Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 53

Thread: What are our actual rights?

  1. #1

    Question What are our actual rights?

    List our actual rights.

    What are we really "entitled" to?

    Dr. Paul routinely mentioned some of them: our right to be safe in our person, our property; our right to the fruits of our labor.

    What else?
    "An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.

    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you arent allowed to criticize."



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

  4. #3
    Too long to list. Here is why...



    An Endless List of Rights

    5. To attempt to name all of these rights--starting with "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence--would be to start an endless list which would add up to the whole of Man's Freedom (Freedom from Government-over-Man). They would add up to the entirety of Individual Liberty (Liberty against Government-over-Man). Innumerable rights of The Individual are embraced in the Ninth Amendment, which states: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Here "Constitution" includes the amendments.) Some idea of how vast the list would be is indicated by just one general freedom which leads into almost all of Free Man's activities of daily living throughout life: freedom of choice. This term stands for the right to do--and equally not to do--this or that, as conscience, whim or judgement, taste or desire, of The Individual may prompt from moment to moment, day by day, for as long as life lasts; but always, of course, with due regard for the equal rights of others and for the just laws expressive of the above-mentioned "just powers" of government designed to help safeguard the equal rights of all Individuals. Spelled out in detail, this single freedom--freedom of choice--is almost all-embracing.

    Further reading...


  5. #4
    I think that article gets to the root of the matter. The concept of unalienable rights is uniquely American. Only in this one patch of Earth, and only for a tiny fraction of recorded history, has anyone actually believed that.

    And in that one place, that idea started out only applying to people of a certain complexion. That one country's track record has hardly improved since then, either.

    The forehead-slappingly obvious conclusion is that we don't have any rights. If we did, then we would have more to show for it.

    I think there was hope for a while to convince some critical mass of people that we should explore that idea a bit further than we have in the last two centuries. But we traded all that potential for an electoral victory that failed to materialize.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  6. #5
    You have any right you wish for life until they shoot you for exercising it.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    List our actual rights.

    What are we really "entitled" to?

    Dr. Paul routinely mentioned some of them: our right to be safe in our person, our property; our right to the fruits of our labor.

    What else?
    Far too many to enumerate.

    The proper description:

    A man is entitled to all that he can do and acquire through non-criminal praxis.


    That leaves the possibilities wide open while recognizing the equal rights of all.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    I think that article gets to the root of the matter. The concept of unalienable rights is uniquely American. Only in this one patch of Earth, and only for a tiny fraction of recorded history, has anyone actually believed that.
    And yet those rights have always been with us as matters of our basic nature. They must have been if we believe they are inherent now. Besides, these rights can be demonstrated as matters of our relations, and as negative rights, no less in that they exist as matters of practical fact because nobody has the authority to prevent exercise. They therefore inhere from at least two sources of consideration, far further defeating and damning to weakest failure all contrary positions.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    And yet those rights have always been with us as matters of our basic nature. They must have been if we believe they are inherent now. Besides, these rights can be demonstrated as matters of our relations, and as negative rights, no less in that they exist as matters of practical fact because nobody has the authority to prevent exercise. They therefore inhere from at least two sources of consideration, far further defeating and damning to weakest failure all contrary positions.
    And I've always had a penis as a matter of my basic nature.
    People are roughly equally willing to discuss it openly.
    If I use it in public, I can expect roughly the same reaction as if I had exercised my rights.
    The main difference is, if anyone doubts I have a penis, I can always drop trou and show them.
    So even if rights are inherent to our nature, that doesn't get us to the point where we ought to act on it.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    The forehead-slappingly obvious conclusion is that we don't have any rights. If we did, then we would have more to show for it.
    Mundanes don't benefit from rights; TPTB do.
    Rights are the concession that oligarchs make to keep the mob from murdering them.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  12. #10
    There are simply too many to list, but if you'd like a classification, use this:

    Negative rights = real
    Positive rights = make-believe.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    List our actual rights.

    What are we really "entitled" to?

    Dr. Paul routinely mentioned some of them: our right to be safe in our person, our property; our right to the fruits of our labor.

    What else?
    Only what you're man enough to hold on to.

    Some people want to use the courts or ballot box, others their mouths and yet others their very lives...

    Point being you're not "entitled" to anything you won't fight for.

