Discussion: Rights

[SuBe]

I'm Stealing this format from Malice, hope you don't mind.

I want to open discussion on Rights. With People thinking that healthcare is a right and Guns are not. Let's discuss Rights. Where do they come from, who grants them to who. What are Rights and what are not Rights. Do you have a Right to take something that isn't yours? Do you have a Right to your own Property? I believe that the word is used to often without people really even knowing what they are.

Discuss.

[Matt]

Kind of a vague topic, SupermanBeyond. I'm not really sure how to comment as there isn't much to go on.

I suppose one could say, the only rights you have are those that the government gives you, plain and simple.

[SuBe]

In the Constitution, does it not say that Rights shall not be infringed. Doesn't that mean that it is limiting Government, not Government Granting? Does that make sense?

It is stating that the Government cannot do something. Not that the Goverment is giving you something?

[SuBe]

I just want to discuss Rights and what they are, where they come from. Let's define them.

Different Countries have different Rights. I believe the EU states you have a Right to Work. Is that a Fundimental Right? How can a Right be something that you have to get from someone else?

[Matt]

Of course that is how it ought to be. But that is not what it has become. That is like going to the Soviet Union (when it exisited, of course) and saying "Hey! Why the hell is there a ruling class!?! That's not communism!"

What should be and what is are not always the same.

[hippie_hunter]

With People thinking that healthcare is a right and Guns are not.

To be fair, there are people who think that healthcare is a privilige and owning guns are a right.

[SuBe]

To be fair, there are people who think that healthcare is a privilige and owning guns are a right.
That is true, I know. I just want to open a dialouge on what are Rights. People know how to use the word in a sentence, but what are they? Where do they come from? Define it.

[Malice]

Here are my thoughts of the common issues we see...rights versus privs

First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I think this meant, that the government will not interfere with the personal lives of its people. Allowing people to have different religions as they believe. This also allows the people to speak up in defiance of the government when it sees a problem. The Second Amendment (my second part) gives them the ability to fight an oppressive government. Also, part of the speaking up, gathering in groups is protected under law, so that the government itself cannot stop people from speaking their thoughts.

Second Amendment:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
This states, we have the right to have guns. This was intented (my interpretation) first and foremost for the ability to the citizens to have weapons to form a militia when the government did not have a standing army.

Secondly, it was also intended, that since the citizens are the ones that should decide their own destiny, to fight an oppresive government. Should the national government that is established becomes oppressive, the citizens will have the means to fight and rebel.

Third, it was also intending the people to have the means to protect themselves outside of law enforcement and the national army.

Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This has become a hotbed in the last 8 years. Here I see this as saying, you cannot be searched, your email intercepted, your cell phones monitored, postal mail read. Anything that involves your person that is not probable cause, (and we know that the govt lately has braodened the use of "probable cause"). As you can see, I find the Patriot Act a violation of Civil Rights.

Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
This to me, is the most violated of any law we have in the this. The Federal Government has found way after way to force states to give up their power. States are now for the most part, toothless. If the Fed agrees, then they have clout, but if they dont, they blackmail the state goverenments to give in.

A perfect example....Road funding.
The Federal Government wants the drinking age of 21, all states gave in but Louisiana. The Fed said, raise it to 21 or we wont give you the money (millions of dollars...billions over the years). Louisiana said no, so that is why many of the roads in Louisiana are terrible aside from new roads and the Federal Highways.

Now, Privs...
Healthcare is not a right. Its not something gaurenteed you. You are givend the rights of Life, Libery and the Pursuit of Happiness, not affordable healthcare.

[SuBe]

Malice comes to save the day. You have the right idea.

Where do these rights come from? They are guarenteed by the Constitution, does that mean that the Goverment gives us Rights, or the Constitution limits the Goverment? Do you believe that Rights are Fundimental and shall not be taken away? Can Rights BE taken away?

