Define "rights".

[haymarket]

That doesn't prove they exist.

In the real world it most certainly does.

 

[Green Man]

In the real world it most certainly does.

Just to be clear, are you saying that these positive legal rights actually exist in the physical world and can be demonstrated to exist through scientific observation?

 

[haymarket]

Just to be clear, are you saying that these positive legal rights actually exist in the physical world and can be demonstrated to exist through scientific observation?

I know I have the right of free speech because it says so in the Constitution and I exercise it freely and openly and the government respects and protects that right.

 

[Mach]

They key question from Chuck71 was never answered:

Where do people get the feeling that a 'certain behavior' is worth being protected?

Claiming that government writes down certain legal rights is trivial and true. Reasonably the question doesn't stop there though...why are some more common in successful societies than others? Why do people prefer certain ones over others. Why do you specifically, prefer some over others. Answering these necessarily leads to the factual reality of <something>, that we can of course label and discuss.

That you cannot bear calling them natural rights...that's a personal issue. We can call them "xyz" if you want, as long as you reasonable agree...

 

[Mach]

I know I have the right of free speech because it says so in the Constitution and I exercise it freely and openly and the government respects and protects that right.

Sure by why was it put in the constitution, as opposed to any infinite number of other rules?

 

[Green Man]

I know I have the right of free speech because it says so in the Constitution and I exercise it freely and openly and the government respects and protects that right.

You're skipping ahead. I first want to understand your claim, what you mean when you say that positive legal rights exist. Are you saying that these positive legal rights actually exist in the physical world and can be demonstrated to exist through scientific observation?

 

[haymarket]

Sure by why was it put in the constitution, as opposed to any infinite number of other rules?

Because some folks felt it was important.

 

[haymarket]

You're skipping ahead. I first want to understand your claim, what you mean when you say that positive legal rights exist. Are you saying that these positive legal rights actually exist in the physical world and can be demonstrated to exist through scientific observation?

I just gave you a perfect answer. If you want to dance slow there are places that will accommodate you.

 

[Mach]

Because some folks felt it was important.

Yes, but put on your thinking cap and ask that question until you reach the conclusion.
Why do all folks believe some such "rules" are more important than others...including the creation of rules in the first place. Take it all the way back haymarket. And similarly, where do such feelings come from?

 

[Green Man]

I just gave you a perfect answer. If you want to dance slow there are places that will accommodate you.

You gave a response, but it was not an answer. I asked you to be clear about what you mean by "exist", and you did a little song and dance and purposely avoided answering.

You claim that some rights exist and some rights don't exist, but you refuse to be precise about your terms. Thus nobody can know what you're talking about (as usual).

 

[Green Man]

Which nobody can prove as existing outside of a self imposed belief system of faith.

When you say exist, do you mean that nobody can prove that natural rights actually exist in the physical world and can be demonstrated to exist through scientific observation? Or do you mean something else by "exist"?

 

[johndylan1]

I know I have the right of free speech because it says so in the Constitution and I exercise it freely and openly and the government respects and protects that right.

AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Would you mind highlighting the part that says you have a "right" of free speech. Also what significance do you give to the word "abridging" in the free speech clause.

The fact that you read the word "right" where it clearly does not exist shows that you do recognize that it is an understood preexisting concept, doesn't it? And further it shows that all your arguments against this have been a sham.

 

[Master PO]

So now Thomas Jefferson is a liar! How much further into your mouth can you stick your foot? It's got to be halfway down your throat by now!

I must tell you chuck, that he has also stated james madsion is wrong on the constitution, even though Madison is its father.

 

[Master PO]

BS. His opinion is irrelevant next to the hard math which shows you do not need a majority of states voting YES to pass a bill in the Senate since states do not vote - individual senators do.

But to end this madness lest each put up a significant sum of money to see who is right? Willing to do that EB?

You use the opinion of Madison and I will use the reality of the facts and math. Ready?

I will share with you now something, I have found information I was looking for, my hope I can get more details from it, for now it supports what I say about senators, vote according to how their legislature directs them to, it seems many senators have resigned pre 17th , without finishing their 6 year terms of office and been replaced by the states legislature.

I have started at the beginning of the 1800's and working by why up, I have jumped to the 1840's and still found legislature replacing senators after their resignation, of only a few years.

 

[Master PO]

Exactly. A right is simply an entitlement to be treated in a certain way. The state lovers have a theory of rights in which only the state can decide how people are entitled to be treated. If the state were to say that red-head's had no right to life, the state lovers would of course deny that red-heads had a right to life.

when you say "state lovers"......I am sure you mean the "State"[federal]...and not the "states"(50), am I correct about that, because I think their was some confusion back a few pages ago.

 

[Green Man]

when you say "state lovers"......I am sure you mean the "State"[federal]...and not the "states"(50), am I correct about that, because I think their was some confusion back a few pages ago.

Yes, I am referring to The State in general.

 

[haymarket]

AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Would you mind highlighting the part that says you have a "right" of free speech. Also what significance do you give to the word "abridging" in the free speech clause.

