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 (21371)	7/19/2005 4:18:17 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

"Webster's says. What it means is that these are our "natural" rights, "endowed by our Creator" if you don't mind a vague implication of a religious basis, as opposed to something granted to us by other men." Mind? The two are diametrically opposed are they not? One seems to be an intrinsic attribute of Humanness and the other is simply made up and can be un-made just as easily. If there is no creator then the whole "inalienable" thing must be re thought.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (21371)	7/19/2005 4:44:52 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 28931

"So let's drop this silly argument that "inalienable" rights can't be forfeited, ok?" No. I'm having too much fun. "you are under the assumption that it is human beings with rights that are being forfeited." Rights can be divided into those that describe the common human condition and those that are granted by a system of humanly derived laws. As long as I am alive I maintain my inalienable rights. They are not entitlements; pursuit of happiness is not a guarantee of pleasure. The dictator and the king are as likely to find it as the dungeon dweller, none who live are barred from their continued pursuit. "As opposed to what? Cows with rights being forfeited? Non-human creatures have natural rights as well. Their rights are not athropomorphic but certainly we are all aware of them. Have you lit your cat on fire and drug it down mainstreet behind your car lately? It should be self evident to anyone with natural sound reasoning abilities that this is wrong. "Sorry, gem. No offense intended, but I don't see what point you are trying to make." Take another look, or not. Seeing is most beneficial when seeking.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (21371)	7/19/2005 5:34:44 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

There are some terms that are fundamentally important to the causes of 'with liberty and justice for all'. Let's start with the term 'liberty'. Liberty is a beautifully descriptive term which literally grants a condition without restraint. How could any serious person suggest that in a world of over seven billion persons every single one of them could just fly out into the world without any limitations on their conduct. Obviously, on the surface, the term appears impractical in operation. Keep in mind that the verbage and resounding principles that drove the tremendous energy allowing us to establish a free nation was not based on drunken prose, that came off the top of the heads of Jefferson et al. 'Liberty' is a very noble term. It's application, likewise, only becomes authentic when applied via the noble human condition. Noble human beings don't run about willy nilly taking for themselves without consideration to the consequences to others. Noble human beings, by nature, regard the well being of other persons and other creatures in all endeavors. At the core of noble teachings whether civil wisdom, abstract philosophy, or religious principal is some common agreement. Noble human beings grant one another personal autonomy while encouraging peaceful coexistence among individuals and groups. A noble individual is at liberty to pursue such a life. A corrupt individual perverts the term 'liberty' to further an abusive course.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (21371)	7/19/2005 5:46:32 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 28931

The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights support the supposition that liberties are not given to me by the State. Instead the State recognizes natural rights, which pre-exist it, and indeed the State only exists in order to guarantee those rights. Were a government to become "destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it," as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (21371)	7/20/2005 3:10:29 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"If, for example, one commits murder, one has not only violated another's inalienable rights" Obviously! Inalienable does not mean INVINCIBLE! And it does not mean Absolute or infinite! All rights (inalienable and legal) are constrained by essence and by law. Inalienable rights do not conflict. But they must be interpreted by society as to limit. Your individual right to freedom is understood to be limited by the individual rights of all others. That is ALWAYS the way it was. The law simply makes what is immanent...VISIBLE. In general...if you do no harm to others, then you are respecting their inalienable rights. And if they do no harm to you, then they are respecting your inalienable rights. If society harnesses you to the self interest of another entity such that your own self interest is fundamentally annulled (such as by making you a slave to another on a plantation), then your rights have been swept under the table. There is a difference between recognizing the inherent limitations of "rights"...and sweeping them under the table. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have an invisible premise: "UNDERSTANDING THAT THESE RIGHTS ARE ONLY LOGICAL AND COHERENT WHEN IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY BELONG TO ALL PEOPLE AND THUS ARE RESTRICTED TO ACTIONS WHICH PERMIT NO VIOLATION OF THOSE RIGHTS IN OTHERS" You have a right NOT to be murdered so murder IS a violation of rights...NOT A CONFLICT IN RIGHTS. Inalienable rights do NOT conflict. Your right NOT to be murdered MAY be violated. But the theory is that you had the right to life. The murder was a violation--not an exception.