  14. #12

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    And I've always had a penis as a matter of my basic nature.
    People are roughly equally willing to discuss it openly.
    If I use it in public, I can expect roughly the same reaction as if I had exercised my rights.
    The main difference is, if anyone doubts I have a penis, I can always drop trou and show them.
    So even if rights are inherent to our nature, that doesn't get us to the point where we ought to act on it.
    That some arbitrarily vast plurality chooses or otherwise fails to recognize or accept the fact of their own rights, it does not follow that said rights perforce do not exist.

    That we, as you say, have little to show for our rivbts speaks to our characters as men, rather than to the question pf whether they exist.

    If I claim my life and you take it from me, the act speaks to your ciminality, rather than in disproof of my claim.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  16. #14
    1. right to raise a family and reproduce
    2. right to feed/clothe/shelter yourself
    3. right to free speech
    4. right to free assembly and association
    5. right to due process
    6. right to privacy
    7. right to religion
    8. right to self defense
    9. right to private property
    10. right to contract
    11. right to no taxation without representation/voting
    Last edited by ArrestPoliticians; 05-04-2016 at 12:41 PM.
    Carthago Delenda Est

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    That some arbitrarily vast plurality chooses or otherwise fails to recognize or accept the fact of their own rights, it does not follow that said rights perforce do not exist.

    That we, as you say, have little to show for our rivbts speaks to our characters as men, rather than to the question pf whether they exist.

    If I claim my life and you take it from me, the act speaks to your ciminality, rather than in disproof of my claim.
    Well if there's one point we both agree on, it's a disdain for autocorrect software.

    I'm with you on the idea that rights are a great idea. I'm with you on the fact that it sucks nobody else thinks so.

    Where I'm not with you, is on the idea that this is all irrefutable. It's totally refutable. I can refute it on the same basis that I refute Sola Scriptura: it was never man's understanding until a few people pushed the idea and it caught on. In the case of Sola Scriptura, it's an idea that mankind pulled out of thin air after 1500 years of relevant recorded history: in the case of natural rights, it's similarly pulled out of thin air, but after... all of recorded history across all continents, up to the 17th century.

    How can we say men have natural rights, when men didn't even have a concept for them for about five millennia?

    Mind you this is mainly playing Devil's Advocate... but the natural rights concept is a large plot point in the same fairy tale that includes the DoI, the Constitution, and the United States, and I stopped believing in that fantasy a long time ago.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    Well if there's one point we both agree on, it's a disdain for autocorrect software.

    I'm with you on the idea that rights are a great idea. I'm with you on the fact that it sucks nobody else thinks so.

    Where I'm not with you, is on the idea that this is all irrefutable. It's totally refutable. I can refute it on the same basis that I refute Sola Scriptura: it was never man's understanding until a few people pushed the idea and it caught on. In the case of Sola Scriptura, it's an idea that mankind pulled out of thin air after 1500 years of relevant recorded history: in the case of natural rights, it's similarly pulled out of thin air, but after... all of recorded history across all continents, up to the 17th century.

    How can we say men have natural rights, when men didn't even have a concept for them for about five millennia?

    Mind you this is mainly playing Devil's Advocate... but the natural rights concept is a large plot point in the same fairy tale that includes the DoI, the Constitution, and the United States, and I stopped believing in that fantasy a long time ago.



    Ah. Heh. Here you go....

    I'm not much on work screwery and other overly confusing circle-jerkery these days so I just paste a good reference to practical thoughts on the subject in simple, clear, precise, understandable language...



    1. The Spiritual is Supreme


    ". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." (Declaration of Independence)


    The Principle


    1. The fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy is that the Spiritual is supreme--that Man is of Divine origin and his spiritual, or religious, nature is of supreme value and importance compared with things material.


    Religious Nature

    2. This governmental philosophy is, therefore, essentially religious in nature. It is uniquely American; no other people in all history have ever made this principle the basis of their governmental philosophy. The spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is a concept which is basic to this American philosophy. It expresses the spiritual relationship of God to Man and, in the light thereof, of Man to Man. To forget these truths is a most heinous offense against the spirit of traditional America because the greatest sin is the lost consciousness of sin.

    The fundamentally religious basis of this philosophy is the foundation of its moral code, which contemplates The Individual's moral duty as being created by God's Law: the Natural Law. The Individual's duty requires obedience to this Higher Law; while knowledge of this duty comes from conscience, which the religious-minded and morally-aware Individual feels duty-bound to heed. This philosophy asserts that there are moral absolutes: truths, such as those mentioned above, which are binding upon all Individuals at all times under all circumstances. This indicates some of the spiritual and moral values which are inherent in its concept of Individual Liberty-Responsibility.

