question about "the left wing"

[Shantel]

It appears that the thread title, "Question about the left wing" has been answered fully here which clearly implies that closed minds and emotional knee-jerk reactions to social events is the order of the day in determining what rights are valid and which ones are not. It's rather sad to realize that seemingly intelligent people would prefer government nanny state oversight over every aspect of their lives rather than continue to enjoy self determination in a free will society. I can't count how many conversations I've had with former com-block citizens who are dismayed at how Americans are walking into a system with eyes wide shut that they themselves are finally free from.

[JaneNicole2013]

It appears that the thread title, "Question about the left wing" has been answered fully here which clearly implies that closed minds and emotional knee-jerk reactions to social events is the order of the day in determining what rights are valid and which ones are not. It's rather sad to realize that seemingly intelligent people would prefer government nanny state oversight over every aspect of their lives rather than continue to enjoy self determination in a free will society. I can't count how many conversations I've had with former com-block citizens who are dismayed at how Americans are walking into a system with eyes wide shut that they themselves are finally free from.

That's how I felt during the Bush years .

The great thing about our country is that every four years we have an organized (ok, semi-organized) coup where the people can vote in a new leader/party, or keep the current one in power--and every two years we get to pick someone new to represent us. No, the system is not perfect and yes, it has flaws, but still, it's the greatest country on this planet and I'm sure it'll stay that way for a very, very, very long time.

Now on that note, can we put a fork in this and move on? I know this girl is going to stay away from political threads from now on. I get enough of this on Facebook.

Jane.

[amZo]

So, the [God given] "Rights" people have in other countries vary because of what then?

Most countries oppress their people's God given rights.

I'll never forget Ron Paul's farewell speech to congress where he lamented how easy the importance of freedom becomes lost to the citizens. I understand it, but often stunned how easily others convince themselves of its unimportance. It's everything.

[Anatta]

Most countries oppress their people's God given rights.

Kia Ora Nikko,

Just out of interest, what do you mean by the above statement ?

Metta Zenda

[Hikari]

Most countries oppress their people's God given rights.

First as an atheist, the idea that rights are somehow being granted by divinity rather than being humans creations is mildly offensive, as god didn't give me anything. Secondly, as someone who was raised Christian and read the bible extensively, I don't recall Jesus or anyone else enumerating specific rights that humans have.

Associating rights with god seems to be a very dangerous thing. It is up to us, human beings to define and to protect our rights, because if god isn't protecting women in Pakistan then rights from him are pretty meaningless and only people in that country are going to be able to define and protect the rights of women there. Likewise the "right" to arms comes com the constitution which was according to those who wrote and amended not written by god but by politicians and the future of that amendment is threatened by interpretation by the courts and legislation.

[amZo]

Kia Ora Nikko,

Just out of interest, what do you mean by the above statement ?

Metta Zenda

Hey Anatta.

I mean that our rights can only be oppressed by others, they can't be given to us or even taken away by others. We always have them, they can only be trampled on.

[Anatta]

Hey Anatta.

I mean that our rights can only be oppressed by others, they can't be given to us or even taken away by others. We always have them, they can only be trampled on.

Kia Ora Nikko,

Thanks but just to clarify the other points.....

So is your statement meant to include the American people in ("Most countries oppress" )? and the "God given" part was just an off the cuff additive which was not meant to insinuate some form of divine intervention ...Is this correct?

Metta Zenda

[amZo]

I'm agnostic regarding religion, but I'm very spiritual. My view of inalienable rights is 'just because'. I have no doctrine, manifesto, creed, or religion obviously. The notion another human can make me or anyone else subservient makes my trigger finger jittery. 

[Anatta]

I'm agnostic regarding religion, but I'm very spiritual. My view of inalienable rights is 'just because'. I have no doctrine, manifesto, creed, or religion obviously. The notion another human can make me or anyone else subservient makes my trigger finger jittery. 

Kia Ora Nikko,

Thanks for clearing this up...

Metta Zenda

[TerriT]

So, the "Rights" people have in other countries vary because of what then? You can feel you have rights given to you by some divine force, but the rights that the government talks about are very much things it made, codified in law, and subject to restrictions. Also, if you think no person can deny you of your rights, take a vacation to Saudi Arabia, and see if they got that memo from god on that, because I am pretty sure they view rights there differently than it is viewed here.

The rights that a government defines, have nothing to do with the rights a religion defines, there may be overlap, but they are not one in the same at all.

Yes, they do. They are natural rights. Natures law. The citizens are being oppressed. It is that simple.

[Jamie D]

So, the "Rights" people have in other countries vary because of what then? You can feel you have rights given to you by some divine force, but the rights that the government talks about are very much things it made, codified in law, and subject to restrictions. Also, if you think no person can deny you of your rights, take a vacation to Saudi Arabia, and see if they got that memo from god on that, because I am pretty sure they view rights there differently than it is viewed here.

The rights that a government defines, have nothing to do with the rights a religion defines, there may be overlap, but they are not one in the same at all.

Human, or natural rights, are derived from our own humanity, or as Jefferson noted, the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.  These rights are innate and immutable.

Any right that is bestowed by a government or society is not a Natural right, but rather, as legal right - and those are subject to change.

[Hikari]

Human, or natural rights, are derived from our own humanity, or as Jefferson noted, the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.  These rights are innate and immutable.

Any right that is bestowed by a government or society is not a Natural right, but rather, as legal right - and those are subject to change.

So these so called "Natural rights" have no divinity, physics, legal, or social system to define or enforce them? Then they don't exist, as anything other than as an abstract concept of someone trying to define the rights humans ought to have based on their experience, context, and ideas.  If I can't feel it, touch it, or demonstrate it's existence through a scientific method then I certainly don't believe in it's existence. There would be nothing stopping me from making the argument that humans have the "Natural right" to live in a world without weapons, it wouldn't make it true, and Jefferson might be a noted and celebrated thinker, but so was Marx and I don't take what either of them say as some sort of law that should define my life.

I also don't see how the second amendment at all could be considered to be some sort of "Natural Right", because it doesn't mention self defense at all, it mentions the security of a free state. If the second amendment means that people have an individual right having nothing to do with militia service to own firearms (And the Court in DC v Heller says it does) then the Amendment needs to be amended to include that, because that is simply not what it says. As it stands now despite this rhetoric about natural rights, all it takes is the court to reverse it's decision to drastically change the state of gun ownership in this country.

From the messages written here, despite the variance of opinions I think it is really starting to boil down to which you care more about, community or individuals. There seems to be a very high degree of feeling amount the staunchest pro-gun people that individual freedom needs to be paramount, and despite personally supporting private firearms ownership (with licenses and safety training) I find that support for individual freedom with such veracity to be very difficult to understand.

[amZo]

From the messages written here, despite the variance of opinions I think it is really starting to boil down to which you care more about, community or individuals. There seems to be a very high degree of feeling amount the staunchest pro-gun people that individual freedom needs to be paramount, and despite personally supporting private firearms ownership (with licenses and safety training) I find that support for individual freedom with such veracity to be very difficult to understand.

I'm curious why you see it as either/or. I may care more about my individual rights AND my community than you do of your rights and your community. My community is strong and we trust each other tremendously, we're like family almost. I'd protect their kids with my life if need be. I don't get this it's either A or it's B.

Can you explain that?

I think individual liberty and community go hand in hand. I believe strengthening one strengthens the other. If a person doesn't think my child has rights, you think I'd let them care for my kids for even five seconds? Not a chance!

[Shantel]

From the messages written here, despite the variance of opinions I think it is really starting to boil down to which you care more about, community or individuals. There seems to be a very high degree of feeling amount the staunchest pro-gun people that individual freedom needs to be paramount, and despite personally supporting private firearms ownership (with licenses and safety training) I find that support for individual freedom with such veracity to be very difficult to understand.

If you had been my neighbor next door who was selling some expensive items on Craigslist and was being robbed as Auntie Shan stepped in behind them with her .45 auto and cell phone and spread eagled them both face down on the lawn, then you would have understood perfectly well. Still it took the police six minutes to show up, if these individuals would have harmed or killed her they would have been long gone and the cops would be taking a report as her body lay there cooling off. I acted freely as her advocate and upheld her right to self defense, whether I used a gun or a baseball bat or even my machete is irrelevant.

[amZo]

Auntie Shan stepped in behind them with her .45 auto

[Hikari]

I'm curious why you see it as either/or. I may care more about my individual rights AND my community than you do of your rights and your community. My community is strong and we trust each other tremendously, we're like family almost. I'd protect their kids with my life if need be. I don't get this it's either A or it's B.

Can you explain that?

to clarify I mean community as a group, not specifically the local community, more like society as a whole we all love (or hate) our neighboors.

It isn't an either or, it is like a priority. I hear lots of talk of especially on the conservative sides of things about Individual rights. Like it is more important for individuals to have the right to own things, whereas people who focus more on the community might go so far as to start making distinctions between personal property and private property. Community focused people seem to be willing to curtail the rights of individuals in order to allow the greater good, whereas individually focused people tend to say they are allowed to do things that burden the community for the sake of freedom (i.e. the ownership of personal automobiles, they get to go where they want when they want, but society has a massive burden to keep building the infrastructure to keep it going).

So it isn't that one chooses one over the other, I would fall into the community focused category more than most Americans because I do view private ownership of houses, cars, land, etc with suspicion and would nationalize most corporations if I could, but that doesn't mean I don't care at all about individual rights, after all I have been very active in pushing the freedom of people to marry who they choose, regardless if this is "disruptive" to society or not. I believe people should be free from this constant surveillance, despite the idea that it could harm society if it didn't stop terrorists, etc.

So what I am saying is, if one focuses on community or one focuses on individuals it isn't saying that one doesn't care about the other, rather the lens by which it is viewed changes, as I am sure many of the individual focused people will say lowering taxes helps everyone therefore by lowering their own taxes, everyone benefits, whereas community focused people might think that increasing taxes and giving everyone a share would be best for the community because while they individually might be hurt or helped, they are looking out for the greater good. So both approaches are in fact attempting to do the right thing for everyone, but the way of going about it is very different.

[amZo]

Community focused people seem to be willing to curtail the rights of individuals in order to allow the greater good

Oh no, not the greater good!

[Jamie D]

So these so called "Natural rights" have no divinity, physics, legal, or social system to define or enforce them? Then they don't exist, as anything other than as an abstract concept of someone trying to define the rights humans ought to have based on their experience, context, and ideas.  If I can't feel it, touch it, or demonstrate it's existence through a scientific method then I certainly don't believe in it's existence. There would be nothing stopping me from making the argument that humans have the "Natural right" to live in a world without weapons, it wouldn't make it true, and Jefferson might be a noted and celebrated thinker, but so was Marx and I don't take what either of them say as some sort of law that should define my life.

I also don't see how the second amendment at all could be considered to be some sort of "Natural Right", because it doesn't mention self defense at all, it mentions the security of a free state. If the second amendment means that people have an individual right having nothing to do with militia service to own firearms (And the Court in DC v Heller says it does) then the Amendment needs to be amended to include that, because that is simply not what it says. As it stands now despite this rhetoric about natural rights, all it takes is the court to reverse it's decision to drastically change the state of gun ownership in this country.

From the messages written here, despite the variance of opinions I think it is really starting to boil down to which you care more about, community or individuals. There seems to be a very high degree of feeling amount the staunchest pro-gun people that individual freedom needs to be paramount, and despite personally supporting private firearms ownership (with licenses and safety training) I find that support for individual freedom with such veracity to be very difficult to understand.

The concept of rights arising from Nature is not new.  It dates back to at least ancient Greece.  Some of these concepts are fundamental, and are the basis for moral and ethical judgements.  For instance, were are familiar with the "right to life."  That is why murder is morally condemned.  You have the right to your own body - no one can justly own you.  You have the right of self-defense.  You have the right to the sweat of your brow and to own property.  This explains why theft is wrong.  These are just a few examples.

At the time the American Bill of Rights (1791) was drafted, the concepts of Natural Rights were well-understood among the intelligentsia of Western culture, and particularly embraced in France and America.

[MadeleineG]

One major criticism of the concept of natural rights is that, if rights are inherent in the person, than they cannot be forfeited. Without principled forfeiture, the state cannot justify imprisonment let alone execution.

[Jamie D]

One major criticism of the concept of natural rights is that, if rights are inherent in the person, than they cannot be forfeited. Without principled forfeiture, the state cannot justify imprisonment let alone execution.

Quite true, but society is no longer a state of nature; therefore, it is up to the individual if they wish to partake in society, and if so, to agree to societal rules (aka positive law).

There is an old political adage that "Every time a law is passed, a liberty is lost."

I greatly admire the genius of James Madison, shown here:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.