|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 23 2013 04:52 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 04:09 Melliflue wrote:On May 23 2013 03:58 micronesia wrote:On May 23 2013 03:53 Melliflue wrote:
The 'use' of alcohol is enjoyment. People enjoy it and it helps them relax. Personally though I'm teetotal and think it would be great if people didn't drink to excess or drink & drive etc but they do. Making alcohol illegal though would probably make things worse because people would just break the law and so organised crime would get a new revenue stream. So for me, ideally people would be allowed to drink because nobody would abuse it. Pragmatically making alcohol illegal has a bigger negative effect. (This is debatable but it is a side topic, and I'm just trying to illustrate the difference between arguments based in idealism and arguments based in pragmatism).
My attitude towards guns is quite similar. It would be wonderful if everyone could own a gun and nobody ever misused a gun, but that's not how the world is. So pragmatism should take over and restrict access to guns. That's how I end up with the question of whether the value guns contribute outweighs the harm done. It's a pragmatic approach. You pointed out the problems with restricting alcohol (see 1920s USA) but pointedly ignored the problems with further restricting guns. You can't have it both ways! That's not to say all new gun restrictions would be bad, but there would be some similarities at least between the prohibition and hypothetical increased gun bans. History has shown laws of prohibition are not a good way to change culture. Fair point. For some reason I was thinking that people wouldn't be so keen to get guns if they were made illegal that they would resort to buying guns illegally. There would be some people but I assumed it wouldn't be as bad as alcohol prohibition (or illegal drugs now). I am not aware of any studies into this though. There are examples from history of what happens with making alcohol/drugs legal or illegal but I cannot think of a country (with a gun culture) that tried to ban guns. In general I agree with the idea that prohibition laws are not a good way to change culture. Um...the Colonies? Lexington and Concord? Any gun prohibition / confiscation would be met as it was then, with defensive force. This is why the Government tries myriad ways to disarm the population without making their intentions in your face. Case in point; the extreme proliferation of new felony laws (esp. 'drugs') which bar such people from owning a weapon. In fact, there are so many felony laws that the case has been made that the average American commits 3 felonies a day.
I think there is a difference between the US government trying to ban people in the US from having guns and England trying to ban people in the US from having guns, so I don't think those serve as true examples of what would happen if the US banned guns now.
Also, if there is demand, supply will be meet such demand. Criminals will always demand such weapons to make their criminality easier, especially when the population writ large (99.9% of population are peaceful folk) has been disarmed by the oh-so-benevolent Government.
If you were using a gun for illegal activities would you still buy the gun legally? I would want it to be hard as possible to trace back to me. I suspect that few people buy a gun legally with the intent to use it to do illegal things, so I don't see why the demand from criminals for illegal guns would go up if all guns became illegal.
Anyways, this misses the entire point - Individuals have the RIGHT to defend their liberties, their property, and their community without having to ask permission from some 'authority' esp. Government.
This is definitely going over ground already seen in this thread, but where does this 'RIGHT' come from?
I think its crystal clear that if anyone should be disarmed, it should be the Government. I notice no one bats an eye when the Obama Drone Program kills hundreds of innocents weekly overseas...out of sight out of mind, right?
I thought the drone program was quite big news. How many people (particularly in the US) are not aware of it?
On May 23 2013 12:39 KwarK wrote:+ Show Spoiler [to save space] +An amusing thought just occurred to be. Legally required commercial gun insurance the exact same way you need car insurance. Shoot up a mall? Don't worry, he paid his premiums and actuaries calculated the exact probability that someone of his background would do it along with his expected bodycount, it'll pay out the medical bills and the victims. Accidentally shoot yourself in the dick, don't worry, it happens, we'll cover the medical bills. Used in a robbery, they'll refund the money lost.
