ESPECIALLY WHEN THE GOVT is the person/people you have to depend on, because that is all their is....Govt is growing SO big they out grew the private sector, since obama has been in office, by over 100,000 job hires, for every 30,000 job hires in the private sector...

HISTORY PROVES ME RIGHT!!! You can never depend on the govt to ''give'' you rights..

So the 9th amendment gives a basis for  gov provided health care Wrong .

-- Modified on 3/12/2010 3:51:26 AM

Rights are as limited as your ability to preserve them for yourself. Beyond that you're at the mercy of something or someone.

Anything else is bullshit. If someone has a gun to your head you can argue until your blue in the face about your "inalienable" right to life, then your head will be blown off.

but try booking a session for a theoretical BBBJ and pay the provider with some theoretical $. The constitution of the US was written for the ruling class of 1776. Rights and REAL BBBJs are for those who have the $ to pay for them.

Not even remotely

I agree in theory but in practice I'm sure we'd clash. I would stipulate we have a right to everything so long as it doesn't place an undue burden on anyone else. Those that oppose the right of privacy often use the strict language of the BOR to bolster their argument. (Of course ignoring the 9th amendment)

The Constitution has been updated several times since 1776 Charlie. And court rulings have recognized more rights since then. Its only a matter of time until paying for a bj will be recognized. Seriously. We are slowly moving forward but we are moving.

the taxpayers will provide "rights" for them.

Unless it places an undue burden on said taxpayers. Depends on what rights you're speaking of.

I think in some ways we might already have those. The problem is you have to be a member of the ruling class to get them.

Oh! I recall. "... shall NOT be infringed" was interpreted to mean:

"The government granted privilege to a means of effective self-defense can be limited in any way the government so-chooses by expansionist interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. John, go fuck yourself."

(*chuckle*)

But in THEORY -- what Hamilton enunciated was the very idea of a republic. That is, by default, we ALL have the right to do ANYTHING we desire so long as it doesn't infringe on those same rights of others. And the power of government is limited to powers specifically granted by the people.

Great idea.

But, in practice ... Charlie is right too, in that your "right" to an abortion doesn't mean much if you can't afford to get one.

Like it or not, economics permeates and surrounds the effective exercise (or not) of rights.

Some folks think that any tax is an undue burden. Thats the real issue about rights: who pays and who benefits?

And to some ppl no amount of tax is burdensome. To me, the right to others money is where I draw the line. Do whatever u want, but don't demand I pay for it.

And, for whom? And, where? What are the categorical differences between a right and a privilege, and who determines them? What determines whether something is a right or not, and who determines it. And, who enforces the laws that prevents people from infringing on those rights? And, what happens when those who are entrusted for the enforcement fail to do so (see the history of civil rights, civil war regarding the conflict between federal and state laws and enforcement of rights)?

Technically, money has no owner, It all belongs to the government. Money is printed at the behest of the capitalist class.

So we should do away with money?

and the first amendment offers no protection to read the magazine of my choosing, even tho a legal product, in my home either, apparently.
(yes, that was sarcasm)

I didnt say a right to a taxpayer funded BJ, I said a right to pay for a BJ without being thrown in jail

"Privileges do not exist. No one can determine them. There are only rights, some of which can be limited, and limited only with the consent of the people."

Is driving a right or a privilege?

Is piloting your own plane a right or a privilege?

Is practicing a profession that requires a state license a right or a privilege?

Rights are inherent as you said. Therefore murder cannot be an "inherent" rights bc it violates the inherent right of another to live. Look up the definition of a right.
Rights are "reasobale entitlements". Nobody is reasonably entitled to murder.

General welfare is not an obligation.

You state:

"This means that the People have the natural right to EVERYTHING."

That's a crock. Their is no such thing as natural rights. It's an idealistic construct that is worth nothing, and means nothing without force.

Paradoxical.

Now, a society can agree that members have rights worth the groups effort to protect and guarantee. They certainly are not natural.

The Aztecs believed the right to tear out hearts with which to appease the gods. Another construct born of a set of ideals.

"We?" This sounds much like, "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

The state of California will argue with you regarding whether driving is a privilege. They're quite clear in it being a privilege, in that it is a right earned through demonstrating one has the ability to drive without unduly endangering themselves or others.

