Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (20543)	6/21/2005 12:36:02 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

I don’t want to suppose that I am in agreement with solon, as he may not see it that way. However, I do assert that inalienable rights are just that; they are neither granted nor forfeited by government decree. Although, as in our case, the government may decide to recognize the nature of human existence and base its laws on that. Any restrictions, or sanctions of any sort, are directed at the conduct of individuals rather than their right to ‘be’ or ‘have inalienable rights’ which means the same thing. Whenever an individual takes it upon themselves to violate the law of the land they have already chosen for themselves the condition of their being, it is only incumbent on the government to judge to the best of its ability whether or not the individual has made such a choice based on the evidence of that individual’s conduct. Inalienable rights are not in conflict, the aspirations and associated conduct of individuals wishing to assert themselves may be. A mother and child may have conflict over their desires and dependencies, awarding of resources and life management, but not over their individual right to be (a human being with inalienable rights). This doesn’t change whether the child is three years or one second old. I fail to see how the argument has been differentiated for the unborn, so far, but am still interested in where you all go with it. The question is only whether or not the unborn child can legitimately be recognized as a human being by the government. If so, the government is obligated to recognize it’s inalienable rights.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (20543)	6/21/2005 12:47:19 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"Never mind that they ARE limited or taken away by society all the time" You have set down most of my argument fairly accurately. Perhaps you will now get the rest. Because these inalienable rights exist for ALL people they are incapable of conflict. Society does not "take them away". Society interprets or recognizes (or at least tries to recognise) the natural parameters that must exist in order that these natural rights truly exist for all. The right to liberty is not the right to ALL liberty. The right to life is not the right to ALL life. The right to pursue happiness is not the right to act carte blanche. Inasmuch as people will interact in community there will naturally be conflicts between people. But these conflicts are not conflicts between who does or who does not enjoy these natural rights. Rather...the conflicts are regarding the parameters that must be obeyed in order that natural rights are not violated. Thank you for your input.