If you're completely uninsurable then you probably shouldn't have a legal firearm. The government aren't making a government registry, nor are they setting the premium prices so there's no "they're out to get you" element of it. The premiums are directly tied to your statistical likelihood of causing damage with a gun so you can't price gun owners out of the market based on ideology, if you charge too much another gun insurance company will undercut you and steal all your clients. Likewise a company offering cheap policies for ideological reasons would run out of money and go bankrupt if they were giving people gun insurance who shouldn't have guns. If you use your gun safely, keep it away from your children and in good working order then your premiums will be fuck all, especially after years of no claims. If you're using your gun stupidly, well, you still have the right to a gun but you might not be able to afford to actually use that right which is America's favourite kind of right to give people.
Also massively incentivises gun registration and so forth because who used the gun to do what is worth money to these people but the same people have no desire to take your guns away from you, your guns are good business. Also places the social cost of gun ownership on the gun owners. It's a silly idea but amusing.
That is both genius and utterly devious.
EDIT:On May 23 2013 08:46 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 07:20 stuneedsfood wrote:
EDIT: Personally, I think its intuitive that increased access to guns will lead to increased suicide rates. It's much easier to pull a trigger than jump off a building, swallow pills and wait, or cut your wrists. It's also much more likely to kill you successfully. I'm surprised that this is even an issue that warrants research. It's intuitively easier to stab yourself with a knife than any other form of suicide. You also have access to a knife much, much more often than a firearm.
I've tried to explain why I disagree with this statement already, but I'll try again. Stabbing yourself is not an easy thing to do. Your arms are not built for thrusting things towards yourself so it is not all that easy to stab yourself. Holding a gun to your own head and pulling a trigger is physically easier to do. And I imagine the fear of pain is much bigger with self-stabbing than self-shooting. Stabbing yourself is probably a slower and more painful way to die.
So why do you think stabbing yourself is easier than shooting yourself?
|
On May 23 2013 15:43 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 15:23 kmillz wrote:On May 23 2013 14:38 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 23 2013 14:33 kmillz wrote:On May 23 2013 14:09 FallDownMarigold wrote:
People with small arms don't have any more power than people without small arms when confronted by a modern military such as the US military.
-Antonin Scalia By this logic the Vietnam should have been an equally difficult war had the Vietnamese been unarmed. If in your world of logic NVA soldiers + military arsenal = US civilian + small arms and if 1960s US military = modern US military then ya sure, you got me  You're saying/implying that unarmed civilians would be just as strong against the U.S. military as armed citizens against the U.S. military. Modernized weaponry doesn't change the fact that that is untrue. So it boils down to your opinion vs. Scalia's. That's fine
Ok? So you have nothing to back-up his quote besides "he disagrees with you".
|
On May 23 2013 14:02 Wegandi wrote:
In any event, the fact remains, human beings have the right to defend themselves, their property, and their community and an institution calling itself Government and/or philosophy calling itself majoritarianism (Democracy), has no authority to revoke such right. The Lieges and Lords loved when the peasants were unarmed - they make the best serfs and slaves (obedient, no threat, etc.). The people should have power (liberty) not the Government/State.
Human beings have no rights whatsoever.
The rights that human beings DO have in a society are those that are provided and guaranteed by the institutions human beings develop themselves to govern their own society. These institutions are given the authority and power to be able to carry out their duties and fulfill their purpose.
Government and its institutions are there because human beings put them there, and human beings put them there so that they can have things like human rights, laws, and overall structure to their society. As an individual, you have none of these things, as they are not inherent to our species, nor are they guaranteed by natural laws.
|
On May 23 2013 22:01 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 14:02 Wegandi wrote:
In any event, the fact remains, human beings have the right to defend themselves, their property, and their community and an institution calling itself Government and/or philosophy calling itself majoritarianism (Democracy), has no authority to revoke such right. The Lieges and Lords loved when the peasants were unarmed - they make the best serfs and slaves (obedient, no threat, etc.). The people should have power (liberty) not the Government/State. Human beings have no rights whatsoever. The rights that human beings DO have in a society are those that are provided and guaranteed by the institutions human beings develop themselves to govern their own society. These institutions are given the authority and power to be able to carry out their duties and fulfill their purpose. Government and its institutions are there because human beings put them there, and human beings put them there so that they can have things like human rights, laws, and overall structure to their society. As an individual, you have none of these things, as they are not inherent to our species, nor are they guaranteed by natural laws.