No, dear, I'm not. The definition came from the encyclopedia itself. That was one definition.   If you got issues with it, take it up w the publisher. REAL rights cannot be surrendered.

but I’m not holding my breath.

You did have several things correct in a previous thread where you stated, "The Constitution does not give anyone any rights." And, "Rights are inherent. They are natural."

The Founders and those today that believe in a Higher Power would simply say the same thing as "ALL rights stem from God."  From the Declaration of Independence - ". . .all men are. . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. . . "

Where you go wrong is your belief that people have a right to EVERYTHING.

Everything includes all goods and all services. People have NO right to goods and services. Here’s the test. Rights cost NOTHING TO ANYONE, they stem from God (or naturally if you wish). The rights enumerated in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence cost NOTHING to provide.

When the government makes up new rights to grant (as defined incorrectly by many), they can just as easily take them away. These are not rights. They are entitlements.

If you wish to argue that rights virtually endless because the Constitution and Declaration of Independence specifically declare their enumerations of rights are an incomplete list, then you need to choose a better phrase than "people have a right to everything."

http://dlisted.com/node/36374
You see this one in Key West Florida


''37-year-old Megan Mariah Barnes was arrested last week in Florida after she caused a two-car crash on the highway, because she was shaving her bikini line behind the wheel. If that doesn't make your crotch hairs twitch, it gets better. While Megan was busy shaving her coochie coo, her ex-husband, who was sitting in the passenger seat, held the steering wheel for her.

One day before the shave and crash, Megan was convicted of DUI and driving with a suspended license, so she shouldn't have been driving in the first place.

The officer at the scene told KeyNews.com (via HuffPo) that Megan told him she was shaving her business on the road, because she was "meeting her boyfriend in Key West and wanted to be ready for the visit."

Sorry Ed but Rights can be bought and sold. Rights are a human concept thus humans can define rights any way that suits their needs. There is no god.

right, privilege or entitlement????  

See? What makes you think that you can see? First you would need vision wouldn't you?

Poppycock ,  it was a  God based on Judeo Christian beliefs derived from the legal reasonings of Blackstone .

Blackstone’s great work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, vital   to the U. S. Constitution   was based on Judeo Christian principles.
Blackstone taught that man is created by God and granted fundamental rights by God. Man’s law must be based on God’s law.






-- Modified on 3/13/2010 4:55:12 PM

What '' provide for the common defense''
It is the responsibility of the US GOv to protect its citizens from harm so that is indeed  an obligation.    

-- Modified on 3/13/2010 5:41:36 PM

You need to research  Blackstone but then again it is your right to believe in  revisionist   history

Blackstone based his God on the one in the Bible scriptures . It sure as hell was not the Koran



-- Modified on 3/14/2010 1:28:44 AM

Like I said you have the right to believe that nonsense that our law is not based on Judeo Christian  philosophy and do not ascribe to the belief  our rights are derived from our Creator not ourselves.

Have you been drinking tonite You think they would ever not want to be protected

Even if that Creator is not a Christian God it is a higher power and the DEC of Indepedence says     ''are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ''
That sentence cannot in any way   be interpreted that our rights are given to us by man  because mankind can always take rights away like a king so your argument fails saying  that even a ''Nature God'' did not  give us these rights.

"if that is what you believe, then marriage, God, morals, duty, honor, and respect doesn't exist either."

Huh? That's a leap??

I never said rights aren't "real". Rights are only as potent as the power to preserve them. I think that is obvious with everything I wrote.


"What is real is that this country was founded upon the powers of the people. It is the view that those powers are not limited. Rather, the powers of the institutions they create as an expression of their will is limited."

I'd say that this country was founded to protect a commonly agreed upon way of life. This way of life being defined by a few with the influence and resources necessary at the time. That is the nature of government. Those powers are as limited as the borders of this nation.

Other societies, countries, etc express their own versions of such. What we regard as the rights of humans is not a commonly held notion in the rest of the world.

As for the power of the institutions created with which to represent and execute the will of the people goes?

I think history and current events are rife with examples clearly illustrating that "power", time and again escapes the reins, and subjugates those whom it was intended to protect.

If you believe this nation still acts according to the principles as put down by the founding fathers I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Your argument regarding natural rights has some holes in it. Like: natural right # = eat until you are eaten; based on natural law of the natural food chain, and the survival of the fittest.