    An Indivisible Whole

    3. The American philosophy, based upon this principle, is an indivisible whole and must be accepted or rejected as such. It cannot be treated piece-meal. Its fundamentals and its implicit meanings and obligations must be accepted together with its benefits.

    The Individual's Self-respect

    4. The concept of Man's spiritual nature, and the resulting concept of the supreme dignity and value of each Individual, provide the fundamental basis for each Individual's self-respect and the consequent mutual respect among Individual's. This self-respect as well as this mutual respect are the outgrowth of, and evidenced by, The Individual's maintenance of his God-given, unalienable rights. They are maintained by requiring that government and other Individuals respect them, as well as by his dedication to his own unceasing growth toward realization of his highest potential--spiritually, morally, intellectually, in every aspect of life. This is in order that he may merit maximum respect by self and by others.

    Some Things Excluded

    5. This concept of Man's spiritual nature excludes any idea of intrusion by government into this Man-to-Man spiritual relationship. It excludes the anti-moral precept that the end justifies the means and the related idea that the means can be separated from the end when judging them morally. This concept therefore excludes necessarily any idea of attempting to do good by force--for instance, through coercion of Man by Government, whether or not claimed to be for his own good or for the so-called common good or general welfare.

    It excludes disbelief in--even doubt as to the existence of--God as the Creator of Man: and therefore excludes all ideas, theories and schools of thought--however ethical and lofty in intentions--which reject affirmative and positive belief in God as Man's Creator.


    The Truly American Concept

    6. Only those ideas, programs and practices, regarding things governmental, which are consistent with the concept that "The Spiritual is supreme" can justly be claimed to be truly American traditionally. Anything and everything governmental, which is in conflict with this concept, is non-American--judged by traditional belief.

    This applies particularly to that which is agnostic, or atheistic--neutral about, or hostile to, positive and affirmative belief in this concept based upon belief in God as Man's Creator. There is not room for doubt, much less disbelief, in this regard from the standpoint of the traditional American philosophy. Its indivisible nature makes this inescapably true. This pertains, of course, to the realm of ideas and not to any person; it is the conflicting idea which is classified as non-American, according to this philosophy.


    America a Haven For All Religions

    7. The traditional American philosophy teaches that belief in God is the fundamental link which unites the adherents of all religions in a spiritual brotherhood. This philosophy allows for no differentiation between them in this unifying conviction: ". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." This philosophy is all inclusive as to believers in God. Although America was originally colonized predominantly by adherents of the Christian religion, and principally by Protestants, the Founding Fathers steadfastly conformed to this all-embracing character of the approach of the American philosophy to religion. This was expressly and affirmatively indicated in the proclamation of 1776 of the fundamental American philosophy, of its basic principles, in the Declaration of Independence. This was further indicated, negatively, in 1787-1788 by the Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution--as a "blueprint" for the structure of the then proposed Federal government, with strictly limited powers--by not permitting it to possess any power with regard to religion. This implied prohibition against the Federal government was reinforced by the addition of the First Amendment expressly prohibiting it, through the Congress, from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."--the words "an establishment of religion" being intended to mean, specifically and only, a church or religious organization which is established, supported and preferred by the government, like the Church of England establishments then existing in some of the States.


    The Conclusion

    8. Belief in Man's Divine origin is the foundation of the fundamental American principle which controls his relationship to government: that Man--The Individual--is of supreme dignity and value because of his spiritual nature.

    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 05-04-2016 at 01:07 PM.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Right, that's what I started off on. I read it, and that section called "Religious Nature" points out that "no other people in all history have ever made this principle the basis of their governmental philosophy".

    That does not make it correct. If anything, it suggests that it is in fact not correct.

    It is in man's nature to walk. Would you argue that it is against man's nature to walk?
    There are abundant examples of men who do not walk. Yet no sane man would look at those exceptions and state "This is the nature of man, not to walk".

    Yet this is exactly what the natural rights arguer does. He looks at humanity, which for thousands of years either didn't know about or didn't respect natural rights, and which only has had one country in over one hundred even pay lip service to the concept - and that country has done an abjectly horrible job at respecting natural rights, by the way - he takes all that in, and says "No, the man who believes in natural rights, that is what is natural; that is man's nature."
    It is the same as if he had said "the man who rolls around in a chair and does not use his legs, that is what is natural".
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by ArrestPoliticians View Post
    1. right to raise a family and reproduce
    2. right to feed/clothe/shelter yourself
    3. right to free speech
    4. right to free assembly and association
    5. right to due process
    6. right to privacy
    7. right to religion
    8. right to self defense
    9. right to private property
    10. right to contract
    11. right to no taxation without representation/voting
    All the other rights listed are types of property rights.

