Militia question 1

[Nyarlathotep]

Rights that are endowed you by a god.

Clause I've lost you. I don't see how you can argue that a single instance of the word God in the Declaration of Independance translates into some sort of refutation of the current US government as being God based when that governement is based upon an entirely seperate document written 11 years later and containing NO reference to God or religion beyond spelling out the doctrine that the government shall not establish or prohibit religion.


If I am misunderstanding you, please explain.

 

[Luke T.]

Clause I've lost you. I don't see how you can argue that a single instance of the word God in the Declaration of Independance translates into some sort of refutation of the current US government as being God based when that governement is based upon an entirely seperate document written 11 years later and containing NO reference to God or religion beyond spelling out the doctrine that the government shall not establish or prohibit religion.


If I am misunderstanding you, please explain.

The same premise was in play when the DOI and the Constitution were written regarding our rights. We are endowed with certain unalienable rights. Claus is hung up on the "from where?" part in the belief that will negate their unalienability.

edited to add: Since our right to bear arms is not negated by the meaning of "militia" in modern times, we are now on a new tack attempting to negate our rights by putting a contract out on God.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

The same premise was in play when the DOI and the Constitution were written regarding our rights. We are endowed with certain unalienable rights. Claus is hung up on the "from where?" part in the belief that will negate their unalienability.

edited to add: Since our right to bear arms is not negated by the meaning of "militia" in modern times, we are now on a new tack attempting to negate our rights by putting a contract out on God.

Well, everything I have read on the founding fathers suggests that the question of where our rights come from would vary from one to another. They were not a hive mind and like any group of individuals they had a variety of opinoins on every subject.

I still don't see where this has anything to do with anything in the Constitution. The constitution never claims that any of it's rights are inalienable and this is borne out by the fact that the constitution itself sets forth a means of changing anything in it. The intent of the constitution was to be the best means the the founders could think of to run a government, nothing more or less. That should be our intent as well. The source of our rights is a philosophical issue, not a practical one, and is only tangentially related to anything in the Constitution.

 

[WildCat]

And probably .025 Danish soldiers.

Don't sell the Danes short... at least 3,900 died fighting in WWII. Here's a little pic that proves it!

You may have noticed the funny hats and uniforms they wore, this was the "Freikorps Danmark", and they were volunteers in the German army.

They didn't believe in "Natural Rights" either.

 

[Luke T.]

I still don't see where this has anything to do with anything in the Constitution. The constitution never claims that any of it's rights are inalienable...

...The source of our rights is a philosophical issue, not a practical one, and is only tangentially related to anything in the Constitution..

I have to disagree and regurgitate what I said to Claus in summation on page 7 of this topic. To wit:

The first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

The fourth amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

Notice the similarity between saying a right can't be "abridged" or "infringed" or "violated" ? This is in observance of the fact we have full rights before pen is put to paper and the discussion is about how much we can or cannot limit them.

The sixth amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."

The seventh amendment:

"...the right of trial by jury shall be preserved..."

Our rights are to be enjoyed and preserved. How can you preserve something unless it is pre-existing?

But the granddaddy of all evidence of what the hell I've been saying all this time is the ninth amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "


(edited for clarity)

 

[Luke T.]

Can we get off World War II and just agree Hitler was a bunghole and everybody, including the Germans, paid a price in blood for his existence?

Thanks.

 

[WildCat]

Can we get off World War II and just agree Hitler was a bunghole and everybody, including the Germans, paid a price in blood for his existence?

Thanks.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. But it is an illustration of the extreme limits you can reach if it is believed that rights come only from a government, and thus can be arbitrarily taken away by that government as is seen fit. Even in a democracy.

 

[Mercutio]

Just because it can be violated doesn't mean it's not a right. But the only way it can be violated is through the application of force.

Oh, I don't doubt you believe this. But if, historically, the only entities violating one's rights are human (either individually or collectively), does not that imply that functionally speaking, these rights exist at the behest of humans? Tell me when god or nature has taken back these rights--you assume it is theirs to give (and presumably, deny), but the only times I see rights violated, it is by people. In practical terms, then, it is people who give us our rights, and we enjoy them only because others do not impose their will on ours.

(oh, and be careful about saying that the only way a right can be violated is through the application of force--you may or may not be technically correct, but it does sound a bit much like "threat of force", when of course we may manipulate you even easier through reward than through punishment! People line up to give their money to the government...when it is the lottery, instead of taxes...and yes, I understand that the lottery may be seen as an application of force, which is why I said "may or may not be...")

 

[Ed]

Can we get off World War II and just agree Hitler was a bunghole and everybody, including the Germans, paid a price in blood for his existence?

Thanks.

Well, let's not be hasty here. He didn't like the US so he must have some good in him. We did violate the borders of a soverign nation and deposed him.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I have to disagree and regurgitate what I said to Claus in summation on page 7 of this topic. To wit:

The first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

The fourth amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

Notice the similarity between saying a right can't be "abridged" or "infringed" or "violated" ? This is in observance of the fact we have full rights before pen is put to paper and the discussion is about how much we can or cannot limit them.

The sixth amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."

The seventh amendment:

"...the right of trial by jury shall be preserved..."

Our rights are to be enjoyed and preserved. How can you preserve something unless it is pre-existing?

But the granddaddy of all evidence of what the hell I've been saying all this time is the ninth amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "


(edited for clarity)

We'll have to agre to disagree than because every single one of those rights is subject to amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution itself that would exempt them from being changed if that change had enough support.

