Define "rights".

[haymarket]

You don't have a dictionary? Okay, I'll do your work for you. [Googling "define unjust"]

un·just
ˌənˈjəst
adjective
1.
not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.
"resistance to unjust laws"

How does one determine what is "morally right and fair"?

 

[Green Man]

How does one determine what is "morally right and fair"?

I don't know how you personally determine that. That's your business.

So do you have any moral objections to the government forcing someone to display such a sign in his shop?

 

[haymarket]

I don't know how you personally determine that. That's your business.

So do you have any moral objections to the government forcing someone to display such a sign in his shop?

I already told you I thought this law was beneficial to both the individual and to the people of the nation.

 

[Green Man]

I already told you I thought this law was beneficial to both the individual and to the people of the nation.

So if the shopkeeper argued that he ought to be able to be free not do display a sign, you would not agree that he had that right and advocate the legislation nonetheless?

 

[TurtleDude]

I have been here several years now and I have never read any posts which take that position. You appear to be railing against imaginary creatures formed by your own nightmares and fears.

nah, this board teems with people who see government as their Goddess mother provider

 

[PirateMk1]

Those statements were lies when they were written and the men who wrote them and signed them knew that they were.

No, I think the men who wrote them fully and honestly believed that. I think they also thought it was a bit simplistic for at least some of them, their views. They also needed to motivate a the people of a future nation. These men believed fully the concept of sovereign rights. They believed sovereign rights were rights granted by god or nature as each saw it. They also believed these rights could be suborned or taken by others.

Notice I used the term sovereign rights. Not rights as general term but a specific form. The rights of nations, of kings, of sovereign powers. These at the time were claimed to be at least by those with the power granted by god. The kings were in effect gods emissaries. So essentially what the founders did was say that ALL men were gods emissaries. Pretty damn slick don't you think? Not to mention shrewd.

What the founders did which was unique in all of history even now is to say that ALL men were granted equal sovereign rights by god or nature as was their belief at the time. The Constitution as a document was ment to help secure those rights. It is essentially the whole entire purpose of our government.

I agree with your premise they were wrong, however not the way you would expect. You see rights are NOT granted by anyone or thing or god. Sovereign rights must be earned, they must be taken. A sovereign man, like a sovereign nation must be able to take and keep their sovereignty, or they will not be able to claim legitimately they in fact are sovereign.

 

[haymarket]

So if the shopkeeper argued that he ought to be able to be free not do display a sign, you would not agree that he had that right and advocate the legislation nonetheless?

Of course the shopkeeper may advocate against passage of the legislation. And those who support it may do the same in favor of it.

 

[haymarket]

nah, this board teems with people who see government as their Goddess mother provider

And the verifiable evidence of that charge would be where in your post?

 

[ecofarm]

And the verifiable evidence of that charge would be where in your post?

You claim that the government creates rights. You claim that, without government, there is no empathy upon which to base interpersonal relations.

 

[Green Man]

Of course the shopkeeper may advocate against passage of the legislation. And those who support it may do the same in favor of it.

And in your judgement it is morally acceptable to force the shopkeeper to display the sign?

 

[haymarket]

And in your judgement it is morally acceptable to force the shopkeeper to display the sign?

What does that mean MORALLY ACCEPTABLE? I told you that it was beneficial to both the individuals and to the people of the nation and I explained exactly what that benefit was.

 

[haymarket]

You claim that the government creates rights. You claim that, without government, there is no empathy upon which to base interpersonal relations.

You are leaving out a very very important part of what I have repeatedly said to present a picture that is not accurate nor truthful.

I have said repeatedly that rights begin with the will of the people to have a certain behavior protected as a right so they exert enough power, force, or influence upon the government to get them to recognize that behavior and enshrine it as a protected right. In the USA this involves the PEOPLE getting the duly elected representatives of the PEOPLE to take that final step.

 

[Green Man]

What does that mean MORALLY ACCEPTABLE? I told you that it was beneficial to both the individuals and to the people of the nation and I explained exactly what that benefit was.

It means do you think it's right or wrong?

 

[haymarket]

No, I think the men who wrote them fully and honestly believed that.

We disagree on that. I am very old fashioned and was taught by my elders that actions speak louder than words. Talk is cheap. I guess if I hear a person tell me loudly that they are against pedophillia but then are caught buggering a ten year old - I am not going to take their words at all seriously.

 

[haymarket]

It means do you think it's right or wrong?

Since it was you who introduced such a concept, could you provide your standard for what it right and wrong so I know what is involved in making that personal judgment?

 

[ecofarm]

I have said repeatedly that rights begin with the will of the people to have a certain behavior protected as a right so they exert enough power, force, or influence upon the government to get them to recognize that behavior and enshrine it as a protected right.

So you agree that rights do not come from the government.

That's progress.

 

[Green Man]

Since it was you who introduced such a concept, could you provide your standard for what it right and wrong so I know what is involved in making that personal judgment?

I'm asking you whether you think it is right or wrong according to YOUR standards.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

I'm still in awe at the select few people whose only stake in this argument is to put the cart before the horse: if as line of argumentation can be construed to support the idea of bigger government, they (ecofarm/TurtleDude) are striking at that line of argumentation, not based upon its own merits (or lack thereof), but simply because they don't like how that knowledge could be applied.

It's like realizing that telephones helped Stalin take power, so now you're gonna fight tooth-and-nail against the idea of telephones. Could you guys just ignore the concept of government, since virtually everyone is talking about natural rights anyway?

 

[haymarket]

So you agree that rights do not come from the government.

That's progress.

Rights begin with the will of the people to have a certain behavior protected as a right so they exert enough power, force, or influence upon the government to get them to recognize that behavior and enshrine it as a protected right.

 

[haymarket]

I'm asking you whether you think it is right or wrong according to YOUR standards.

But that is not at all MY STANDARD. It is your standard that you want me to use for myself. As such, you need to make crystal clear what it entails and includes.

 

[ecofarm]

Rights begin with the will of the people

True. Thus, we can say that rights come from the will of the people (through empathy) and not the government. I'm impressed with your progress.

 

[PirateMk1]

We disagree on that. I am very old fashioned and was taught by my elders that actions speak louder than words. Talk is cheap. I guess if I hear a person tell me loudly that they are against pedophillia but then are caught buggering a ten year old - I am not going to take their words at all seriously.

Why do you partially quote me? Cant you just put it in bold?

So their words are absolutely meaningless and pointless I take it.

 

[Green Man]

But that is not at all MY STANDARD. It is your standard that you want me to use for myself. As such, you need to make crystal clear what it entails and includes.

Are you saying that you have no standards of right or wrong?

 

[haymarket]

True. Thus, we can say that rights come from the will of the people (through empathy) and not the government. I'm impressed with your progress.

Rights begin with the will of the people to have a certain behavior protected as a right so they exert enough power, force, or influence upon the government to get them to recognize that behavior and enshrine it as a protected right.

 

[haymarket]

Are you saying that you have no standards of right or wrong?

It was YOUR STANDARD that YOU introduced into the discussion. As such it is incumbent upon YOU to identify just what YOU mean by the terms.