@AverageJoe1 saidDo you mean inalienable rights?
Why don't you say what 'rights' that James Madison said we are born with?
I'm not surprised you don't know what they are.
Like Trump, you think we only have the rights that are "given" to us. That's just wrong.
@spruce112358 saidThey may not be "protected", but according to the text, they are "secured".
Protected rights are decided by a sizable super-majority of the population. The Constitutional amendment process decides what our protected rights are.
no1m may say we are "born" with "natural" rights - I have debated that with him many times over the years and I don't care to do it again. Let's just say that some of our "born" rights are protected and ensured by the ...[text shortened]... e an oath (i.e. it is in their job description) to protect ALL those rights equally for everyone. 😆
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
This is a role of Government. Good government, more rights. Bad government, less rights. Because they do not take the time to secure said rights, and often work to undermine said rights.
By the way, I agree with No1. We are born with inalienable rights, rights we are endowed with just because we are human.
@AverageJoe1 saidFor God's sake, stop the analogies. Your analogies are stupid because they are filled with non sequiturs. You are always trying to say something stupid like "Refrigerators exist because food exists."
You speak of taxes. OK, we follow. You thus are saying that taxes should be used to provide free healthcare, free education, and free housing.
Is everyone getting this?
And, Marauder omitas that in the end, I, and you are responsible to people who demand free housing, because we pay the tax.
Marauder supports my comment a few clicks back, a govt guy comes to m ...[text shortened]... arx....From each according to their ability to each according to his needs.
Am I right so far?
@no1marauder saidRemember, kids... a proper education could cure this.
No, you're not.
Progressive taxation has nothing to do with Marx. Neither does the provision of healthcare, education or housing to members of society that our chosen economic system fails to adequately provide for.
I have no idea why you keep starting threads babbling about Marxism when it quickly becomes clear you don't have the faintest clue what that philosophy stands for.
@AverageJoe1 saidThis, too, could be cured with a proper education.
OK, I am certainly not as schooled in Marx as you are.
But, fact remains, y'all want the government to use tax money to provide free health, housing and education. The same as the govt at my door saying, give us your money so this guy over here can use it for his own needs.
Some people, like me, work harder than others. Yet you want me to be responsible for the ...[text shortened]... eived. There is no Equality that y'all keep spewing about.....at least not in our economic society/
As The Man said: "What we have here is failure to communicate."
""Inalienable rights are fundamental rights that are inherent to all individuals and cannot be taken away or surrendered.""
We have seen inalienable, trumptards, morality, stupid, illegals,'other countries', govt, jury, 6th amendment, purblic land, born rights (?), protected rights, ....the list goes on.
Here is a word...Extrinsic. I guess we could say that that applies no more or less than inalienable.
All of the above is irrelevant, don't you see, to the simple question on the table. You seem to resort to all of these variants for, distractions? For instance, morality has nothing to do with it. I can give the guy a loaf of bread, or not. I have no duty to that person. If I say it cost $100, you would say that that is not a fair price. Which is true, but this is free America. No govt, nor any of those other words above.
If you remove all those words, we are looking at a simple premise. If someone has a right to something, the right is coming from someone else. The someone else might say.."Hey, hold your horses!!"
This is typical of Libs vs Cons. Interpretations of the Constitution. You prob would do better to try to change the def of inalienable, to suit your arguments.
The constitution does not mention health, edu, or housing. It just does not,,,,,,but you all are implyiing that THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS, reading that into it. Help me Rhonda.
@spruce112358 saidThe Constitution itself refutes that premise:
Protected rights are decided by a sizable super-majority of the population. The Constitutional amendment process decides what our protected rights are.
no1m may say we are "born" with "natural" rights - I have debated that with him many times over the years and I don't care to do it again. Let's just say that some of our "born" rights are protected and ensured by the ...[text shortened]... e an oath (i.e. it is in their job description) to protect ALL those rights equally for everyone. 😆
"Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ninth_amendment
It's an explicit statement that the neither the Constitution or any "super majority" decides what rights we have. All a majority can do is deny rights not create them.
