Human right, not constitutional right

[jamil]

The Constitution, protects, OUR GOD Given rights .....

PROBLEM is, not everyone believes in GOD !!!!!

I pray for those people EVERYDAY !!!!!

The problem isn't, not everyone believes in God. Not everyone who believes in God believes in individual liberty, and not everyone who believes in individual liberty believes in God. The REAL problem is that not everyone believes in the same liberty.

 

[jamil]

Kind of like this little tidbit?

That's the very text I had in mind when I said that. I am astonished that Lawyers need to have that explained.

 

[halfmileharry]

I think it's more along the "might makes right" lines, as rights have traditionally been dependent on who is in charge, and never been of a consensus amongst differing societies.

... and history has always been written by the victors.

 

[jamil]

I think it's more along the "might makes right" lines, as rights have traditionally been dependent on who is in charge, and never been of a consensus amongst differing societies.

... and history has always been written by the victors.

I've been thinking about this "might makes right" thing. That's an intrinsic part of human nature and is the ultimate downfall of socialism, especially in the form of communism. "Might makes right" is the default feature of any economic system, but is particularly repressive in collectivist systems. In any system, whoever has the power will get to make their desired outcome "right" as long as they maintain power. In a capitalist/republican system people have a chance to make their own way, to claw their way up in business and in government. Capitalism doesn't thrive in a repressive system (though crony capitalism does for the corrupt few). In a socialist system corruption is much more brutal, because in all practical instantiations the means of production ends up being controlled, not by the people, but by even fewer individuals than in capitalism.

In any system, human nature and corruption tends to propel the most corrupt people into the most powerful positions. They get to the top by any means necessary, which gives them an advantage over the people with moral principles. This is as true in business as it is in government. In governments, however, the corrupt people have the authority over people as the state. "The Government of the People" inevitably, for all intents and purposes, ends up being the powerful few who are the heads of state and not the people at all.

Only a constrained government can hope to limit "right by might" by limiting the power available to corrupted individuals to use the force of government against the people. In a socialist/communist system the government has so much power that even constraints won't last becasue that kind of power attracts the most corrupt might. That kind of system, because of human nature, helps ensure the most corrupt people are at the top.

Human nature propels those people to the top. But just because something is in our nature, doens't mean we have to follow it. We can choose to be better. THAT'S morality. We are all self-interested at the very core of our nature. The heart of morality, is knowing your capability to harm others and choosing not to do it. That's the "personal responsibility" part of natural rights.

To live in a society where people are free, we first must agree to be moral people. To maintain a free society we have to pass that down to our posterity. We have to teach them to overcome their nature. And that's why freedom is attacked by the "Progressives" today. Postmodernism says morality is relative. They can subvert what is objective about morality to justify harming people for whatever whims they desire. And that is essentially what is at the heart of "might makes right". Doing whatever you have the power to do even if it harms others.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Defined by concensus! Natural rights aren't so natural then.

So, what you are saying, is that this is just more of the same of the self-important Libertarian purity crap.

Man, I miss the INGOtarians some days. Sometimes I wish I hadn't driven them off, but I know it was bound to happen one questions started being asked. They run like Andy Horning.

No one has run away, Kirk. People just got sick of being browbeaten and called "wookies" whenever they expressed what they saw as a better way to govern and a higher expectation of those put in the roles to do so, and stopped engaging you when you did so. The end result is that you believe you've won, when all that's happened is that people have quit listening.

It's sad, really. You have some good ideas and some excellent points to make. On that point, however, it was simply

Most of us have ideas worth being listened to, not just drowned out in derision simply for agreeing with some of the things others have said over the years, whether Ron Paul, L. Neil Smith, or Ronald Reagan. (which is to say, it's not only libertarians who deserve to be listened to, either.)

Food for thought.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jamil]

No one has run away, Kirk. People just got sick of being browbeaten and called "wookies" whenever they expressed what they saw as a better way to govern and a higher expectation of those put in the roles to do so, and stopped engaging you when you did so. The end result is that you believe you've won, when all that's happened is that people have quit listening.

It's sad, really. You have some good ideas and some excellent points to make. On that point, however, it was simply

Most of us have ideas worth being listened to, not just drowned out in derision simply for agreeing with some of the things others have said over the years, whether Ron Paul, L. Neil Smith, or Ronald Reagan. (which is to say, it's not only libertarians who deserve to be listened to, either.)

Food for thought.

Blessings,
Bill

Well said. I think there may be another thing at play as well. I think many of the people who latched onto some of the most popular principles of libertarianism have abandoned it out of frustration with factions. I'm not a fan of Lauren Southerland, but she put out a video that sort of hits on what I'm saying. The factions who joined the movement on the narrow principles where the Venn Diagram merges just can't help who they are.