I ask this because I believe that our culture these days do not put enough emphasis on Rights, there fore a lot a people start to make them up. You know I don't believe in the Right to vote, I don't believe in the right to Healthcare or the Right to a Job. Some do. But, do your rights, when they violate the Rights of others still remain a Right?

Healthcare, when the provider loses out, and the Providee wins, is that battle for Rights won?

Owning of Firearms, if we all lose this, and only the Goverment has them, are we really in a safer place? Are we willing to give up our ability to fight back?

Freedom of Speech, does that alsomean freedom of being offended? Or are they intertwined?

[Venom'sDad]

I'm Stealing this format from Malice, hope you don't mind.

I want to open discussion on Rights. With People thinking that healthcare is a right and Guns are not. Let's discuss Rights. Where do they come from, who grants them to who. What are Rights and what are not Rights. Do you have a Right to take something that isn't yours? Do you have a Right to your own Property? I believe that the word is used to often without people really even knowing what they are.

Discuss.

I know you are not saying that; but HealthCare is not a Constitutional Right..... the Right to Bare Arms is.

[lazur]

Imo, human 'rights' exist for everyone, and they're granted by our very existence by God or whatever 'higher power' or 'plain of existence' you choose to believe in. A government's role is simply to MAKE SURE human rights are enforced...

[The Senator]

Imo, human 'rights' exist for everyone, and they're granted by our very existence by God or whatever 'higher power' or 'plain of existence' you choose to believe in. A government's role is simply to MAKE SURE human rights are enforced...

Which explains why gays aren't allowed the same rights as heterosexuals, such as marriage, adoption, or freedom of expression, in some instances :huh:

[Zen]

Here are my thoughts of the common issues we see...rights versus privs

First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I think this meant, that the government will not interfere with the personal lives of its people. Allowing people to have different religions as they believe. This also allows the people to speak up in defiance of the government when it sees a problem. The Second Amendment (my second part) gives them the ability to fight an oppressive government. Also, part of the speaking up, gathering in groups is protected under law, so that the government itself cannot stop people from speaking their thoughts.

Second Amendment:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
This states, we have the right to have guns. This was intented (my interpretation) first and foremost for the ability to the citizens to have weapons to form a militia when the government did not have a standing army.

Secondly, it was also intended, that since the citizens are the ones that should decide their own destiny, to fight an oppresive government. Should the national government that is established becomes oppressive, the citizens will have the means to fight and rebel.

Third, it was also intending the people to have the means to protect themselves outside of law enforcement and the national army.

Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This has become a hotbed in the last 8 years. Here I see this as saying, you cannot be searched, your email intercepted, your cell phones monitored, postal mail read. Anything that involves your person that is not probable cause, (and we know that the govt lately has braodened the use of "probable cause"). As you can see, I find the Patriot Act a violation of Civil Rights.

Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
This to me, is the most violated of any law we have in the this. The Federal Government has found way after way to force states to give up their power. States are now for the most part, toothless. If the Fed agrees, then they have clout, but if they dont, they blackmail the state goverenments to give in.

A perfect example....Road funding.
The Federal Government wants the drinking age of 21, all states gave in but Louisiana. The Fed said, raise it to 21 or we wont give you the money (millions of dollars...billions over the years). Louisiana said no, so that is why many of the roads in Louisiana are terrible aside from new roads and the Federal Highways.

Now, Privs...
Healthcare is not a right. Its not something gaurenteed you. You are givend the rights of Life, Libery and the Pursuit of Happiness, not affordable healthcare.


Right to life liberty and happiness...

life is somewhat congruent to affordable healthcare

[Handsome Rob]

Right to life liberty and happiness...

life is somewhat congruent to affordable healthcare

Heck, happiness is somewhat congruent to me having an environmentally-friendly house on a couple of acres of land that I could grow organic crops on. Maybe the government should supply that for me--I can't afford it, right now, but I could if the government would force the homeowner selling it to knock down the price to what I could afford.

