You are confusing the physical ability to perform an action with a right.
The Republican party???
They determined what rights the citizens of this country have. Wasn't a god saying what to write down. It was a group of men who did the best they could given their backgrounds, their preferences, and the need to get all the states onboard.
Lazy, gay, Kardashian-obsessed, entitled pot smokers.
Yep, that pretty much sums up America's youth and the Democratic party.
It's also why outsourcing labor is so damn necessary.
The very core principle of rights is that everyone has the absolute right to be “free” from aggression in their own person and property. Therefore, any actions towards the person or property of another is a violation of their rights. If all men have a right to their person and property the question is can the government remove these rights by either violating their person or property or by simply failing to protect them. The answer is of course no, because as should be clear by the above statement, it is their existence alone that grants them the authority over their own person and facilities that enables them to acquire property. Any sort of aggression towards the person or property of someone will be an act of aggression, be that by government, which is nothing more than a collection of men, or by any citizen of the world. The action is the same, the results are the same, and thus, it is no more possible for the government to act aggressively towards you and not violate your rights than it is for any other person or body of persons. There is no difference regardless of what people might pretend between the actions of government and the actions of any other man, and it is therefore paramount that the government only act in the defense of peoples rights, much like you can act in defense of your neighbors rights.
So to answer your post, no, there is no one but yourself that is confused here.
A new Pew Research survey seems to indicate that millenials, the age group from 18 to 33, tend to favor gay rights and marijuana legalization. and tend to vote for Democrats. I think it is highly likely that Democrats have embraced these two issues to drive a stake in the heart of the Republican party. Recall recently how Obama spoke in favor of marijuana legalization and came out in favor of gay rights.
Is the Republican Party in danger of dying out? - The Week
That makes no sense at all. The very concept of rights is human made and as such rights can and exist only to the extent that humans in some form of social contract agree upon them and thus protect them.They did no such thing. They determined what limitations on our natural rights would be allowable under our social contract and what limitations on those rights the government would be forbidden from placing.
Sure they did for our nation and decided that it was something worth protecting.The founders and the constitution did not CREATE Freedom of Speech.
By that logic or rather lack of it, one has the right to kill too, because one can just do it like speaking one's mind.To suggest they did would mean that if this country was disolved and anarchy ruled that a person could not say whatever they wish...which is patentedly untrue.
That's what politicians do. In some cases you could call it "representing your constituents." It's actually the very same attitude that caused Romney to have to run much further to the right than his record as Governor. Besides, I thought the big tent was the GOP. That's what Bush I said.
To the point of the OP, the GOP will adapt and be fine. They will figure out a way to go on winning elections which is what really matters to them anyway.
Not one thing in your post changes the reality that an ability to perform a physical act is one thing while the exercise of a legal right is quite another. And all the therefores and leaps made from them in the world do not change that
That makes no sense at all. The very concept of rights is human made and as such rights can and exist only to the extent that humans in some form of social contract agree upon them and thus protect them.
Everything in my post exposes the falsehood that if someone restrains your ability to partake in a right, that they have in fact taken your right away. It is an argument claiming unwittingly that coercion and aggression are justified behavior and that the government itself, or in other cases society, grant the people their rights.
Your argument only makes sense if you claim rights over and above those which are recognized as a citizen and resident of the USA.
1.)If the post is meaningless then why respond? Who said that you said it did?
2.)The point is that you appear to want to brush aside the fact that Republicans have used gay baiting to get votes.
3.)I don't think it's hard to understand.
Can you prove the existence of this social contract? Unlike natural rights that can easily be support by reason, there is no such thing possible with the idea of a social contract.
And how would it be reasonable to restrain the rights of man to the creation of a state or to those of a certain land?
20th amendment? women got the right to vote...
Regardless if you call it a social contract..... or the law ... or the rules of the game ... or just the way things are .... you are an adult and you know darn well what the deal is every day you get up and live here as a US Citizen. And you stay just the same making a free choice every day of your life. You might as well have signed a real parchment contract in blood cause its the same damn thing just the same.
It is also natural to walk around naked but that too is irrelevant. Nature has not changed yet people did not have all those rights, no matter how natural it felt.
speaking isn't a right. It's an ability
What rights of man?
A new Pew Research survey seems to indicate that millenials, the age group from 18 to 33, tend to favor gay rights and marijuana legalization. and tend to vote for Democrats. I think it is highly likely that Democrats have embraced these two issues to drive a stake in the heart of the Republican party. Recall recently how Obama spoke in favor of marijuana legalization and came out in favor of gay rights.
Is the Republican Party in danger of dying out? - The Week
I actually knew most if not all of that. But interesting recap.since you are asking me this question again, it seems i do not do a good job in explaining your question before.
i will be clearer this time.
first,... i am NOT speaking about rights, from a biblical prospective, and am speaking about rights of the prospective of ...U.S. LAW...........NOT laws of foreign governments.
THE FUNDAMENTAL OR ORGANIC LAWS OF THE U.S.
The Organic Laws of the United States of America can be found in Volume One of the United States Code which contains the General and Permanent Laws of the United States. U.S. Code defines the organic laws of the United States of America to include the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, and the Constitution of September 17, 1787.
MAKING the Declaration of Independence ----------->LAW.
our Declaration of Independence states rights are endowed meaning they come from a higher power, ...why the higher power?.......to signify rights DO NOT come from man , but from something HIGHER, therefore not in mans power to give OR take away.
from this statement of the Declaration of Independence, that law has NEVER BEEN VIOLATED, .......THE U.S. CONGRESS has never created a right in its entire history.
the u.s. constitution with its bill of rights, does NOT has NOT given or ever granted a rights to it citizens.
our bill of rights RECOGNIZES RIGHTS ONLY, and they are enumerated, our bill of rights with its clauses........are declaratory and restrictive clause places on the federal government, that it shall make no laws, violating the recognized rights which are enumerated [ this can be found in reading the preamble to the bill of rights], .....all other rights which are not enumerated by the constitution, fall under the 9th amendment.
rights like the right to vote are not listed in the bill of rights,.....that right was recognized by the USSC.......the judicial branch of our government, not its legislative branch.
the u.s. was not created has a democracy, the people were NOT given absolute power to do as they will, [majority rule], america was created as a federal republic, with a constitution, making it a republican form of government NOT democratic form, with RULE OF LAW.
I actually knew most if not all of that. But interesting recap.
My issue is with the "higher power" bit. It may be that we have inherent rights, but why can't they just be an inseparable (although infringeable) part of us? Why does a higher power need to be involved?
That is what the founders believed.when the founders create the DOI, they stated" ENDOWED BY THE CREATOR".
notice they did not say "GOD"..THEY LEFT THE WORDING SUBJECTIVE TO THE READER TO MAKE UP THERE OWN MIND......
LOOK WHAT ELSE THEY SAY.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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?