Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Rights Donít Come from Governments

  1. #1

    Rights Donít Come from Governments

    Found this article talking about rights.

    Seemed pretty alright.

    What do yous guys think?

    Rights Donít Come from Governments.

    With every new mass shooting, it seems that everyone on social media is some combination of a gun expert, Islam expert, terror expert, security expert, etc. Thatís all well and good, and I am all for people having conversations about these kinds of things. Iím admittedly no expert in any of these areas, and I'm not writing this to try to present any answers or solutions. But this topic, and others like gay marriage, seem to always show that many people profoundly misunderstand what rights are.

    Rights and Law Arenít Synonymous

    You can see how far off people really are when you run across arguments along these lines: ďThe First Amendment and free speech arenít absolute and can be limited, so the Second Amendment can be tooĒ. There are several things grossly wrong with this argument: the first being that it gives way too much significance and power to the Bill of Rights.

    The Constitution and Bill of Rights have no role in ďcreatingĒ rights. The Constitution itself is useful only insofar as it lays out the guidelines, structure, and organization of the government. It has no place dealing with anything else.

    Rights are extremely simple and bills of rights, constitutions, civics classes, etc. only serve to muddy the waters. They lead people into the confused belief that individuals or representatives or majorities can create rights by writing them down on a magical piece of paper.

    What Rights Do You Have?

    The concept is simple. You have one and only one right, namely property. And you have that right by virtue of being a conscious being. You own yourself and your rights only end where the rights of others begin.

    We divide that up into such "sub-freedoms" as freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, the right to bear arms, etc. just for the sake of ease of conversation when talking about specific types of property rights.

    But make no mistake, every legitimate right can be reduced to a right to property, while every illegitimate right cannot.

    And as a conscious being, you are entitled to this natural right even if you are able to conceptualize it. Put differently, if you can think about having rights then you have them: regardless of whether they are written in a 200 year old document or not.

    The second thing wrong with the above statement is that itís completely false! Freedom of speech cannot be morally limited. You own yourself, and your rights only end where the rights of others begin; i.e. you can conduct yourself in any way you see fit so long as you do not violate the property rights of other conscious beings. The classic example typically given is that of someone yelling ďfireĒ in a crowded theater. It is said that this speech can be rightfully prohibited, and so there are ďobviousĒ limits to the right to free speech.

    Though you may not rightfully yell ďfireĒ in a crowded theater (most of the time), the reason for this has nothing to do with a limit on free speech. The reason you may not do this is that you would be violating the property rights of both the owner of the theater and the patrons. Most theaters have a code of conduct and yelling ďfireĒ is almost certainly violating that code. Since you would be currently occupying someone else's property, you must follow all their conditions for using that property, or you must leave. Otherwise, you are violating their rights.

    You would also be depriving the patrons of getting what they paid for. They purchased a ticket in exchange for viewing the film or performance being shown in the theater and so have a de facto form of temporary property claim on a seat or spot in the theater for the duration of the show. By yelling ďfireĒ and presumably ending or delaying the show or performance, you are depriving them of their property and violating their rights.

    Contractual Restrictions of Rights

    Itís extremely important to remember that right(s) only exist in the space that does not encroach on the rights of others. This means that the above situation does not constitute a ďlimitĒ on freedom of speech, but rather is a realm in which free speech never existed and canít exist. Rights can never serve to aid in the violation of anotherís rights because true rights never conflict. This is easier to conceptualize when you consider all rights as only a right to property. You can say what you want because you own your body, but if you choose to occupy someone elseís property, you must abide by their rules or leave.

    Now letís bring it back to the original statement and the conflict surrounding the right to bear arms. You can bear arms, not because of a few lines of text in an antiquated document, but because you have a right to purchase anything so long all the people involved in the transaction are doing so voluntarily and knowingly. In other words, you can ethically buy anything you want (drugs, guns, sex) as long as the rights of others arenít violated in the process. What individuals do with what they buy is a wholly different and unrelated argument.