[SentinelMind]

I agree with Malice and Superman Beyond. Our constitutional rights are individual powers, liberties that neither the government nor any other entity recognized by the government can TAKE from you. One role of the government is to enforce our rights, which are enumerated in the bill of rights. Right to free speech, right to assembly, right to protect ourselves with a gun.....powers that we can use to operate and express ourselves in this free society of ours and to protect ourselves from being abused by a powerful government.

Healthcare doesn't count as a right because it involves redistributing wealth. Your right to own a gun or right to speak is not dependent upon my right to speak or own a gun. Your "right" to healthcare is dependent upon coercing everyone to pay a fee, tax into some system. There is no choice whether to opt in or out in universal healthcare, its simply mandated of everyone. Healthy people will have to subsidize the sick people. Rich will subsidize the poor. Anything that requires taking one thing from oen person in order to subsidize another cannot be a right, because there is no choice, no freedom in that. Furthermore, you're subjected to the will of the government. That is not a right. That should be decided by legislatures, not simply accepted as a right under any circumstances.

I'm going to have to disagree with jmanspice,...I don't think anyone should have the RIGHT to adopt. When you adopt someone, you are taken custody of someone else. That's not enumerated anywhere, and suggesting that everyone should have a right to take custody of other is dangerous in my opinion.

People confuse the definition of "rights". Rights aren't priveleges. Rights are powers you have that allows you to live and have the opportunity to pursue your dream that you work for. Rights are not laws or contracts that bind certain people to others.

[Malice]

Heck, happiness is somewhat congruent to me having an environmentally-friendly house on a couple of acres of land that I could grow organic crops on. Maybe the government should supply that for me--I can't afford it, right now, but I could if the government would force the homeowner selling it to knock down the price to what I could afford.

oh rob...that was funny

[Immortalfire]

People confuse the definition of "rights". Rights aren't privileges.

:up:

[SuBe]

I agree with Malice and Superman Beyond. Our constitutional rights are individual powers, liberties that neither the government nor any other entity recognized by the government can TAKE from you. One role of the government is to enforce our rights, which are enumerated in the bill of rights. Right to free speech, right to assembly, right to protect ourselves with a gun.....powers that we can use to operate and express ourselves in this free society of ours and to protect ourselves from being abused by a powerful government.

Healthcare doesn't count as a right because it involves redistributing wealth. Your right to own a gun or right to speak is not dependent upon my right to speak or own a gun. Your "right" to healthcare is dependent upon coercing everyone to pay a fee, tax into some system. There is no choice whether to opt in or out in universal healthcare, its simply mandated of everyone. Healthy people will have to subsidize the sick people. Rich will subsidize the poor. Anything that requires taking one thing from oen person in order to subsidize another cannot be a right, because there is no choice, no freedom in that. Furthermore, you're subjected to the will of the government. That is not a right. That should be decided by legislatures, not simply accepted as a right under any circumstances.

I'm going to have to disagree with jmanspice,...I don't think anyone should have the RIGHT to adopt. When you adopt someone, you are taken custody of someone else. That's not enumerated anywhere, and suggesting that everyone should have a right to take custody of other is dangerous in my opinion.

People confuse the definition of "rights". Rights aren't priveleges. Rights are powers you have that allows you to live and have the opportunity to pursue your dream that you work for. Rights are not laws or contracts that bind certain people to others.
In my opinion, That is one of the most beautifully written posts I've ever read. I whole heartedly agree.

[The Senator]

I'm going to have to disagree with jmanspice,...I don't think anyone should have the RIGHT to adopt. When you adopt someone, you are taken custody of someone else. That's not enumerated anywhere, and suggesting that everyone should have a right to take custody of other is dangerous in my opinion.


I didn't say everyone deserves the ability to adopt. Homosexuals are the only class of people who are explicitly banned from adopting. Meaning a perfectly normal, loving gay couple with no stains on their record will be flat out refused up front in some states if they attempt to add to their family. Even if that couple adopted from a surrogate mother who knows the couple and is willing to give her child to them, they aren't allowed to raise that child under certain state laws. Gay couples should be treated the same as heterosexual couples when it comes to child adoption.