    All rights are property rights.

  22. #19
    As an aside kind of thing one should proceed with caution when discussing Natural Law with Godless Men. There are many reasons to proceed with caution. Worldly men are material men who tend to become trustees in material rights alone. Separated from the Spiritual. As such, ethics become defined by manner of his choosing. Subjective. A Man-over-God philosophy of his own logic. These are the ones who would have you march to the front lines of his personal war with humanitty while he sits back and chuckles. Heh. Is true, too.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 05-04-2016 at 01:26 PM.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Michael View Post
    As an aside kind of thing one should proceed with caution when discussing Natural Law with Godless Men.
    I certainly hope you're not talking about me.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  24. #21
    Here are your rights, provided you aren't shot first:
    You have the right to remain silent.
    Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law.
    You have the right to consult an attorney
    If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    All the other rights listed are types of property rights.

    All rights are property rights.
    All rights are derived from self-ownership.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  26. #23
    Your rights are anything you will, except harm to your fellow man.

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    I certainly hope you're not talking about me.
    Ha. No, I was generally speaking, fisharmor. It was an after-thought.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    Your rights are anything you will, except harm to your fellow man.
    Consent? Is that what you're talking about? This is the way our Republic is designed. It is what makes it a true Republic, for sure.

    I'm of the view that Individuals or groups of Indiviuduals are free to organize and make rules for themselves so long as they don't prohibit others from equally doing the same. Harm is a very specific bit of language. Are you talking about physical harm alone? NAP? NAPis an ethical philosophy. And, of course, ethics themselves aren't limited solely to physical harm of another.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 05-04-2016 at 02:31 PM.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Michael View Post
    Consent? Is that what you're talking about?
    How did you get "consent" from that? It's the NAP.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Michael View Post
    Ha. No, I was generally speaking, fisharmor. It was an after-thought.
    Thanks for clarifying.
    From a God-fearing standpoint, I see the concept of rights as a secular way to enshrine Christ's admonition to love our neighbors as ourselves.
    We ought not openly to try to mold a heterogeneous society by Christ's words. Natural rights is a neat way to do just that, but in a manner that those who do not fear God can stomach.
    So it's two-fold enshrining his admonition: once, by extending love (in the form of protections) to our neighbors, and again, by not forcing our religious viewpoints on them, but couching them in secular terms. Because I wouldn't want someone forcing religion on me, either.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    Thanks for clarifying.
    From a God-fearing standpoint, I see the concept of rights as a secular way to enshrine Christ's admonition to love our neighbors as ourselves.
    We ought not openly to try to mold a heterogeneous society by Christ's words.
    Mm. Sure. I agree. Of course, thuis is also how we end up with people retranslating the Gospel in order for it to align with their own worldly lifestyles. And, then, that gets spread around as the norm, too.


    Natural rights is a neat way to do just that, but in a manner that those who do not fear God can stomach.
    Yep. So, then, there lies the reason for why I said thaty we'd do wll t oproceed with caution before submitting to the rhetorc of Godless men talking about Natural Rights. That's likely a topic in and of itself. We can save that for another day, I suppose.


    So it's two-fold enshrining his admonition: once, by extending love (in the form of protections) to our neighbors, and again, by not forcing our religious viewpoints on them, but couching them in secular terms. Because I wouldn't want someone forcing religion on me, either.
    So, then, when we function in a secular manner, we do float from the true nature of Natural Law and into worldly, material rights. Not always remnants of Natural being. It's gets jiggy in a hot second, alright. Heh.

    Crazy stuff, man. Crazy, crazy, stuff...
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 05-04-2016 at 02:30 PM.

  33. #29
    Ah well. I have stuff to do. I'll leave the discussion to our resident scholars to decide among themselves. Heh. Later.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 05-07-2016 at 06:05 PM.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    All the other rights listed are types of property rights.

    All rights are property rights.
    Property rights themselves consist of a number of different rights. I wouldn't consider the right to raise a child as you see fit as necessarily a "property" right, nor the right to due process. It involves definitions and applications of property rights but it is more.
    Last edited by ArrestPoliticians; 05-04-2016 at 02:42 PM.
    Carthago Delenda Est

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •