the most obvious 'inherent' right, likewise with speech (we all talk), likewise with travel, we all walk, likewise with property, (dont steal my roadkill), likewise the need to be in places where others will be present, (liberty) and so forth. These are things people will rightfully kill for, these are 'inherent' rights.
So now we take the tiger situation and use cave man a v cave man b.
A attacks B, and B kills A in defense of B's life.
This is natural in every avenue of nature to defend ones own life.
The right to life etc is an observation and recognition of the nature of mankind, hence a universal understanding, thus a basis for a universal law applicable to everyone despite their political or religious persuasion.

In your example, though, I think you're demonstrating that cave man B doesn't have the right to a life because someone has come and along and attempted to take it away from him. Caveman B has to work to stay in business. There is no creator, God, political philosophy that will protect him when push comes to shove. The only protection he has is the opportunity to save himself through his own hard work.
If you mean he has the right to defend himself, well that's not a right. It's merely a course of action, in the same way that going to the shop for a pint of milk is a course of action. Using your logic everything would be a right because everything is a course of action.
It is natural to defend your life, yes, but this does not translate into having a right to a life. Surely the definition of an inherent right is something which can't be taken away from you, but clearly your life can be taken away from you.
I do agree, though, regarding the purpose of authority and it being a marriage of convenience to serve in the interests of the wider body.
It seems where we disagree is on the philosophical argument surrounding 'a right', not on the role of government.


If rights aren't inherent, where, in your estimation, do they come from? How do you define a right? What's the difference between a right and a privilege?


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans - 7/25/2015 7:48:46 PM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
A main point of the DoI was that our rights are inherent to our humanity and given us by Nature's god. It's a "bottom up" hierarchy, not a "top down" like the monarchy we fought to get out from under.


I agree that it's a "bottom up" hierarchy, although I don't agree about "Nature's god." What does that actually mean anyway?

quote:


There is no point to a Constitution if rights come from government. A Constitution isn't going to prevent a government from taking authorities away that it has granted.


Prior to the Constitution, we had the Articles of Confederation, although the main problem was a lack of any real organization. The whole point of the Constitution was to organize the States better, to be more unified and coordinated in the event of outside attack - which was considered a very real possibility at the time. "In order to form a more perfect union."

quote:


Humans ultimately agree on what rights we have? The next generation, then, can agree that we don't have those rights, then, right? Or, the next generation can agree they have the same rights we decided, but that we no longer have those same rights, since we're old and shit.

What prevents people from getting together and agreeing that we all have a right to a free car, a free house, free food, etc.?


It's the political process at work. It's a constant work in progress which will never be perfect, but the political and electoral processes in this country serve as a forum for the governed to rule this country from the bottom up, as intended by the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

Theoretically, someone could propose an amendment to the Constitution stating that people have a right to a free car, free house, free food, etc., and if enough people want it, then they will elect legislatures which will support it and eventually make it law. There's nothing in the Constitution to prevent that from happening, since there are provisions for amending it. But then again, that's done through the same political processes, and realistically, such a thing is not likely to happen during our lifetime. But politicians might still promise a chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans - 7/25/2015 9:43:36 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
A main point of the DoI was that our rights are inherent to our humanity and given us by Nature's god. It's a "bottom up" hierarchy, not a "top down" like the monarchy we fought to get out from under.

I agree that it's a "bottom up" hierarchy, although I don't agree about "Nature's god." What does that actually mean anyway?


Nature's god would be the god that created nature.

quote:

quote:

There is no point to a Constitution if rights come from government. A Constitution isn't going to prevent a government from taking authorities away that it has granted.

Prior to the Constitution, we had the Articles of Confederation, although the main problem was a lack of any real organization. The whole point of the Constitution was to organize the States better, to be more unified and coordinated in the event of outside attack - which was considered a very real possibility at the time. "In order to form a more perfect union."


Not just poor organization, but little Federal power. The US Constitution was designed to grant more power and authorities to the Federal Government. The Articles of Confederation created a very loose-knit country, where each State could basically do whatever it wanted to do.

quote:

quote:

Humans ultimately agree on what rights we have? The next generation, then, can agree that we don't have those rights, then, right? Or, the next generation can agree they have the same rights we decided, but that we no longer have those same rights, since we're old and shit.
What prevents people from getting together and agreeing that we all have a right to a free car, a free house, free food, etc.?

It's the political process at work. It's a constant work in progress which will never be perfect, but the political and electoral processes in this country serve as a forum for the governed to rule this country from the bottom up, as intended by the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.
Theoretically, someone could propose an amendment to the Constitution stating that people have a right to a free car, free house, free food, etc., and if enough people want it, then they will elect legislatures which will support it and eventually make it law. There's nothing in the Constitution to prevent that from happening, since there are provisions for amending it. But then again, that's done through the same political processes, and realistically, such a thing is not likely to happen during our lifetime. But politicians might still promise a chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage.