[Zen]

Heck, happiness is somewhat congruent to me having an environmentally-friendly house on a couple of acres of land that I could grow organic crops on. Maybe the government should supply that for me--I can't afford it, right now, but I could if the government would force the homeowner selling it to knock down the price to what I could afford.

happiness is a variable. its convenient you chose that one out of the three...

while hapiness to you may be evironmentally friendly things or facism, its not a fair comparison to say... needing emergency medical care...

for the most part lack of emergency medical care will lead to death in many cases.

not having passive solar design on your house is a bit more arbitrary and specific to the person.

[Zen]

People confuse the definition of "rights". Rights aren't priveleges. Rights are powers you have that allows you to live and have the opportunity to pursue your dream that you work for. Rights are not laws or contracts that bind certain people to others.

a sick person who can't afford medical care has a right to live to?

[The Senator]

Right to life liberty and happiness...

life is somewhat congruent to affordable healthcare

With the economy doing as badly as it is, you can probably kiss any idea of state-run health care out the window. I would like to see the health care system reformed in the United States, but I don't know if I want the government to take 100% control of it. There needs to be some middle ground, where people aren't relying on the government to do all the work, but where the government can help out or intervene if something goes awry.

As for life, liberty and happiness...

Happiness is somewhat congruent to being able to marry my partner in any state I want to, for sentimental purposes, while providing for him the same benefits a heterosexual male can provide for his wife. It's also congruent to being able to walk hand in hand down the street without some religious psychopath trying to cram their holy doctrine down my throat. But we've seen how all that's gone lately...

[Zen]

With the economy doing as badly as it is, you can probably kiss any idea of state-run health care out the window. I would like to see the health care system reformed in the United States, but I don't know if I want the government to take 100% control of it. There needs to be some middle ground, where people aren't relying on the government to do all the work, but where the government can help out or intervene if something goes awry.

As for life, liberty and happiness...

Happiness is somewhat congruent to being able to marry my partner in any state I want to, for sentimental purposes, while providing for him the same benefits a heterosexual male can provide for his wife. It's also congruent to being able to walk hand in hand down the street without some religious psychopath trying to cram their holy doctrine down my throat. But we've seen how all that's gone lately...

because there are examples of other injustices in this country does not mean they invalidate each other.

i still dare make the claim that lying in a bed... dying for most people is more important than somewhat vague and variable notions of happiness. but i do recognize those who would die for there beliefs, theres not enough of them in this country. you could point at the military and say that there is... but then we get all murky as to what there fighting for in Iraq while our own country needs attention

[The Senator]

because there are examples of other injustices in this country does not mean they invalidate each other.

i still dare make the claim that lying in a bed... dying for most people is more important than somewhat vague and variable notions of happiness.

My death isn't important to me. What I'm able to accomplish in life is. And I can't accomplish much in my life if I'm not happy.

So again, being able to marry the person I love, raise a family with him, travel the world with him... all that's much more important to me than getting a few shots of morphine at half the cost...

[Malice]

a sick person who can't afford medical care has a right to live to?

Well, not to be grosely morbid...
The government is not here to live for you.

They guarentee freedom, that is the jist of what the government should do. Unfortunately they cant do everything.

To quote a vulcan:
"The needs of the many... outweigh, the needs of the few."

I dont see any way a socialized healthcare system will be affordable.

[Handsome Rob]

happiness is a variable. its convenient you chose that one out of the three...

while hapiness to you may be evironmentally friendly things or facism, its not a fair comparison to say... needing emergency medical care...

for the most part lack of emergency medical care will lead to death in many cases.

not having passive solar design on your house is a bit more arbitrary and specific to the person.

Well, to be honest, I picked it because the whole green thing was the first idea to pop into my head. But . . .

