Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: HPilot who wrote (72933)	10/1/2009 9:09:31 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) of 224738

What I find funny is that felt comfortable saying that I "believe" that God ascribed rights, when I never hinted at any such belief. I am agnostic, so I would not make that assertion. Even then, the founding Fathers didn't even use the word "God". You seem to be the one who is wrapped up on what God has and hasn't done. My belief is that the important distinction in our form of government is that it assumes that we start with a blank state of "rights". Meaning that unless there is a law specifically against an action or if it violates the rights of another, that action is perfectly acceptable. The opposite of this philosophy is to assume that the government grants rights. This means that unless something is specifically granted as a right, an action that is not specifically granted can be punishable. This can lead to capricious and unpredictable actions and enforcements by the government that has the potential of making normally law abiding citizens criminals if it pleases the government. I do believe in natural rights that can best be described in a primal context of human drive. I believe that humans have a natural drive to seek a safe home. 50,000 years ago, this may have been a cave or tent or whatever, but if it was, then the 3rd and 4th amendments go to protecting that drive. I think that humans have the natural drive to protect themselves and their loved ones from physical harm. I believe that the 2nd amendment attempts to protect that drive. I believe that humans have a natural drive to communicate. I believe that it is natural for humans to seek and believe in something bigger than themselves. I believe that the 1st amendment attempts to protect this drive. In all cases, the rights are assumed to exist and it is the power of the government that is limited or granted. Anyway, I believe that the United States was founded on the idea that humans have certain behaviors that are natural and that a government or other individuals or organizations do not have the right to forceably limit these behaviors. The classic example of "My right to hit you in the nose, ends at the tip of your nose" is an example where the government is useful in defining where individual rights conflict with each other. I'm not particularly concerned with whether or not "God" or man grants rights. But I know that I will protect myself and my loved ones against harm, whether by individuals or by representatives of the government. I know that I will speak my mind whether there is a law against it or not and I know that I will believe whatever the hell I want about the existence of God and what that means to me and my family. And if someone tries to violate the sanctity of my home, I will protect that too. And I think all of that is normal and natural human behavior.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next