The fact that you read the word "right" where it clearly does not exist shows that you do recognize that it is an understood preexisting concept, doesn't it? And further it shows that all your arguments against this have been a sham.

So according to you in these remarks there is no right to free speech.

 

[haymarket]

I will share with you now something, I have found information I was looking for, my hope I can get more details from it, for now it supports what I say about senators, vote according to how their legislature directs them to, it seems many senators have resigned pre 17th , without finishing their 6 year terms of office and been replaced by the states legislature.

I have started at the beginning of the 1800's and working by why up, I have jumped to the 1840's and still found legislature replacing senators after their resignation, of only a few years.

Very good EB. I welcome seeing your future post with the verifiable evidence that a majority of senators was needed or is needed to pass a bill through the Senate.

 

[Master PO]

Very good EB. I welcome seeing your future post with the verifiable evidence that a majority of senators was needed or is needed to pass a bill through the Senate.

I really don't understand your statement.

now since I am always talking in the sense of pre17th.

for any bill to pass the senate side of congress, a majority vote is needed.

senators vote on bills in the interest of how their legislature directs them to vote.

lets say a bill had already passed the house, and this bill [now in the senate] is a benefit to larger states, and no benefit at all to smaller states.

state legislature's would have knowledge of this bill since they didn't move though congress so quickly then, as they do today......and would have time to read them.

the legislatures of the smaller state's would then direct there 2 senators of each state to vote against the bill, because the bill shows no benefit for them.

so it would be a vote of the states [via senators], since the senators act for their own states legislature, ...they didn't work for the people directly,... but indirectly.

a majority vote of the states would be needed to pass the bill, ... again the senators are the representatives for the state legislatures, of their states...because they chose them.

congressmen, are the representatives of the people because they elect them.

so you have the states represented, and the people represented in congress, and for any legislative bill to pass both parts of congress, both sides have to come together and be represented.

 

[johndylan1]

So according to you in these remarks there is no right to free speech.

No, I am one who believes in natural rights that exist outside of the constitution. Would you mind answering the questions?

Would you mind highlighting the part that says you have a "right" of free speech?
Also what significance do you give to the word "abridging" in the free speech clause?
The fact that you read the word "right" where it clearly does not exist shows that you do recognize that it is an understood preexisting concept, doesn't it?

 

[johndylan1]

I really don't understand your statement.

now since I am always talking in the sense of pre17th.

for any bill to pass the senate side of congress, a majority vote is needed.

senators vote on bills in the interest of how their legislature directs them to vote.

lets say a bill had already passed the house, and this bill [now in the senate] is a benefit to larger states, and no benefit at all to smaller states.

state legislature's would have knowledge of this bill since they didn't move though congress so quickly then, as they do today......and would have time to read them.

the legislatures of the smaller state's would then direct there 2 senators of each state to vote against the bill, because the bill shows no benefit for them.

so it would be a vote of the states [via senators], since the senators act for their own states legislature, ...they didn't work for the people directly,... but indirectly.

a majority vote of the states would be needed to pass the bill, ... AND since the house is elected directly by the people,...... its vote is a majority vote of the people

again the senators are the representatives for the state legislatures, of their states...because they chose them.

congressmen, are the representatives of the people because they elect them.

so you have the states represented, and the people represented in congress, and for any legislative bill to pass both parts of congress, both sides have to come together and be represented.

Not to challenge your position too much but...
Why would each state appoint two senators if they were strictly representing the interest of the state? Also reducing the concept to its simplest form the population votes for the legislature that selects the senators pre 17th, so the populace ultimately is in control of the way a senator votes.

 

[Green Man]

No, I am one who believes in natural rights that exist outside of the constitution. Would you mind answering the questions?

Would you mind highlighting the part that says you have a "right" of free speech?
Also what significance do you give to the word "abridging" in the free speech clause?
The fact that you read the word "right" where it clearly does not exist shows that you do recognize that it is an understood preexisting concept, doesn't it?

Haymarket doesn't think that people are entitled to be treated in any other way than the government chooses to treat them, which is to say that they have no rights other than those the government gives them.

 

[johndylan1]

Haymarket doesn't think that people are entitled to be treated in any other way than the government chooses to treat them, which is to say that they have no rights other than those the government gives them.

Yes, but his statement in #1753 shows that he actually does recognize a pre existing right to free speech; although he, in less than a heartbeat away from that statement, denies the same in contradictory fashion.

 

[ecofarm]

Haymarket doesn't think that people are entitled to be treated in any other way than the government chooses to treat them, which is to say that they have no rights other than those the government gives them.

That sociomental (hah), empathy, universal/natural/human rights crap is a bunch of garbage. Means nothing. Constitution, **** that. UN? Eat a ****. Common sense? Nope. Intellectual honesty? You've got to be joking.

Rights do not exist unless granted. How awful.

 

[ecofarm]

Yes, but his statement in #1753 shows that he actually does recognize a pre existing right to free speech; although he, in less than a heartbeat away from that statement, denies the same in contradictory fashion.

He agreed rights come from people (society), not government, at one point. That seemed to fall apart.