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidEven assuming, for the sake of argument, that there isn't a right to housing, education or health care and that some progressives use the term "rights" more like modern conceptions like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights than the Lockean Natural Rights philosophy favored by the Founders, isn't it a good idea to insure that everyone in the country has access to housing, education and health care? Do right wingers actually oppose that idea?
""Inalienable rights are fundamental rights that are inherent to all individuals and cannot be taken away or surrendered.""
We have seen inalienable, trumptards, morality, stupid, illegals,'other countries', govt, jury, 6th amendment, purblic land, born rights (?), protected rights, ....the list goes on.
Here is a word...Extrinsic. I guess we could say that that ap ...[text shortened]... ot,,,,,,but you all are implyiing that THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS, reading that into it. Help me Rhonda.
Why is government expenditures on such items, raised by democratically agreed on taxes, sooooooooooooooooooooo offensive to the AJs of the world?
@AverageJoe1 saidTrump was disqualified from seeking office under the 14th amendment and NOTHING like a sizable majority voted for him.
Protected rights are decided by a sizable super-majority of the population. The Constitutional amendment process decides what our protected rights are.
You said this above. You are aware, Spuce, that the 'majority' of our citizens has voted to have Trump for President, to what he supposed to do. With all the powers.
The Majority Ruled.
So you are in conflict ...[text shortened]... he majority did indeed elect Trump.
The majority. Even the SUe says the majority should rule.
He is a Pretender. NOT the President. 😆
@AverageJoe1 saidThe Constitution does not mention privacy, either.
The constitution does not mention health, edu, or housing.
And yet we have 'determined' that it is there in the 'penumbra'! 😆
@no1marauder saidI have mentioned often, y'all change the posts/threads of others.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that there isn't a right to housing, education or health care and that some progressives use the term "rights" more like modern conceptions like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights than the Lockean Natural Rights philosophy favored by the Founders, isn't it a good idea to insure that everyone in the country has access to hous ...[text shortened]... raised by democratically agreed on taxes, sooooooooooooooooooooo offensive to the AJs of the world?
Witness your saying here, after ALL of these comments on Bernie sahing that all Americans have a right to housiing, health care and education..You Say......
""" Insure that eeryone in the country has ACCESS to housing, education and healthcare." (for the record, our citizens certainly SHOULD have such access.)
I am not going to be sm-ass and say i rest my case. Please continue your case.
@spruce112358 saidSuzianne has always said majority, she never said 'sizeable majority'. This is only more proof to cement my point that you guys keep changiing the premise. I had written that majority rules in your imagined world, and you write back 'sizeable'??????? majority????
Trump was disqualified from seeking office under the 14th amendment and NOTHING like a sizable majority voted for him.
He is a Pretender. NOT the President. 😆
Help me Rhonda.
And there is nothing more lib than whining Trump is not president. Yawn.
Did y'all see that faeirie Walz say, in answer to why he was picked to run as VP, that he was the only one they could find hat could 'speak code to white men'. Brrrrrrrr
Jesus H.
1 edit
@spruce112358 saidSizeable. Is everyone getting this?? Wheels coming off
Trump was disqualified from seeking office under the 14th amendment and NOTHING like a sizable majority voted for him.
He is a Pretender. NOT the President. 😆
@AverageJoe1 saidLaws are established by majorities. Rights are only established by MUCH bigger majorities. What’s hard to understand about that? 😆
Suzianne has always said majority, she never said 'sizeable majority'. This is only more proof to cement my point that you guys keep changiing the premise. I had written that majority rules in your imagined world, and you write back 'sizeable'??????? majority????
Help me Rhonda.
And there is nothing more lib than whining Trump is not president. Yawn.
Did y ...[text shortened]... that he was the only one they could find hat could 'speak code to white men'. Brrrrrrrr
Jesus H.
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidJust because people vote for a bag of hammers to be President, that doesn’t make it so. 😆
Sizeable. Is everyone getting this?? Wheels coming off
It means there IS no President.
It’s not hard to understand.