    Freedom of speech is absolute. The right to bear arms (any arms) is absolute. Neither one of these facts has anything to do with the Constitution, and neither can be morally limited.
    "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
    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    Found this article talking about rights.

    Seemed pretty alright.

    What do yous guys think?

    Rights Don’t Come from Governments.

    With every new mass shooting, it seems that everyone on social media is some combination of a gun expert, Islam expert, terror expert, security expert, etc. That’s all well and good, and I am all for people having conversations about these kinds of things. I’m admittedly no expert in any of these areas, and I'm not writing this to try to present any answers or solutions. But this topic, and others like gay marriage, seem to always show that many people profoundly misunderstand what rights are.

    Rights and Law Aren’t Synonymous

    You can see how far off people really are when you run across arguments along these lines: “The First Amendment and free speech aren’t absolute and can be limited, so the Second Amendment can be too”. There are several things grossly wrong with this argument: the first being that it gives way too much significance and power to the Bill of Rights.

    The Constitution and Bill of Rights have no role in “creating” rights. The Constitution itself is useful only insofar as it lays out the guidelines, structure, and organization of the government. It has no place dealing with anything else.

    Rights are extremely simple and bills of rights, constitutions, civics classes, etc. only serve to muddy the waters. They lead people into the confused belief that individuals or representatives or majorities can create rights by writing them down on a magical piece of paper.

    What Rights Do You Have?

    The concept is simple. You have one and only one right, namely property. And you have that right by virtue of being a conscious being. You own yourself and your rights only end where the rights of others begin.

    We divide that up into such "sub-freedoms" as freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, the right to bear arms, etc. just for the sake of ease of conversation when talking about specific types of property rights.

    But make no mistake, every legitimate right can be reduced to a right to property, while every illegitimate right cannot.

    And as a conscious being, you are entitled to this natural right even if you are able to conceptualize it. Put differently, if you can think about having rights then you have them: regardless of whether they are written in a 200 year old document or not.

    The second thing wrong with the above statement is that it’s completely false! Freedom of speech cannot be morally limited. You own yourself, and your rights only end where the rights of others begin; i.e. you can conduct yourself in any way you see fit so long as you do not violate the property rights of other conscious beings. The classic example typically given is that of someone yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. It is said that this speech can be rightfully prohibited, and so there are “obvious” limits to the right to free speech.

    Though you may not rightfully yell “fire” in a crowded theater (most of the time), the reason for this has nothing to do with a limit on free speech. The reason you may not do this is that you would be violating the property rights of both the owner of the theater and the patrons. Most theaters have a code of conduct and yelling “fire” is almost certainly violating that code. Since you would be currently occupying someone else's property, you must follow all their conditions for using that property, or you must leave. Otherwise, you are violating their rights.

    You would also be depriving the patrons of getting what they paid for. They purchased a ticket in exchange for viewing the film or performance being shown in the theater and so have a de facto form of temporary property claim on a seat or spot in the theater for the duration of the show. By yelling “fire” and presumably ending or delaying the show or performance, you are depriving them of their property and violating their rights.

    Contractual Restrictions of Rights

    It’s extremely important to remember that right(s) only exist in the space that does not encroach on the rights of others. This means that the above situation does not constitute a “limit” on freedom of speech, but rather is a realm in which free speech never existed and can’t exist. Rights can never serve to aid in the violation of another’s rights because true rights never conflict. This is easier to conceptualize when you consider all rights as only a right to property. You can say what you want because you own your body, but if you choose to occupy someone else’s property, you must abide by their rules or leave.

    Now let’s bring it back to the original statement and the conflict surrounding the right to bear arms. You can bear arms, not because of a few lines of text in an antiquated document, but because you have a right to purchase anything so long all the people involved in the transaction are doing so voluntarily and knowingly. In other words, you can ethically buy anything you want (drugs, guns, sex) as long as the rights of others aren’t violated in the process. What individuals do with what they buy is a wholly different and unrelated argument.