Life is variable, as well. If not, then would your healthcare plan EVER draw a line at which treatment is cost-prohibitive and not worth a limited chance at success? Let's say you've got a 90-year old man who is already running up thousands of taxpayer dollars a month in treatment of his emphysema and diabetes. He's already been treated for lung cancer once, but two years later, it's come back. But, he wants to live as long as possible. So, at taxpayer expense, do you spend thousands and thousands more to treat him, when he could die from the emphysema or old age at any moment? If "life" via healthcare is a right and is not variable, then how can you draw the line?

Old age and the related problems are going to be an increasing portion of our health expenses, particularly as the boomers enter their twilight years. Will you tell any of them that they can't use every tax dollar at their disposal to extend their life as long as possible, regardless of the cost?

Oh, and one other thing: Emergency medical care is provided at every emergency room in the nation. By LAW (the law is known in its abbreviated form as EMTALA), you cannot be turned away at an ER. Period. So, emergency medical care IS available, regardless of the ability to pay. We don't need nationalized health care for that.

[Tron5000]

Well, to be honest, I picked it because the whole green thing was the first idea to pop into my head. But . . .

Life is variable, as well. If not, then would your healthcare plan EVER draw a line at which treatment is cost-prohibitive and not worth a limited chance at success? Let's say you've got a 90-year old man who is already running up thousands of taxpayer dollars a month in treatment of his emphysema and diabetes. He's already been treated for lung cancer once, but two years later, it's come back. But, he wants to live as long as possible. So, at taxpayer expense, do you spend thousands and thousands more to treat him, when he could die from the emphysema or old age at any moment? If "life" via healthcare is a right and is not variable, then how can you draw the line?

Old age and the related problems are going to be an increasing portion of our health expenses, particularly as the boomers enter their twilight years. Will you tell any of them that they can't use every tax dollar at their disposal to extend their life as long as possible, regardless of the cost?

Oh, and one other thing: Emergency medical care is provided at every emergency room in the nation. By LAW (the law is known in its abbreviated form as EMTALA), you cannot be turned away at an ER. Period. So, emergency medical care IS available, regardless of the ability to pay. We don't need nationalized health care for that.

Too true. No one's going to walk into an ER with a gunshot wound only to be told, "You know, we're awfully busy and you don't have coverage, so you might just wanna put a bandage and some ice on that."

[Handsome Rob]

I agree with Malice and Superman Beyond. Our constitutional rights are individual powers, liberties that neither the government nor any other entity recognized by the government can TAKE from you. One role of the government is to enforce our rights, which are enumerated in the bill of rights. Right to free speech, right to assembly, right to protect ourselves with a gun.....powers that we can use to operate and express ourselves in this free society of ours and to protect ourselves from being abused by a powerful government.

Healthcare doesn't count as a right because it involves redistributing wealth. Your right to own a gun or right to speak is not dependent upon my right to speak or own a gun. Your "right" to healthcare is dependent upon coercing everyone to pay a fee, tax into some system. There is no choice whether to opt in or out in universal healthcare, its simply mandated of everyone. Healthy people will have to subsidize the sick people. Rich will subsidize the poor. Anything that requires taking one thing from oen person in order to subsidize another cannot be a right, because there is no choice, no freedom in that. Furthermore, you're subjected to the will of the government. That is not a right. That should be decided by legislatures, not simply accepted as a right under any circumstances.

I'm going to have to disagree with jmanspice,...I don't think anyone should have the RIGHT to adopt. When you adopt someone, you are taken custody of someone else. That's not enumerated anywhere, and suggesting that everyone should have a right to take custody of other is dangerous in my opinion.

People confuse the definition of "rights". Rights aren't priveleges. Rights are powers you have that allows you to live and have the opportunity to pursue your dream that you work for. Rights are not laws or contracts that bind certain people to others.

I have to agree with SuBe. I could print this post out, frame it, and hang it on the wall of the Louvre. :up: