On the contrary -- the basis for your argument is the entire point of the exercise.Entirely irrelevant.
Go talk to a fella named "Empirical Truth". He'll tell you that your motivation is happiness, both yours and for others. He'll then tell you that the only effective and legitimate means to achieve this is Communism.Of course humans do things out of self-interest. There isn't any other reason to do do things at all.
Go talk to a fella named "Empirical Truth". He'll tell you that your motivation is happiness, both yours and for others. He'll then tell you that the only effective and legitimate means to achieve this is Communism.
:rofl
On the contrary -- the basis for your argument is the entire point of the exercise.
So, what are particular reasons you personally find valid?
What makes you thnk that you should get to do what you want to do?
Yeah, ain't it a hoot, African Americans apparently have the "unalienable right" to be counted as 3/5 persons. :mrgreen:
Keep in mind that it was anti-slavery who fraught for and won the battle so that blacks would not be counted as whole people. If blacks were counted as whole people at the time, then the demographics such as they were would have given pro-slavery superior representation in Congress.
The 3/5ths rule is a victory for blacks, not an example of how they were victimized.
The problem we're having here is those who are focused on elements of our early American culture that did not implement the unalienable rights as the Founding Fathers defined them. They seem to be unable to separate examples of where the intentions were pure versus the areas in which humans, like all humans in all eras, had feet of clay.
I am always impressed with somebody who has actually studied and understands real history. Kudos.
The problem we're having here is those who are focused on elements of our early American culture that did not implement the unalienable rights as the Founding Fathers defined them. They seem to be unable to separate examples of where the intentions were pure versus the areas in which humans, like all humans in all eras, had feet of clay.
That a good idea is not fully implemented makes it no less of a good idea. And it really doesn't matter who thinks up a good idea either. It is still a good idea.
The Founders did, however, give us all the foundation we needed to make unalienable rights recognizable, respected, revered, and wanted, and all the tools we needed to protect those rights even if we did have to evolve and iron out some wrinkles in order to get there.
Now we are in serious danger of losing that vision. I hope there are still enough Americans who do understand it to defend the unalienable rights for which so much blood and treasure has been invested.
Of course the Founding Fathers are in no way culpable for their acceptance of slavery as a de facto reality. They created something uniquely perfect. Apart from the slavery bit, which wasn't their fault.
Jeez!
Of course they are culpable, but that was a part of their particular culture just as it was at the same time in Canada, Mexico, and on most of the Carribean islands and much of South America. Some were convinced that the black slaves were not fully human because that is what they had been taught. Some were not so convinced and refused to own slaves. It wasn't them however who hauled the slaves over here. That would be mostly the British. It wasn't the British who went into the jungles and bush to capture them and sell them into slavery. That would be their own countrymen and sometimes members of their own tribe.
Does that make any of it right as we understand right and wrong? Of course not. But would we be any different than they if we had been born in their time? There is an excellent chance that we would not.
If you are taught from birth that certain things are or are not true, and you have no way to verify them for yourself, you are likely to believe what is culturally ingrained into you.
If any one of those Founders had been born into our culture or even the culture at the time of Abraham Lincoln, I am convinced that not one of them would have condoned slavery.
It is not useful nor instructive to read our 21st Century sense of morality into Revolutionary times or Medieval Times or Roman Empire times or the ancient Biblical times or any other period of history. Each era has its own culture and sense of right, wrong, protocol, and what is and is not true. It is one among many important things all students of history must learn if they are to keep history in perspective.
Excellent case for not taking the made up words of people from another era as inalienable rights. Great post!
But it's what he wanted you to be saying.Well thanks for the compliment, but if that is what you interpreted my post to say, that's too bad. Because that isn't what I was saying.
You WILL be able to -- if -you- supply the means.
You have the freedom to do so.
Not at all.
That you do not have the physical capability to march in a political protest in no way means you do not have the political or legal freedom to march in said protest.
That you do not have a church that youcan atend in no way means that you do not have the political or legal freedom to freely exercise your religion.
et cetera...
Not just protection from banning, but infringement, period.
Not sure how you think this applies to what I said.
You said "If the government was not able to provide my region with the security detail necessary to ensure the free exercise of my constitutional rights against non-compliants...".
The government can NEVER supply so much security that 'non compliants' can NEVER act against you, which would b enecessary to "ensure" the free exercise of yoru rights.
Ths is absolutely unsupportable.
The consitution specifies that it will provide for very few things, and the means for you to maintain your personal protection is not among them. It specifies that the government will 'ensure domestinc tranqulity', a statment was made in a specific context -- to end the sqaubbles amoing the states resulting from the inefficacy of the Articles of Confederation - not related to your argument in any way.
But it's what he wanted you to be saying.
I also would like to say that it was a good post.
However, are their any values/ideas which have been present in much if not all of history?
I personally couldn't say, so I'm asking.
None of the above.
I'll address two I could see arguments for.
Water is free, like dirt. Clean water is a paid service and not a "right".
A minimum or "living" wage is decided on by citizens in an attempt to boost employment and thus the economy. There is no "right" to be given a job or "right" to be paid a subjective X amount for that job.
Well thanks for the compliment, but if that is what you interpreted my post to say, that's too bad. Because that isn't what I was saying.
Of course not -- it runs contrary to human nature.I don't know E.T., but I have long strongly argued that communism, though a noble idea, cannot work among humankind and will not accomplish unfettered exercise of unalienable rights nor self governance as he probably envisions that it would accomplish.
Utopia is where everyone lives and acts within his rights.I believe that the closest to such an envisioned 'utopia' that humankind will ever accomplish is embodied in our own U.S. Constitution as it was originally intended plus the amendments necessary to correct the prejudicial inequities as we evolved to understand them to be.
Your displeasure must have a basis.I already listed them. Displeasure. I don't think it can be argued narrower than that.
I highly doubt it.I don't.
But yes, I believe there are universal truths that have been recognized in all times. They don't change just because the people change culturally or morally.
That there is a yearning within all people for personal freedom I believe is a universal truth.
the fact that they are 'virtually' impossible things means that they are possible. You're again deliberately confusing the term 'ability' and using it in an inapplicable manner.I cannot do virtually impossible things.
See above.Regardless of the case, you can't possess any kind of freedom (politcal, legal, or otherwise) if something is virtually impossible. Freedom must include possibility to do so.
Still wondering how/why this is relevant.I thought we were discussing the nature of rights, as described in the U.S. Constitution.
Only the right to bear arms can not be infringed. The capacity for habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution implies rights (as described in the U.S. Constitution) can be infringed under certain conditions.
"Perfection" was necessary to your point, as 'ensure' denotes a rate of 100%.Perfection is incidental to the point.
This is an exampleof the government equipping people who are acting on the behalf of the government. Apples and tuna.If it was absolutely unsupportable, then it would be inconceivable that the U.S. government would ever distribute weapons among a civilian population; the existence of posses in the Old West....
See above.
As such, my examples stand as concrete examples of how your position fails.
That you may not have a church to go to in no way means you do not posess the -legal and political- ability to practice your religion; the means are up to you to provide.
"Perfection" was necessary to your point, as 'ensure' denotes a rate of 100%.
This is an exampleof the government equipping people who are acting on the behalf of the government. Apples and tuna.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?