Everyone gets pissy when I say the same thing, but you're pretty much right.
Rights don't exist outside of the legal institutions that provide them to us.
|
On May 23 2013 22:08 WTFZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:01 Talin wrote:On May 23 2013 14:02 Wegandi wrote:
In any event, the fact remains, human beings have the right to defend themselves, their property, and their community and an institution calling itself Government and/or philosophy calling itself majoritarianism (Democracy), has no authority to revoke such right. The Lieges and Lords loved when the peasants were unarmed - they make the best serfs and slaves (obedient, no threat, etc.). The people should have power (liberty) not the Government/State. Human beings have no rights whatsoever. The rights that human beings DO have in a society are those that are provided and guaranteed by the institutions human beings develop themselves to govern their own society. These institutions are given the authority and power to be able to carry out their duties and fulfill their purpose. Government and its institutions are there because human beings put them there, and human beings put them there so that they can have things like human rights, laws, and overall structure to their society. As an individual, you have none of these things, as they are not inherent to our species, nor are they guaranteed by natural laws. Everyone gets pissy when I say the same thing, but you're pretty much right. Rights don't exist outside of the legal institutions that provide them to us.
The line in the U.S. Constitution about "certain inalienable rights" "endowed by our Creator" disagrees with you. It makes the explicit point that the government does not bestow these rights, and does not have the authority to take them away. Whether you believe in God or not, the point is that rights are not provided to Citizens by the Government.
|
On May 23 2013 22:16 Kaitlin wrote:
The line in the U.S. Constitution about "certain inalienable rights" "endowed by our Creator" disagrees with you. It makes the explicit point that the government does not bestow these rights, and does not have the authority to take them away. Whether you believe in God or not, the point is that rights are not provided to Citizens by the Government.
The reality is that rights are provided by the Government.
If you write something that's wrong, and it persists for a few hundred years, that doesn't make it any less wrong. And by wrong I mean factually incorrect.
|
On May 23 2013 22:21 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:16 Kaitlin wrote:
The line in the U.S. Constitution about "certain inalienable rights" "endowed by our Creator" disagrees with you. It makes the explicit point that the government does not bestow these rights, and does not have the authority to take them away. Whether you believe in God or not, the point is that rights are not provided to Citizens by the Government. The reality is that rights are provided by the Government.
Maybe in your country, but not the U.S.
|
On May 23 2013 22:24 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:21 Talin wrote:On May 23 2013 22:16 Kaitlin wrote:
The line in the U.S. Constitution about "certain inalienable rights" "endowed by our Creator" disagrees with you. It makes the explicit point that the government does not bestow these rights, and does not have the authority to take them away. Whether you believe in God or not, the point is that rights are not provided to Citizens by the Government. The reality is that rights are provided by the Government. Maybe in your country, but not the U.S.
In any country.
Constitutions cannot override reality.
|
On May 23 2013 22:21 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:16 Kaitlin wrote:
The line in the U.S. Constitution about "certain inalienable rights" "endowed by our Creator" disagrees with you. It makes the explicit point that the government does not bestow these rights, and does not have the authority to take them away. Whether you believe in God or not, the point is that rights are not provided to Citizens by the Government. The reality is that rights are provided by the Government. If you write something that's wrong, and it persists for a few hundred years, that doesn't make it any less wrong. And by wrong I mean factually incorrect.
