Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?
sorry but you are in direct conflict with our founding documents and the founders themselves, and you don't understand life liberty and property at all.
I DO UNDERSTAND. You are simply confused about Facts. For example, if Nature granted humans a "right to life", then no flood or earthquake or tornado or volcano or other Natural event would ever kill a human. Since the data shows that Nature doesn't care one whit about human life; it logically follows that in actual Fact, there is no such thing as a "natural right to life".
It is a human invention only. And the same logic plus equivalent data shows there is no such thing in Nature as a right to Property, or to Liberty, and so on. The
only right that Nature offers is, as I previously stated, a "right to try".
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,
MERE SAY-SO DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. That's why I called such texts Propaganda.
It is most excellent and useful propaganda, but it is
not based on Facts of Nature --and that is precisely why it is Propaganda, not Truth. (And since humans are able to lie, and also humans, not God, wrote the Bible, there's no telling what sort of lies humans put in the Bible that humans
claimed were the Word of God.
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).<------------which means property.
MERE SAY-SO DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. Also, the above two blocks of quoted text don't really count as far as the Constitution is concerned, because the Constitution is the Law of the Land, not the Declaration of Independence.
samual adams--Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO MAKES A FAULTY CLAIM; the claim is still faulty.
Self-preservation is merely the right to try. There is no right to succeed, and so many many living things perish while trying. Humans egotistically think they are special, but Nature doesn't treat humans one whit more special than any other life-form. Logically, since self-preservation may require obtaining Property, but there is no right to succeed at it, the Deduction is: There Is Actually No Natural Right To Property. It is purely a human invention. And so on, like I already stated.
right , life, liberty and the pursuit of property ... means no other person can take you life, liberty, and the opportunity to obtain property,[mean land money, material goods] , ...there has never been a right to succeed, so I don't why you even went there.
THE LACK OF A RIGHT TO SUCCEED AUTOMATICALLY TRASHES ALL THOSE OTHER "RIGHTS". That's why I went there. Since there is no Natural right to succeed at staying alive, it Logically Follows that there is no Natural Right To Life. Very Simple!
The whole concept of "human rights" exists entirely to make it easier for humans to get along with each other. It is an extremely useful
invention. And it has nothing to do with Nature.
and please do not attempt to tell me the founders used propaganda.
IT IS WHAT IT IS, a set of claims not backed up by actual Facts. It really does qualify much more as "propaganda" than anything else.
the constitution with it bill of rights never granted rights, at ALL,[a piece of paper does not grant rights] the bill of rights only recognizes rights,
NICE TRY, BUT NO CIGAR. The rights have to actually exist before they can be recognized. And since those rights don't actually exist in Nature, a document like the Constitution-plus-Amendments merely and only specifies details regarding a human invention; it truly does "grant" rights.
and the courts have recognized ones which were not originally listed in the bill of rights.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE THE COURTS CORRECT ABOUT NATURAL FACTS. It just means the courts are adding to the overall human invention!
the bill of rights places restrictions of the federal government that it will make no law concerning the rights listed in the bill of rights.
AND BY LISTING THEM AND PROTECTING THEM, THOSE RIGHTS ARE BEING ARBITRARILY DECLARED TO EXIST; they are being "granted" to the People, for strictly people-purposes.
The net effect is almost the same as if those rights really did exist in Nature. I'm simply saying we shouldn't delude ourselves about how those rights came to be. (And I used "almost" because Nature still doesn't care one whit about what humans claim for themselves; Nature has not agreed to abide by the US Constitution.)
the governments cannot create rights with amendments because that would deify the founding principles,, they can only create privileges, rights are endowed and unalienable, ...........privileges can be taken away
SO CAN RIGHTS. Every felon loses the right to vote, for example. There are proposed Constitutional Amendments that would remove the right to bear arms, or remove the right-to-privacy that grants women access to abortions, and so on. It is a Very Good Thing that Amending the Constitution, while possible, is not easy! Other laws, of course, are much more easily changed. That's where the "privileges" to which you refer can be born --and later killed.
) Obviously rights to Liberty and Property and other things can begin to exist in that culture via extremely similar statements. In one respect the US Constitution is our Nation's Social Contract; surely you must have encountered statements such as, "If you don't like our rules, you are free to move to some other country." --there is an assumption that everyone raised in the USA will automatically accept the Constitution (and everyone who immigrates to become a citizen is required to accept it). That assumption is probably a mistake, because even though most born citizens do accept it, there are always a few who don't, and make trouble.