For sxample, the SJW libertarians really just cared about the narrow parts of libertarianism that upheld that viewpoint. Same with the alt righters. As things polarize that narrow common band becomes less important and they leave. That explains Jonhson prioritizing his vivid SJW proclivities, his tacit support for the left, and the decline of libertarianism generally, as its supporters revert to the left or right tribes.

 

[gregr]

Yes, the right to self defense is a Natural Right, and that`s why the Framers deemed it so vital to the people in the newly formed republic. Natural Rights are granted by the Creator, (God-Almighty), and therefore, cannot be limited or usurped by government, (supposedly). But when we reference the right to self defense, specifically, the right to keep and bear arms, we refer to the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, because that is the law of the land, and it is how we officially recognize that Natural Right in the United States. The Constitution grants no rights to be sure, it merely recognizes these rights that have already been granted by God, and presents boundaries that is supposed to limit government.

 

[jamil]

Yes, the right to self defense is a Natural Right, and that`s why the Framers deemed it so vital to the people in the newly formed republic. Natural Rights are granted by the Creator, (God-Almighty), and therefore, cannot be limited or usurped by government, (supposedly). But when we reference the right to self defense, specifically, the right to keep and bear arms, we refer to the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, because that is the law of the land, and it is how we officially recognize that Natural Right in the United States. The Constitution grants no rights to be sure, it merely recognizes these rights that have already been granted by God, and presents boundaries that is supposed to limit government.

You don't have to believe in a "creator" as such to believe in, or better, recognize the concepts of natural rights.

 

[gregr]

You don't have to believe in a "creator" as such to believe in, or better, recognize the concepts of natural rights.

Oh, you don`t have to believe in anything...but the Founders did, and let me correct you, they used the word Creator, capital "C", because they meant God-Almighty. You don`t have to believe in the law of gravity either, but you step off the roof of your house you`re still going to bust your butt. You have free will sir. You are free to choose hell over heaven. Have at it.

 

[jamil]

Oh, you don`t have to believe in anything...but the Founders did, and let me correct you, they used the word Creator, capital "C", because they meant God-Almighty. You don`t have to believe in the law of gravity either, but you step off the roof of your house you`re still going to bust your butt. You have free will sir. You are free to choose hell over heaven. Have at it.

The proselytizing should go in the religious threads. There's plenty of evidence for gravity and no reason to disbelieve it. There's certainly no reason to believe the false dichotomy you presented.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The proselytizing should go in the religious threads. There's plenty of evidence for gravity and no reason to disbelieve it. There's certainly no reason to believe the false dichotomy you presented.

Well said. There was a time, a long time, that religious discussion was forbidden here, and the reason was that it was such a divisive topic. Most INGOers have proven that they can discuss the topic without dogma and absolutism, without insisting that their belief is the only true one, and without condemning everyone whose belief differs. That fact pleases me, and while I've not confirmed it with the rest of the team, I think I speak for all of the mod staff when I say that it pleases them too.

No one on staff here will tell anyone else what they must believe. I don't think it's asking too much to ask the same of the membership.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Hoosier8]

Hiya. So I've been browsing the forum for some time now, and I've noticed that when referring to the right to keep and bear arms you guys always call this a person's "constitutional right", when it ought to be called, and truly is, a person's natural right. The Constitution does NOT give a person this right, they are born with it, the constitution merely protects it. This is a very important distinction and I felt that I needed to call you guys out on it. Far too often I've seen people on here call it a "constitutional right" and it pisses me off to no end.
Thanks

EDIT: I meant to say natural right, not human right. I've replaced "human right" with natural right in this post. Thanks fellas!

Well, it is a Constitutional right in the respect that the Constitution codifies protection of all natural rights from government oppression, a truly innovative change in government power.

Human rights as outlined often require violating natural rights to implement through government force.

 

[beararms1776]

When your born into the world, your first natural instinct is to fight for that first breath. It's natural, it's normal, it's instinct. You don't lose this instinct as you grow. It remains as it was from the beginning but now with the understanding, observations and experience, it's obvious that the firearm is one of the necessary tools for survival. jmo.

 

[PaulWest]

I dont think "rights" are really real outside of our imagination.

On the other hand, anyone who is born and wants to stay alive has the natural responsibility - whether they want it or not - to protect their own life...and such.

Thus, I'd say "constitutional rights" is the correct way to say it, since its more like a gift from the external world than an organic instantiation.

 

[squirrelhntr]

read " Quotes of the Founding Fathers, The Importance of a Moral Society " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights. I'd say they were thinking God or Creator givin rights. Just written on paper so we could prove it.

 

[PaulWest]

That may have been what they were thinking but it doesnt mean its accurate. If a right is to have utility it must be respected - it must be yielded to by others, which are a part of the external world. The phrase Moral Society is correct because it denotes willful human action - voluntarily given. A gift because a harmless man lays no claim to being a good or moral man.