The reality is that all men are created equal and there are certain things that we understand to be natural rights. The Constitution doesn't make them our "right", our existence makes them our "right". Our existence is why we have the constitution, not the other way around. I'm an atheist but I still believe that we all are born with certain rights and that we are all equal.
|
On May 23 2013 22:16 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:08 WTFZerg wrote:On May 23 2013 22:01 Talin wrote:On May 23 2013 14:02 Wegandi wrote:
In any event, the fact remains, human beings have the right to defend themselves, their property, and their community and an institution calling itself Government and/or philosophy calling itself majoritarianism (Democracy), has no authority to revoke such right. The Lieges and Lords loved when the peasants were unarmed - they make the best serfs and slaves (obedient, no threat, etc.). The people should have power (liberty) not the Government/State. Human beings have no rights whatsoever. The rights that human beings DO have in a society are those that are provided and guaranteed by the institutions human beings develop themselves to govern their own society. These institutions are given the authority and power to be able to carry out their duties and fulfill their purpose. Government and its institutions are there because human beings put them there, and human beings put them there so that they can have things like human rights, laws, and overall structure to their society. As an individual, you have none of these things, as they are not inherent to our species, nor are they guaranteed by natural laws. Everyone gets pissy when I say the same thing, but you're pretty much right. Rights don't exist outside of the legal institutions that provide them to us. The line in the U.S. Constitution about "certain inalienable rights" "endowed by our Creator" disagrees with you. It makes the explicit point that the government does not bestow these rights, and does not have the authority to take them away. Whether you believe in God or not, the point is that rights are not provided to Citizens by the Government.
I thought that was from the Declaration of Independence and not the constitution. Anyway, what is a 'certain inalienable right' for one person may not be a 'certain inalienable right' for another. What are 'certain inalienable rights' is not well-defined. The word "right" in this sense gets thrown around a lot but it is not well-defined. If people disagree about if something should be a right or not then how is it decided? Saying you have a right to something is meaningless if nobody else agrees that you have that right.
And if you want to convince other people that you have the right to do something you need a better argument than telling them you have a right to it.
|
On May 23 2013 22:24 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:24 Kaitlin wrote:On May 23 2013 22:21 Talin wrote:On May 23 2013 22:16 Kaitlin wrote:
The line in the U.S. Constitution about "certain inalienable rights" "endowed by our Creator" disagrees with you. It makes the explicit point that the government does not bestow these rights, and does not have the authority to take them away. Whether you believe in God or not, the point is that rights are not provided to Citizens by the Government. The reality is that rights are provided by the Government. Maybe in your country, but not the U.S. In any country. Constitutions cannot override reality.
In such a short time, I've already learned that you've never been wrong in your life. No point in continuing.
|
On May 23 2013 22:34 Melliflue wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:16 Kaitlin wrote:On May 23 2013 22:08 WTFZerg wrote:On May 23 2013 22:01 Talin wrote:On May 23 2013 14:02 Wegandi wrote:
In any event, the fact remains, human beings have the right to defend themselves, their property, and their community and an institution calling itself Government and/or philosophy calling itself majoritarianism (Democracy), has no authority to revoke such right. The Lieges and Lords loved when the peasants were unarmed - they make the best serfs and slaves (obedient, no threat, etc.). The people should have power (liberty) not the Government/State. Human beings have no rights whatsoever. The rights that human beings DO have in a society are those that are provided and guaranteed by the institutions human beings develop themselves to govern their own society. These institutions are given the authority and power to be able to carry out their duties and fulfill their purpose. Government and its institutions are there because human beings put them there, and human beings put them there so that they can have things like human rights, laws, and overall structure to their society. As an individual, you have none of these things, as they are not inherent to our species, nor are they guaranteed by natural laws. Everyone gets pissy when I say the same thing, but you're pretty much right. Rights don't exist outside of the legal institutions that provide them to us. The line in the U.S. Constitution about "certain inalienable rights" "endowed by our Creator" disagrees with you. It makes the explicit point that the government does not bestow these rights, and does not have the authority to take them away. Whether you believe in God or not, the point is that rights are not provided to Citizens by the Government. I thought that was from the Declaration of Independence and not the constitution. Anyway, what is a 'certain inalienable right' for one person may not be a 'certain inalienable right' for another. What are 'certain inalienable rights' is not well-defined. The word "right" in this sense gets thrown around a lot but it is not well-defined. If people disagree about if something should be a right or not then how is it decided? Saying you have a right to something is meaningless if nobody else agrees that you have that right. And if you want to convince other people that you have the right to do something you need a better argument than telling them you have a right to it.