The "inalienable rights" discussed in the DOI and by Locke (from whom the writers of the DOI cribbed the idea) were general philosophical principals. The Constitution had a different purpose than the DOI, it was meant to be a practical document setting forth the means to run a government. It is more of a contract saying "The government shall never take these rights away" than a statement of any sort of philosophical principals. In short, Inalienable rights were generalities and the rights enumerated by the constitution are specifics, aimed at acheiving those gerneralities perhaps, but not necessarily ianlienable rights themselves.

This is not inconsistant with the idea that we have pre-existing rights, my earlier post about how we have all rights by default and we agree to let our society take away certain ones in order to have an orderly society is not my own, it is how I have always understood the concept of 'natural law'. This does not mean that anything in the constitution is an inalienable right, though. Merely that the founders felt that taking away certain rights (i.e. Freedom of speech) was a really, really bad idea.

 

[shanek]

Oh, I don't doubt you believe this. But if, historically, the only entities violating one's rights are human (either individually or collectively), does not that imply that functionally speaking, these rights exist at the behest of humans?

I have the right to bear arms as an extension of my right to life; meaning, I have a right to defend that life from all threats. Are humans the only threat to the right of life? I think not. Aside from what other animals might see fit to attack me against which a firearm would prove useful, there are arms of other sorts against other threats. I have the right to use whatever medicines I can obtain in my fight against a disease that would take my life. I have the right to smoke detectors and fire extinguishers to protect me from fire. All of these things I can apply forceful defense against because they all threaten my rights.

This is the demarcation point. If freedom is the absence of force, then the only force that is legitimate with regards to human rights is force that is applied against force that is initiated against me. For all sorts of things can threaten my rights, and I can defend myself against any and all of them. But it is only the case in defending myself against humans that I may be called upon to justify it, as that is a necessary protection of rights to make sure that I have acted in appropriate defense and not taken the rights of others unjustly.

Tell me when god or nature has taken back these rights

Why? Do you expect they might rescind the law of gravity as well?

 

[shanek]

We'll have to agre to disagree than because every single one of those rights is subject to amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution itself that would exempt them from being changed if that change had enough support.

Which is why they made the Constitution so hard to amend. But understand that even if it were not for these amendments, these rights would still exist and still be protected by the Constitution. To think otherwise is to fall into the trap Alexander Hamilton warned us about in Federalist #84.

In short, Inalienable rights were generalities and the rights enumerated by the constitution are specifics,

The Constitution enumerates (and in some cases restricts, although restrictions should not be seen as otherwise implied powers) powers of government, not rights.

 

[Mercutio]

Why? Do you expect they might rescind the law of gravity as well?

So what, then, is the difference between "living" and "having the right to life"? Aren't you being a bit circular? You live because none have taken the right to life from you, which you know because you are alive?

I have the right to bear arms as an extension of my right to life; meaning, I have a right to defend that life from all threats.

You may, as many of us may, bear arms and defend your life. What does it mean that you "have the right" to do this? It seems to add nothing to the equation, as people may deprive you of both gun and life, with or without your "right". What practical use is this "right"?

Understand, please, that I am not intending to argue just for the sake of arguing, nor have I a political position on this; I am genuinely curious about this concept of "rights", which seems to me to be ill-defined.

 

[shanek]

So what, then, is the difference between "living" and "having the right to life"?

It's exactly what I said: having the right to life means that I get to use force to defend my life, or to contract others to do it for me.

What practical use is this "right"?

I'd say being able to stop people from killing me is a practical use...

 

[Mercutio]

It's exactly what I said: having the right to life means that I get to use force to defend my life, or to contract others to do it for me.

I'd say being able to stop people from killing me is a practical use...

Yes, self-protection is practical...a circularly defined "right" neither adds nor subtracts from your ability to do that.

 

[shanek]

Yes, self-protection is practical...a circularly defined "right" neither adds nor subtracts from your ability to do that.

Except that without such a right, one of two things could take place:

1) People could use force to prevent me from properly defending my life; and/or
2) People could use force against me for whatever reason they wish.

Rights would only be meaningless and circular in a world without force, and that's the element of this you keep ignoring. If we lived in such a world, we would truly be free. We don't live in that world, though, so the only way we can be free is if we had the authority to use force to protect and defend our rights, but for no other purpose.

 

[CFLarsen]

Clause I've lost you. I don't see how you can argue that a single instance of the word God in the Declaration of Independance translates into some sort of refutation of the current US government as being God based when that governement is based upon an entirely seperate document written 11 years later and containing NO reference to God or religion beyond spelling out the doctrine that the government shall not establish or prohibit religion.

If I am misunderstanding you, please explain.

Claus.

If these rights are endowed the people by a divine creator, then those skeptics who agree with that, have a major problem. Because I cannot see how they can refuse e.g. Creationist demands.

The claim that rights are natural laws is just silly.

 

[CFLarsen]

The same premise was in play when the DOI and the Constitution were written regarding our rights. We are endowed with certain unalienable rights. Claus is hung up on the "from where?" part in the belief that will negate their unalienability.

Nope. But I am questioning the skepticism of those who claim they come from god or are natural laws.

edited to add: Since our right to bear arms is not negated by the meaning of "militia" in modern times

That is not entirely correct...

 

[CFLarsen]

Don't sell the Danes short... at least 3,900 died fighting in WWII. Here's a little pic that proves it!

You may have noticed the funny hats and uniforms they wore, this was the "Freikorps Danmark", and they were volunteers in the German army.

They didn't believe in "Natural Rights" either.

Although there indeed were Danish soldiers who fought on the German side, it is very wrong to generalize this way. Read up on Danish history during WW2.

 

[CFLarsen]

Sorry, I couldn't resist. But it is an illustration of the extreme limits you can reach if it is believed that rights come only from a government, and thus can be arbitrarily taken away by that government as is seen fit. Even in a democracy.

Excuse me, but who has been arguing that rights only come from a government?