Technically, yes, that could happen. Realistically, I don't see it happening.

So, where, in your opinion, do rights come from?


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans - 7/26/2015 3:57:52 AM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Technically, yes, that could happen. Realistically, I don't see it happening.

So, where, in your opinion, do rights come from?


quote:

ORIGINAL: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers
"Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can ensure that I will catch it."

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans - 7/26/2015 5:34:32 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Technically, yes, that could happen. Realistically, I don't see it happening.
So, where, in your opinion, do rights come from?

quote:

ORIGINAL: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers
"Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can ensure that I will catch it."


Pop culture quotes! Awesome!

Too bad they don't actually answer the question.

Any chance you'd actually answer the question? If so, where, in your opinion, do rights come from?


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans - 7/26/2015 6:03:16 AM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline
Just thinking...

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, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... from the U.S. Declaration of Independence

I've long thought the concept was that all are created equal with certain rights but one has to fight to keep them in this imperfect world. This is from a document which stated why the Colonials were declaring a separation from British rule. If talking about the U.S. Federal Government, the "why" of the Constitution, the Preamble, gives a different picture. A picture of what the government was intended to be.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


One of the most huge differences of opinion today and from its inception is what is "promote the general welfare". This has so many times been a license to penalize one group to the benefit of another since the group being penalized "just aren't our kind of people". It is just that sneaky selfishness that tells people that what is of benefit to their own little tribe and customs is "promoting the general welfare" and up yours to anyone who doesn't agree. Many inside the beltway want to chip away or even remove individual rights altogether because their little tribe thinks it is "good for us". To me, if it isn't good for EVERYONE it isn't the business of the federal government. But, greed says they will continue to legislate for the rich and ignore the majority.

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans - 7/26/2015 10:56:10 AM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
So, where, in your opinion, do rights come from?


From humans. We invented the concept.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans - 7/26/2015 12:41:50 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
So, where, in your opinion, do rights come from?


From humans. We invented the concept.



So... Humanists such as Mao and Hitler and Stalin, Pol Pot etc etc etc were right. People are just things, with no rights. And anything goes while in pursuit of the greater good

There is nothing wrong with mass graves because "rights" are just an invented idea

/sarcasm

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans - 7/26/2015 12:57:13 PM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
So, where, in your opinion, do rights come from?


From humans. We invented the concept.



So... Humanists such as Mao and Hitler and Stalin, Pol Pot etc etc etc were right. People are just things, with no rights. And anything goes while in pursuit of the greater good

There is nothing wrong with mass graves because "rights" are just an invented idea

/sarcasm



What a piece of work is man...

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans - 7/26/2015 1:05:02 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

What a piece of work is man...


Youre referring to the Democrat Weasely Clark, right

The Democrat referred to in the OP, who claims we need reeducation / internment camps for "radicals"



_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans - 7/26/2015 5:44:09 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
Just thinking...
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, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... from the U.S. Declaration of Independence
I've long thought the concept was that all are created equal with certain rights but one has to fight to keep them in this imperfect world. This is from a document which stated why the Colonials were declaring a separation from British rule. If talking about the U.S. Federal Government, the "why" of the Constitution, the Preamble, gives a different picture. A picture of what the government was intended to be.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
One of the most huge differences of opinion today and from its inception is what is "promote the general welfare". This has so many times been a license to penalize one group to the benefit of another since the group being penalized "just aren't our kind of people". It is just that sneaky selfishness that tells people that what is of benefit to their own little tribe and customs is "promoting the general welfare" and up yours to anyone who doesn't agree. Many inside the beltway want to chip away or even remove individual rights altogether because their little tribe thinks it is "good for us". To me, if it isn't good for EVERYONE it isn't the business of the federal government. But, greed says they will continue to legislate for the rich and ignore the majority.


In the written defense and explanation of the US Constitution (The Federalist Papers), it is mentioned that the Federal Government is to deal with things external to the country, and the State governments are to deal with things within the country.

Article II, Section 8:
    quote:


    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

    To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


Other than the postal provisions, regulating commerce among the several states, and supporting patent laws, everything Congress is authorized to do deals with the US as one unit, and/or deals with external things with the US as one unit.

The relative ease in manipulating interpretations makes the "necessary and proper clause" the breach to be abused to rationalize anything not specifically authorized.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans - 7/26/2015 5:45:46 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
So, where, in your opinion, do rights come from?

From humans. We invented the concept.


Tyranny of the majority, then.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125