Yep, you're right. It's the Declaration of Independence.
|
On May 23 2013 22:27 kmillz wrote:
The reality is that all men are created equal and there are certain things that we understand to be natural rights. The Constitution doesn't make them our "right", our existence makes them our "right". Our existence is why we have the constitution, not the other way around. I'm an atheist but I still believe that we all are born with certain rights and that we are all equal.
I believe that you believe that.
However, without government and the institutions, the existence of your rights depends not on what you believe, but on what the people around you choose to believe - whether it's the same thing you believe, something slightly different, or something drastically different. I'm sure you can find examples in your own country of people who believe some things should be considered human rights (healthcare, water, food?), people who believe some things shouldn't (education, etc), and people with rather extreme views on either end of the spectrum.
Without social institutions that codify these beliefs and make (force) them to be universal, and ensure punishment for those that break them, they're not what we know today as rights. They're just personal beliefs.
In other words, it is not a right if it can be broken at will by somebody stronger than yourself looking out for their own beliefs (or interests). Your birth or creation or existence doesn't provide you with means to prevent this, therefore your rights are also not something you're awarded at birth - but rather something that the society you're born in provides to you.
Depending on which society you are born into, you might even have different rights entirely! In some of them, people are not considered to be born equal. In others, even internet access is a fundamental human right. Their societies will uphold these rights no matter what select individuals within them choose to believe.
|
United States42008 Posts
On May 23 2013 22:24 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:21 Talin wrote:On May 23 2013 22:16 Kaitlin wrote:
The line in the U.S. Constitution about "certain inalienable rights" "endowed by our Creator" disagrees with you. It makes the explicit point that the government does not bestow these rights, and does not have the authority to take them away. Whether you believe in God or not, the point is that rights are not provided to Citizens by the Government. The reality is that rights are provided by the Government. Maybe in your country, but not the U.S.
That's not how geography or humanity works. Either humans are born with inalienable rights or they're not. They're not born with inalienable rights within an area designated by the US government, if they are born with rights only in the area designated by the US government then the rights are being provided by the US government.
|
On May 23 2013 22:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:24 Kaitlin wrote:On May 23 2013 22:21 Talin wrote:On May 23 2013 22:16 Kaitlin wrote:
The line in the U.S. Constitution about "certain inalienable rights" "endowed by our Creator" disagrees with you. It makes the explicit point that the government does not bestow these rights, and does not have the authority to take them away. Whether you believe in God or not, the point is that rights are not provided to Citizens by the Government. The reality is that rights are provided by the Government. Maybe in your country, but not the U.S. That's not how geography or humanity works. Either humans are born with inalienable rights or they're not. They're not born with inalienable rights within an area designated by the US government, if they are born with rights only in the area designated by the US government then the rights are being provided by the US government.
The rights are not provided by the U.S. Government, however the U.S. Government is obligated to defend those rights on behalf of its citizens. Rights provided by a government can be taken away by that government. "Inalienable" means they cannot be taken away. "Endowed by their Creator" means these rights came from a higher power than Government. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are rights not provided by the Government, although the Government is obligated to defend these rights of its citizens.
|
On May 23 2013 23:39 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 22:53 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 22:24 Kaitlin wrote:On May 23 2013 22:21 Talin wrote:On May 23 2013 22:16 Kaitlin wrote:
The line in the U.S. Constitution about "certain inalienable rights" "endowed by our Creator" disagrees with you. It makes the explicit point that the government does not bestow these rights, and does not have the authority to take them away. Whether you believe in God or not, the point is that rights are not provided to Citizens by the Government. The reality is that rights are provided by the Government. Maybe in your country, but not the U.S. That's not how geography or humanity works. Either humans are born with inalienable rights or they're not. They're not born with inalienable rights within an area designated by the US government, if they are born with rights only in the area designated by the US government then the rights are being provided by the US government. The rights are not provided by the U.S. Government, however the U.S. Government is obligated to defend those rights on behalf of its citizens. Rights provided by a government can be taken away by that government. "Inalienable" means they cannot be taken away. "Endowed by their Creator" means these rights came from a higher power than Government. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are rights not provided by the Government, although the Government is obligated to defend these rights of its citizens.
