Where do we get our rights from?

Post Reply New Topic

Privileges have to be earned, whereas rights are granted or inalienable.

Oh, right.

From Chuck Norris.

Or perhaps from John Wayne, or Clint Eastwood.

That reminds me of how Germanic tribes living along the Rhine during the reign of the Roman Empire had been on the receiving end of nasty barbed spears used by the Romans called the pilum. Later, when these tribes had organized themselves into confederations such s the Franks and Alemanni, they were using a barbed spear of their own called the angon, which was clearly based on the Roman weapon, which was just as devastating to those getting hit. Obviously, the Romans had taught their enemies well.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

there are age and mental health/criminal limits on both guns and cars.

Rights are granted; privileges are earned.

Governments grant rights, or assume that certain rights are "inalienable" and/or "granted by God". Common rights are life, privacy, personal expression by speech and/or writing; freedom from unwarranted arrest, right to a speedy and fair trial, and freedom from incarceration and/or cruel and unusual punishment, and personal choice of belief, religion, recreation, political affiliation, and travel.

Privileges are granted by authoritative bodies after certain prerequisite conditions are met, such as certified training, payment of fees, or military service. Common privileges include, but are not limited to: admission to university, licenses to operate a plane or ground vehicle, permits to hunt or camp on public land, employment in a private or public corporation, memberships in clubs or other associations, financial grants and loans.

Again, rights are granted; privileges are earned. It is wise to never confuse the two.

Both sides having them is called balance of power.
That's as good as it gets.....

Rights inalienable. Being able to speak out against something you believe to be detrimental, being able to defend yourself from accusations, being able to own and carry weapons to defend yourself, privacy, being able to worship God (whatever that means to you), not being forced to perform involuntary labor, not having a natural right to rule over someone or a natural obligation to submit to someone. These are things that are necessary for man to thrive regardless if they are written down or not. Governments can only affirm them, not issue them.

I did not mention a right for anyone to marry because that is a religious institution, I did not mention a right to put whatever you want into your body because that interferes with the rights of others, and I did not mention a right to choose because that is conditional and can interfere with the rights of others. These things cannot be considered inalienable.

Having rights only works if you are old enough to have sufficient mental development to know how to use them.

Here in North America, rights for Healthy, Wealthy, White, Straight, Male Protestants came from what was self-evident to Healthy, Wealthy, White, Straight, Male Protestants around the end of the 18th century or so. That which is "inalienable" has an opening bid of more than $5,000 presently.

Tadzio

P.S.: Remember "Blue Laws"? They're still there, and everywhere (with Whiskey Taxes, car or not, despite any illegal blunderbluss or crossbow).

I disagree, the concept of rights being granted is utterly opposed to the present foundation of human rights. At present, the state is prohibited from legislating on matters that contravene rights that citizens already possess. It is the government that is granted power, not the people. Basic rights are not contingent upon laws, customs or beliefs. That is not to say that a system of rights could not be enacted in the top down fashion being suggested just that mankind has chosen, in my view rightly, not to trust government with that sort of power.

The question should be who gave the people the right to give the people rights yeah thank about that for a while

Self evident truths are recognized and protected (big sticks, swords and guns), but not granted under government. That's the central equation for inalienable rights.

Indeed you might be on to something their

Those self-evident truths involve inalienable (spelling "unalienable" is "more historical" for "free" bricklayers" and that guy squeezed into the Pyramid, with little room to more than a Cyclops' peek out) stuff, stuff that is often voided based on Asperger's Syndrome without a very good ACLU lawyer that's not afraid of judges stuck in Hemlock Plato's Gun Toting Gang of 30 Republic of Top 1% Wealth Rules:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/us/19 ... =cse&scp=5

With autism, such as Cruise-Lines, Bingo, etc. are all too dangerous also for the Public Good of Non-Entitlements by the elite American commoner so desperate as to suck tea bags or not.

Tadzio

He was barred from voting because he cannot manage his own affairs. Not because of Asperger's, bipolar, or a brain injury specifically. It's probably a good idea to screen them for competency if they lose any other rights. They may vote to try and promote something that best serves a malicious purpose, they might base their votes on something completely detached from reality or because voices told them to, or others may use them to stuff the ballot box. I wish I knew where the article went, but in 2008 there was a group home for the moderately ret*d somewhere in the midwest where the director registered them to vote, trained them all to pick liberal causes, and then took them to the polling place. It was discovered when some families filed a complaint. Like I said in an earlier posts, exercising a right requires the mental development to be capable of using it.

On a side note, I think that was great that the ACLU had to defend the ballots of involuntary long term mental patients and the ret*d to protect some democrats' election chances.