    Freedom of speech is absolute. The right to bear arms (any arms) is absolute. Neither one of these facts has anything to do with the Constitution, and neither can be morally limited.
    So I have the right to any armament?
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  4. #3

    Homeboy Security

    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    So I have the right to any armament?
    Of course... "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Strap a couple of nukes under your wings, for the security of a free state.
    Last edited by RonZeplin; 04-02-2019 at 02:52 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only show up to attack Trump when he is wrong
    Make America the Land of the Free & the Home of the Brave again

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    So I have the right to any armament?
    Would you not think so? Curious as to why you asked this?
    "It's probably the biggest hoax since Big Foot!" - Mitt Romney 1-16-2012 SC Debate

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    Found this article talking about rights.

    Seemed pretty alright.

    What do yous guys think?

    Rights Don’t Come from Governments.

    With every new mass shooting, it seems that everyone on social media is some combination of a gun expert, Islam expert, terror expert, security expert, etc. That’s all well and good, and I am all for people having conversations about these kinds of things. I’m admittedly no expert in any of these areas, and I'm not writing this to try to present any answers or solutions. But this topic, and others like gay marriage, seem to always show that many people profoundly misunderstand what rights are.

    Rights and Law Aren’t Synonymous

    You can see how far off people really are when you run across arguments along these lines: “The First Amendment and free speech aren’t absolute and can be limited, so the Second Amendment can be too”. There are several things grossly wrong with this argument: the first being that it gives way too much significance and power to the Bill of Rights.

    The Constitution and Bill of Rights have no role in “creating” rights. The Constitution itself is useful only insofar as it lays out the guidelines, structure, and organization of the government. It has no place dealing with anything else.

    Rights are extremely simple and bills of rights, constitutions, civics classes, etc. only serve to muddy the waters. They lead people into the confused belief that individuals or representatives or majorities can create rights by writing them down on a magical piece of paper.

    What Rights Do You Have?

    The concept is simple. You have one and only one right, namely property. And you have that right by virtue of being a conscious being. You own yourself and your rights only end where the rights of others begin.

    We divide that up into such "sub-freedoms" as freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, the right to bear arms, etc. just for the sake of ease of conversation when talking about specific types of property rights.

    But make no mistake, every legitimate right can be reduced to a right to property, while every illegitimate right cannot.

    And as a conscious being, you are entitled to this natural right even if you are able to conceptualize it. Put differently, if you can think about having rights then you have them: regardless of whether they are written in a 200 year old document or not.

    The second thing wrong with the above statement is that it’s completely false! Freedom of speech cannot be morally limited. You own yourself, and your rights only end where the rights of others begin; i.e. you can conduct yourself in any way you see fit so long as you do not violate the property rights of other conscious beings. The classic example typically given is that of someone yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. It is said that this speech can be rightfully prohibited, and so there are “obvious” limits to the right to free speech.

    Though you may not rightfully yell “fire” in a crowded theater (most of the time), the reason for this has nothing to do with a limit on free speech. The reason you may not do this is that you would be violating the property rights of both the owner of the theater and the patrons. Most theaters have a code of conduct and yelling “fire” is almost certainly violating that code. Since you would be currently occupying someone else's property, you must follow all their conditions for using that property, or you must leave. Otherwise, you are violating their rights.

    You would also be depriving the patrons of getting what they paid for. They purchased a ticket in exchange for viewing the film or performance being shown in the theater and so have a de facto form of temporary property claim on a seat or spot in the theater for the duration of the show. By yelling “fire” and presumably ending or delaying the show or performance, you are depriving them of their property and violating their rights.

    Contractual Restrictions of Rights

    It’s extremely important to remember that right(s) only exist in the space that does not encroach on the rights of others. This means that the above situation does not constitute a “limit” on freedom of speech, but rather is a realm in which free speech never existed and can’t exist. Rights can never serve to aid in the violation of another’s rights because true rights never conflict. This is easier to conceptualize when you consider all rights as only a right to property. You can say what you want because you own your body, but if you choose to occupy someone else’s property, you must abide by their rules or leave.

    Now let’s bring it back to the original statement and the conflict surrounding the right to bear arms. You can bear arms, not because of a few lines of text in an antiquated document, but because you have a right to purchase anything so long all the people involved in the transaction are doing so voluntarily and knowingly. In other words, you can ethically buy anything you want (drugs, guns, sex) as long as the rights of others aren’t violated in the process. What individuals do with what they buy is a wholly different and unrelated argument.

    Freedom of speech is absolute. The right to bear arms (any arms) is absolute. Neither one of these facts has anything to do with the Constitution, and neither can be morally limited.
    ''You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to unknown again.''

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by tfurrh View Post
    Would you not think so? Curious as to why you asked this?
    I don't know, not sure I'd be comfortable having my neighbors with nukes. Or even a 500 lbs bomb...
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    I don't know, not sure I'd be comfortable having my neighbors with nukes. Or even a 500 lbs bomb...
    I think uncle Sam would only let you own nukes if you can pass one of those background checks.
    "It's probably the biggest hoax since Big Foot!" - Mitt Romney 1-16-2012 SC Debate

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by tfurrh View Post
    I think uncle Sam would only let you own nukes if you can pass one of those background checks.
    Uncle let me carry them on the only system in the world that was lone man control over a nuke in both the Pacific and European theaters... I know that comforts people here like AF and the Injun.
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    So I have the right to any armament?
    Me ? Yes . Not sure about the peasants .
    Do something Danke

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    Me ? Yes . Not sure about the peasants .
    I doubt they could afford one.....that's kinda why I wouldn't worry about my neighbors having one. You and Danke must be living on the East Side.
    Last edited by tfurrh; 04-02-2019 at 06:43 PM.
    "It's probably the biggest hoax since Big Foot!" - Mitt Romney 1-16-2012 SC Debate

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by tfurrh View Post
    I doubt they could afford one.....that's kinda why I wouldn't worry about my neighbors having one. You and Danke must be living one the East Side.
    I do live in luxury , but it's a long way to the top , not for everyone . Lots of responsibility . Danke has a three figure salary working for one of those evil airline companies , not really sure why he has not moved away from his uncivilized hood .
    Do something Danke

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    So I have the right to any armament?
    Yes.

    So, the militia ie the people, need to have under our control, heavy weapons, including nukes.

    As you know, our military is run by civilians. So theres no reason why the militia cant have similar protocols in place for military hardware..

    Especially if the FF intended for there to be a balance of power between the people and the government, which they did.

    Last edited by unknown; 04-03-2019 at 12:51 AM.
    "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."

  15. #13
    Great topic @unknown

    People have become so conditioned that when the topic of "property rights" comes up, the usual response is, "you drive on roads, don't you?". And, "governments duty is to protect your liberty and property" - unless government deems it "necessary" to steal your property via eminent domain for whatever reason it sees fit.

    The problem with the Bill of Rights is this:

    The anti-federalists WARNED about a federal government, but the anti-liberty central planners won out. The Bill of Rights was "amended" to the constitution in order to get it ratified, but the statists who wrote the Bill of Rights left many loopholes in favor of granting government exclusive power.

    NOWHERE in the Bill of Rights does it outline PENALTIES or Prison Time for bureaucrats who break the "Law of the Land". You can exercise your right to freedom of speech, but once they pass an ordinance of "free speech zones", the onus is on you - go to jail and then prove your innocence. You may win, but LEO or whatever "official" violated your right gets away scott-free, after you have paid your hard-earned money to "legal council".

    The same holds true for the 2nd Amendment. Ordinances and statutes are passed violating your right to bear arms, the onus is back on you in time, money and lawsuits, and reputation, paying money to the very system that violated your right.

    Even your own private property belongs to the government - Judge Nap has an excellent video explaining the built-in loophole in the 5th Amendment allowing bureaucrats full control of your own property - even if your property is fully paid for.

    Walter Block goes on to explain that government has absolutely NO right to ANY public land. Most of the land in this country is unused and could be homesteaded, but the Fed - BLM, whatever agency, took ownership and control over what they have no right to. If you violate government dictate, it is you, not the government, who will pay the price.

    Concerning "Natural Rights", which are grossly redefined in the Bill of Rights, it is up to each individual to protect his/her Private Property by any means necessary, which is absolutely Essential to Liberty. People have been so conditioned otherwise that they view folks like us as "anarchists" and "leftists", and make every excuse why people must sacrifice "just a little" for the government and the "common good". Those people are statists through and through and have no idea what liberty even means, let alone feels like.

    My signature is spot on, and until we return to that, liberty will NEVER prevail. There may be an illusion that government is "helping" to protect liberty - until it slams you square in the face.
    ďThe right to life is the source of all rightsóand the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.Ē

    An Agorist Primer

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    I don't know, not sure I'd be comfortable having my neighbors with nukes. Or even a 500 lbs bomb...
    Nor would I. But the problem of nukes isn't one of our neighbors having them, but nation-states. Without the demand for them from nation-states, there would be no demand for them, and in fact the research and engineering that went into developing the technology in the first place would never have happened.

    That said, if we don't want our neighbors to own the, there's the question of what means are available to us to deal with the possibility that in some rare instance, now that nukes exist, someone might want one. Working through the various issues that that question raises would be a good discussion. But whatever the best answers are, one answer that we can safely exclude is to say that nation-states should continue to own nukes, while at the same time using the superior firepower at their disposal to ban them for everyone else.

  17. #15
    So , we all Agree the state of Oyarde needs heavy weapons . Excellent .
    Do something Danke

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    I don't know, not sure I'd be comfortable having my neighbors with nukes. Or even a 500 lbs bomb...
    You must have some rich neighbors. Obviously Nuclear weapons are in a different class, since the destruction they cause INEVITABLY violates the NAP. They, to put it very simply, cannot be used in a way consistent with my notion of justice.

    Your neighbors cannot afford nukes, Walmart cannot afford nukes, its hyperbolic swill meant to ridicule correct interpretations of the 2nd amendment. Chemical munitions, and Nuclear munitions, necessarily fall short of any just application because they are, by nature, indiscriminate.

    The vast majority of people could only afford arms consistent with those found at the Battalion level--but that number is immense. So, when I think of the 2nd Amendment, I think what weapons are necessary for the effective function of a modern battalion.

    So everything up to artillery (Tanks etc), helicopters, and jets (to a smaller extent, as very expensive).

    Abolish the Army, use the stud NCO's to train up the populace, turn the Navy and the Marine corp into sleek offensive minded asskicking outfits, to be used when appropriate (Hardly ever, and even then limit operations to the extraction-for-trial or elimination of bad guys)
    Last edited by bv3; 04-03-2019 at 08:35 PM.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    All rights are derived from a single fundamental human right:

    The right to vote.

    Only by voting can other rights be created or destroyed. If you have the right to take a $#@!, it's because someone at some point voted on it and said you should be able to do that.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Trump Jr 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    I don't know, not sure I'd be comfortable having my neighbors with nukes. Or even a 500 lbs bomb...
    Your neighbor DOES have nukes.

    Nuclear weapons exist in the world. The range of those weapons is global. There are psychopaths in possession of them RIGHT NOW.

    Are you comfortable?

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    Uncle let me carry them on the only system in the world that was lone man control over a nuke in both the Pacific and European theaters... I know that comforts people here like AF and the Injun.
    I can see why they let you carry a nuke over Europe. Even if you drop the nuke for whatever reason, it's just Europe. And the pacific is just an ocean.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Trump Jr 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his



Similar Threads

  1. Rights Donít Come from Governments
    By presence in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-27-2016, 11:51 AM
  2. Sixth Graders' Common Core Homework: Remove Two Rights from Bill of Rights
    By Cissy in forum Family, Parenting & Education
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-11-2015, 08:37 AM
  3. Understanding how the smallest governments may produce the largest governments.
    By AutonomousLiberty in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-25-2014, 12:04 AM
  4. Replies: 122
    Last Post: 06-19-2012, 03:15 AM
  5. Issue: Personal Liberty: Parental Rights: No-Fault Divorce - Denial of Rights
    By Douglass Bartley in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-28-2007, 02:15 PM

Posting Permissions

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