QOTD Poll: Would you die for your constitutional rights?

[DXDoug]

Question of the Day Poll:

Would you die for your constitutional rights?

In situations where your constitutionaly correct would you put your freedom and rights first even if it could mean your death?


-Yes
-No
-Yes and if its a just cause il kill to protect myself(family) and my constitutional rights

Yes i know this is controversial topic but its my FREEDOM to ask it! ==so mods fuck off on this one==

[DXDoug]

The Reason that i say FUCK off mods is because long time ago i posted that i would Kill to protect my freedoms and recieved a infraction warning whatever the hell. IF ITS wrong to believe in Freedom enough to protect yourself by Killing another person then thats just stupid. IM NOT PROMOTING going out and killing but if YOUR Forced in those SITUATIONS Where you need to protect you LIFE because of another persons ThreatS! not by your OWN doing THEN i see NO reason we cant SAY that we would kill to protect ourselfs and FREEDOM.

Ya homeland security might make a note of it BUT FUCK it i just dont give a fuck

[Sola_Fide]

Why so antagonistic toward the mods? RPF's is one of the most fair and unbiased message boards on the net.

Anyway, why not come up with some relevant QOTD polls. Don't you think this one is kind of lame?

[Vessol]

Natural rights > Constitutional "rights".

My rights are granted to me through being a human/God.

[ChaosControl]

I don't plan on dying. I plan on taking anything or anyone down first. :)

[mport1]

Freedom will not be achieved through violence.

[KingRobbStark]

Natural rights > Constitutional "rights".

My rights are granted to me through being a human/God.

Are you Jesus Christ?

[Sola_Fide]

Are you Jesus Christ?

Huh?

[Vessol]

Are you Jesus Christ?

Quite possibly.

[JoshLowry]

The Reason that i say FUCK off mods is because long time ago i posted that i would Kill to protect my freedoms and recieved a infraction warning whatever the hell. IF ITS wrong to believe in Freedom enough to protect yourself by Killing another person then thats just stupid. IM NOT PROMOTING going out and killing but if YOUR Forced in those SITUATIONS Where you need to protect you LIFE because of another persons ThreatS! not by your OWN doing THEN i see NO reason we cant SAY that we would kill to protect ourselfs and FREEDOM.

Ya homeland security might make a note of it BUT FUCK it i just dont give a fuck

Bye then...?

We have rules and guidelines for a reason. Your anti-authoritarian stand against possible moderation isn't necessary.

You agreed to play along when you registered.

[Pericles]

I think the idea is to make those who would be part of violating the constitutional rights of the citizens, do so at the risk of their lives, even at the hazard of mine.

[DXDoug]

Bye then...?

We have rules and guidelines for a reason. Your anti-authoritarian stand against possible moderation isn't necessary.

You agreed to play along when you registered.

Its just a question. Thank you for not deleting it. i love ron paul forums :) thank you agian josh

[DXDoug]

Why so antagonistic toward the mods? RPF's is one of the most fair and unbiased message boards on the net.

Anyway, why not come up with some relevant QOTD polls. Don't you think this one is kind of lame?

If you or anyone Else WOULD like TO SUBMIT QOTD's IL Gladly POST THEM and add a thanks on the poll to the creator of the question Just P.M me your QOTD you would like to see asked.

[noneedtoaggress]

Natural rights > Constitutional "rights".

My rights are granted to me through being a human/God.


Freedom will not be achieved through violence.

agreed.

[DXDoug]

Freedom will not be achieved through violence.

As i explained in the first reply post IM not Advocating violence at all.

This is about Protecting your self if the situtation of your own death is at stake.

[noneedtoaggress]

As i explained in the first reply post IM not Advocating violence at all.

This is about Protecting your self if the situtation of your own death is at stake.

If that's the case, why even bring the constitution into it?

Protecting yourself (and others close to you) from harm is pretty innate in living beings. :P

[ValidusCustodiae]

There are no such things as "Constitutional rights". Please stop using this phrase! It implies that your rights were generated or created by the Constitution. This could not be further from the truth! The Constitution enumerates (lists) some of your rights. Does it say you have a right to breathe? Not explicitly. Do you have a right to breathe? It is self-evident, you were created with it. Regardless of who you believe is the ultimate Creator, whether you believe it was your mother and/or father or your Heavenly Mother and/or Heavenly Father, your rights were created along with you.

Another way to help understand this is to look at rights as abilities which you can normally exercise unless someone uses some method of force to inhibit it. This doesn't include using force on others, of course.

[noneedtoaggress]

A right is essentially just the legitimacy of a proposed action. Like having the "right of way" while driving, or being the legitimate person to converse with a receptionist after waiting your turn in line.

In the libertarian model, rights are universally applied to all humans.

Is your action going to infringe on another individual's rights/property?

A) Yes - you are not "in the right".

B) No - feel free to perform said action, as it can be construed as legitimate. :P


In the authoritarian model, a class of individuals exercise "rights" to what would otherwise be considered criminal actions if committed outside of the authoritarian institution, while necessarily depriving the rights of those subjected to the decrees of said institution.

The authoritarian model is arbitrary, ethically inconsistent, and ultimately economically unsustainable in a modern industrialized society... which is why statism eventually collapses by its own hand.

Violent revolt can only prop up another authoritarian model.

Liberty must be understood and voluntarily chosen by those who wish to live it.

[Napoleon's Shadow]

Natural rights > Constitutional "rights".

My rights are granted to me through being a human/God.


There are no such things as "Constitutional rights". Please stop using this phrase! It implies that your rights were generated or created by the Constitution. This could not be further from the truth! The Constitution enumerates (lists) some of your rights. Exactly. In fact the Constitution doesn't and can't grant rights. It can only prohibit the federal government from trampling them (and according to Spooner it doesn't even do that).

The phrase "Constitutional rights" is a misnomer and fallacy.

[t0rnado]

The Constitution doesn't give anyone rights. If an entity gave you the ability to do something, it would be called a privilege.

No, my rights are naturally inherent and I will die if I have to in order to defend them.

[Cap]

Freedom will not be achieved through violence.

Is that a Founding Fathers quote? /s

[ProIndividual]

I voted yes immediately, but then i saw the third option...i just assumed "yes" meant in self defense, not in some pre-emptive revolution or collective action, or harmful action unjustified. Soryy about the mis-vote.

[ProIndividual]

Originally Posted by mport1

Freedom will not be achieved through violence.


I think this is correct. However, I'm no pascifist. Freedom cannot be achieved through violence, but violence is required to keep it when violence is the vehicle the aggressor uses...otherwise self defense would not exist, or be a natural right.

In no way am I for revolution, collective pre-emptive self defense, etc...but certainly if my freedom to move is obstructed by some bully who holds me up against a wall, then I have the natural right to be violent if necessary to remove their force upon me, and it need not be proportional to be just (i can knock him out since he laid his hands on me). Like war, the point of any self defense should be to take away the enemy's ability to make war. This entails disproportional force usually. If you are bombed once, you should destroy the aggressor nation's entire ability to make war at all, and I'd argue, their entire government should be destroyed with it.

But then you leave. Wars like that take 2 monthes, tops...and self defense as I describe usually just takes a punch or two. There is no excuse for genocide based on these lines, nor beating a person beyond unconsciousness.

I hope I do not draw a demerit from the Mods, but the idea of pascifism and proportional-only self defense is nonsense.

We can't achieve freedom through aggression or violence...but we can defend it with violence when in self defense (not aggression).