Poll: Inalienable Rights

[Frost]

Just wondering.

[The Annoyed Man]

I answered "Yes," because that is the premise upon which our rights are based - that they are natural, or God-given, depending upon your view of the Creator. We have it framed into our Constitution that the role of government is to protect those rights by guaranteeing them. That is why presidents and other elected officials are required - by the Constitution, no less - to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Now, the governments of most other nations do not begin with the assumption that their purpose is to protect man's natural or God-given rights. In fact, the more post-modern (read that "post-Christian") they are, the more they begin with the principle role of government is to grant rights, not to guarantee them, and that government may legitimately take those same rights away at their whim. That is why Europe is the way they are, compared to our own traditions. As we have become more and more "europeanized," our government behaves more and more as if rights are government granted, not government guaranteed. We have traditionally regarded ourselves as citizens, and not subjects, but that distinction is being blurred more and more every day.

[Captain Matt]

As we have become more and more "europeanized," our government behaves more and more as if rights are government granted, not government guaranteed. We have traditionally regarded ourselves as citizens, and not subjects, but that distinction is being blurred more and more every day.

Countries with a long history of monarchy or other autocracy lean toward the belief that the government grants rights. Maybe it's related to faith in the divine right of kings. That's very different than the belief that people are created equal and that legitimate governments rule with the consent of the governed.

[The Annoyed Man]

As we have become more and more "europeanized," our government behaves more and more as if rights are government granted, not government guaranteed. We have traditionally regarded ourselves as citizens, and not subjects, but that distinction is being blurred more and more every day.

Countries with a long history of monarchy or other autocracy lean toward the belief that the government grants rights. Maybe it's related to faith in the divine right of kings. That's very different than the belief that people are created equal and that legitimate governments rule with the consent of the governed.

I suspect that you are correct, and I almost wrote exactly that. The thing is, we've gotten used to a "ruling class," and two things have come out of that: 1) we are leaving the governing to them, instead of demanding accountability from them; and 2) they've gotten used to being the ruling class and have come to believe that they are entitled to it. They are, in effect, the new royalty.

So, lacking a demand for accountability on our parts, and lacking a sense of accountability to us on their parts, we no longer have a government which treats with us as citizens. Rather, government treats with us as subjects. That is how a guy like Obama can get elected.

[Purplehood]

As we have become more and more "europeanized," our government behaves more and more as if rights are government granted, not government guaranteed. We have traditionally regarded ourselves as citizens, and not subjects, but that distinction is being blurred more and more every day.

Countries with a long history of monarchy or other autocracy lean toward the belief that the government grants rights. Maybe it's related to faith in the divine right of kings. That's very different than the belief that people are created equal and that legitimate governments rule with the consent of the governed.

I suspect that you are correct, and I almost wrote exactly that. The thing is, we've gotten used to a "ruling class," and two things have come out of that: 1) we are leaving the governing to them, instead of demanding accountability from them; and 2) they've gotten used to being the ruling class and have come to believe that they are entitled to it. They are, in effect, the new royalty.

So, lacking a demand for accountability on our parts, and lacking a sense of accountability to us on their parts, we no longer have a government which treats with us as citizens. Rather, government treats with us as subjects. That is how a guy like Obama can get elected.

Made me think of Caroline Kennedy in the recent news...so true.

[anygunanywhere]

Inalienable - incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred.

Of course they do.

That is, until they commit atrocities against others of the human race, many who are innocent and violate other's inalienable rights. Thus, there are times when it is necessary to eliminate evil.

Since you are so committed to ensuring that you do not violate someone else's inalienable rights, don't kill someone in self defense. Our military and foreign services killing terrorists is taking action in our defense. That is their job.

Anygunanywhere

[longhorn_92]

As we have become more and more "europeanized," our government behaves more and more as if rights are government granted, not government guaranteed. We have traditionally regarded ourselves as citizens, and not subjects, but that distinction is being blurred more and more every day.

Countries with a long history of monarchy or other autocracy lean toward the belief that the government grants rights. Maybe it's related to faith in the divine right of kings. That's very different than the belief that people are created equal and that legitimate governments rule with the consent of the governed.

I suspect that you are correct, and I almost wrote exactly that. The thing is, we've gotten used to a "ruling class," and two things have come out of that: 1) we are leaving the governing to them, instead of demanding accountability from them; and 2) they've gotten used to being the ruling class and have come to believe that they are entitled to it. They are, in effect, the new royalty.

So, lacking a demand for accountability on our parts, and lacking a sense of accountability to us on their parts, we no longer have a government which treats with us as citizens. Rather, government treats with us as subjects. That is how a guy like Obama can get elected.

Right on. Preach it!

[The Annoyed Man]

Anygun, I don't think we disagree. Our founders had clear ideas about the necessity of being a moral people in order for everyone's rights to be properly observed, and protected. A "right to murder and terrorize" is not commonly accepted as part of the panoply of inalienable rights, consequently we have capital punishment. On the flip side of that, the pro-life/anti-abortion argument (of which I am a strong proponent) assumes that the rights of the innocent are to be preserved since they are unable to defend themselves. In other words, society assumes responsibility for protecting the rights of others in both cases. In the one case, society acts to protect the right to life of the majority from the depredations of terrorists. In the other case, society (should) act to protect the rights of its most defenseless members

...at least, that is how I see it.

[quidni]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

[cling]

Who wouldn't say that health is a basic human right?

Me. Doctors who can't cure terminal cancer aren't violating the patient's human rights.

Even if health is a human right, like freedom of the press, it doesn't mean the government has to pay for medical treatment any more than they have to pay for me to have an hour each week on CNN, or buy me a new full auto M4 and 50,000 rounds of ammo each year.

[Purplehood]

Who wouldn't say that health is a basic human right?

Me. Doctors who can't cure terminal cancer aren't violating the patient's human rights.

Even if health is a human right, like freedom of the press, it doesn't mean the government has to pay for medical treatment any more than they have to pay for me to have an hour each week on CNN, or buy me a new full auto M4 and 50,000 rounds of ammo each year.

You should definitely tell our legislature that then, as hospitals are required to accept patients regardless of their nationality or ability to pay.

I have no problem with accepting U.S. citizens who may have had a catastrophic accident, and helping them out if absolutely necessary, but Mexican or other non-U.S. citizens who are here illegally, I do.

At least you are specific in who you have problems with...

[Frost]

One reason is voting yes on this question would also say that humans have an inalienable right to health, which includes medical care.

I don't see how voting yes would indicate that at all. I did not mention any specific rights so that you can indicate, whatever rights you believe people have, that they have them regardless of nationality.