A Short Poll

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jerry Shamp on November 29, 2009 at 4:41pm

As to question 1. The first statement. #2 The second part.

Permalink Reply by NavyDads Admin (Paul) on November 29, 2009 at 7:22pm

rights are defined by laws...such as the right to keep and bear arms, the right of free speech, etc..

allowing man to acheive his potential defines his freedom.

Permalink Reply by NavyDads Admin (Paul) on November 29, 2009 at 10:10pm

THAT is the worry when our leadership starts talking about policies which are not defined as being constitutional--- the required purchase of mandatory health care for example. In this context, you have to seperate morals and ethics from rights. We have rights as defined by law (as the two examples) that may be prohibited to citizens of other countries. Logicially therefore, rights cannot be derived from nature or God because they are not universal. The assault on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is perhaps the most worrisome threat to our continued freedom and perhaps even the sovereignty of the United States.



Pat McCord said:

So, my right to bear arms, or free speech are subject to those who make the law. We could then, I guess by amending the Constitution (i.e. the law), abolish those rights, and I would have no basis to claim I have them. Interesting.

As for the freedom issue, I'm assuming you mean, when you say "allowing man to achieve ..." you mean not being prevented from ...?

NavyDads Admin (Paul) said:

rights are defined by laws...such as the right to keep and bear arms, the right of free speech, etc..

allowing man to acheive his potential defines his freedom.

Permalink Reply by ctyankee on December 7, 2009 at 9:57am

Hmmm, I see four questions there...

#1 a&b) As a fan of the Constitution (may it rest in peace) I 'd say that the truths that were self evident were codified into law, but the rights are primal and the law only states that those rights shall not be infringed by Government. I for one still assert *my* individual rights and am prepared to defend those rights for those that have had them trampled.

#2 c&d) Freedom and ability have little to do with each other. Potential is one of those nebulous terms. Environment contributes to, or subtracts from, potential; there is nothing inherently good or evil in that observation. However, being prevented by an overt act -- that is truly reprehensible, evil, despotic, and un-American to the core. Unfortunately, that's the condition we find ourselves in today. The Left would have us believe it's the environment -- it's become that ubiquitous.

Commentary:
Remember, Government does not *create* anything of value(Econ-101). The best we can hope from from government is that it touches us as lightly as possible. We as a nation have forgotten this axiom. We have been lead to believe that government bestows benefits and favors, while forgetting that *everything* that government provides to one, has been seized from another.

P.S. How come I didn't see this group earlier??? ;^)

Permalink Reply by Bud Rose on December 7, 2009 at 3:13pm

#1. Our rights are given to us by God , but we must continue to uphold, protect and guard them as men created by God. I'm sure you will agree that if we did not do these that those rights would be taken away by another for purposes defined by another (as history proves -time after time) . #2. The latter , as it must attained first to move on to the former.

Permalink Reply by Bud Rose on December 8, 2009 at 1:16am

No argument there!

Pat McCord said:

I agree with you that our rights are given to us by God and that we must protect and guard them, but I don't agree anyone can take my rights away--they can violate my rights, and they can take away my freedom to exercise them, but they are still my rights and I claim them as mine until I'm dead.

Bud Rose said:

#1. Our rights are given to us by God , but we must continue to uphold, protect and guard them as men created by God. I'm sure you will agree that if we did not do these that those rights would be taken away by another for purposes defined by another (as history proves -time after time) . #2. The latter , as it must attained first to move on to the former.

Permalink Reply by ctyankee on December 8, 2009 at 11:06am

Hey Pat,

I think we agree that "Negative Liberty" is the only true form of freedom, and that the tiny limitations placed on it are the basis for a free and productive society. You're free to swing your arm, as long as my nose isn't there first and, and it's my responsibility to not put my nose within the arc of your swing if you began first. But if either of us has a smashed nose it's bad for the economy! ^_^

Time for a beer! -- (well after work it'll be OK ...)


Pat McCord said:

There are two questions here--each posed in an either/or format:
Q1. Where do our rights come from? Q2. What does freedom (or liberty) mean? Natural rights and legal rights - Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.

Opinions on what constitute liberty can vary widely, but can be generally classified as positive liberty and negative liberty. Positive liberty asserts that freedom is the ability of society to achieve an end. In the negative sense, one is considered free to the extent to which no person interferes with his or her activity. The latter designates a negative condition in which an individual is protected from tyranny and the arbitrary exercise of authority, while the former refers to having the means or opportunity, rather than the lack of restraint, to do things.

I for one fall into the Natural Rights camp and have the negative view of freedom. My rights come to me because I am a human being, not because they are written down somewhere. If we repealed the First Amendment, I still have the right to speak my mind and believe what I want to believe. And to me, freedom means not being prevented (either overtly or covertly) from pursuing my will, not having the resources or opportunity attain it. No promises of success here.

ctyankee said:

Hmmm, I see four questions there...

#1 a&b) As a fan of the Constitution (may it rest in peace) I 'd say that the truths that were self evident were codified into law, but the rights are primal and the law only states that those rights shall not be infringed by Government. I for one still assert *my* individual rights and am prepared to defend those rights for those that have had them trampled.

#2 c&d) Freedom and ability have little to do with each other. Potential is one of those nebulous terms. Environment contributes to, or subtracts from, potential; there is nothing inherently good or evil in that observation. However, being prevented by an overt act -- that is truly reprehensible, evil, despotic, and un-American to the core. Unfortunately, that's the condition we find ourselves in today. The Left would have us believe it's the environment -- it's become that ubiquitous.

Commentary:
Remember, Government does not *create* anything of value(Econ-101). The best we can hope from from government is that it touches us as lightly as possible. We as a nation have forgotten this axiom. We have been lead to believe that government bestows benefits and favors, while forgetting that *everything* that government provides to one, has been seized from another.

P.S. How come I didn't see this group earlier??? ;^)

Permalink Reply by Bob, Andy's dad on December 16, 2009 at 4:31pm

I believe that the Christian Bible teaches that our "rights" come from God's law. How is that for fence riding? Seriously, if we look very closely at the Ten Commandments found in Exodus 20, we can see that the first four
of the "BIG 10" deal with our relationship and attitude toward God. Then, the next 6 deal with our relationship and attitude toward people. So, this being the case, my rights are derived from God's Law. Ben Franklin said, "My freedom ends where your nose begins." I think that is a very good summation of Commandments 5 through 10.
In saying this, Q#2 may be dealt with by saying that freedom means that I have the latitude to pursue my happiness and life to the point at where it interferes with your pursuit of life and happiness. I am not to take advantage of 'you' in order to get what I want, or even need.