No, the rights are provided by the government. Without the government, you do not have those rights. The government can also take away those rights. Death penalty, prison, and prison come to mind.
No 'higher power' is going to come in and give ya some goddamn rights.
Ain't nobody got time for that.
|
On May 23 2013 23:42 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 23:39 Kaitlin wrote:On May 23 2013 22:53 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 22:24 Kaitlin wrote:On May 23 2013 22:21 Talin wrote:On May 23 2013 22:16 Kaitlin wrote:
The line in the U.S. Constitution about "certain inalienable rights" "endowed by our Creator" disagrees with you. It makes the explicit point that the government does not bestow these rights, and does not have the authority to take them away. Whether you believe in God or not, the point is that rights are not provided to Citizens by the Government. The reality is that rights are provided by the Government. Maybe in your country, but not the U.S. That's not how geography or humanity works. Either humans are born with inalienable rights or they're not. They're not born with inalienable rights within an area designated by the US government, if they are born with rights only in the area designated by the US government then the rights are being provided by the US government. The rights are not provided by the U.S. Government, however the U.S. Government is obligated to defend those rights on behalf of its citizens. Rights provided by a government can be taken away by that government. "Inalienable" means they cannot be taken away. "Endowed by their Creator" means these rights came from a higher power than Government. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are rights not provided by the Government, although the Government is obligated to defend these rights of its citizens. No, the rights are provided by the government. Without the government, you do not have those rights. The government can also take away those rights. Death penalty, prison, and prison come to mind. No 'higher power' is going to come in and give ya some goddamn rights. Ain't nobody got time for that.
Lol death pentalty, prison, and prison.
The reason the government has the power to take away those rights is because an individual could threaten another individuals rights. Such as a murderer. They have already deprived somebody of their right to life, therefore, they are a threat to kill more people. In this regard we have to decide if we are going to protect the criminals rights or his potential victims rights. I think we make the right decision in putting his victims before him and keep him from doing it again. This isn't depriving people of their rights, this is protecting innocent people from getting their rights deprived from a criminal.
|
On May 23 2013 23:39 Kaitlin wrote:
The rights are not provided by the U.S. Government, however the U.S. Government is obligated to defend those rights on behalf of its citizens. Rights provided by a government can be taken away by that government. "Inalienable" means they cannot be taken away. "Endowed by their Creator" means these rights came from a higher power than Government. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are rights not provided by the Government, although the Government is obligated to defend these rights of its citizens.
Without strong institutions upholding these rights, they effectively do not exist. The rights become a matter of subjective opinion that other people do not necessarily need to recognize and/or respect.
No higher power other than the Government is going to intervene and ensure that human rights are being upheld. Even in the cases where the Governments fail in performing this role, the societies can only react by electing or forming a different one to perform the role better.
There isn't even a theoretical society where a concept such as human rights can exist without an established form of government dictating what they are, what the general extents of them are, and making sure everyone follows it.
Grandiose statements written centuries ago are nothing more than historical notes without institutions (backed by people) choosing to uphold them to present day, no higher power involved.
|
People keep bringing up that it's obvious that mentally ill people should not own guns. This sounds intuitive at face value when it's not. How do you expect background checks to find out if someone is mentally ill? I would imagine that in most cases only the psychiatrist the person is seeing will know unless they are diagnosed with a disorder. So to get that kind of information from them would be breaking the doctor patient confidentiality. That sacrifice is not worth the benefits from my perspective.
|
On May 24 2013 00:08 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 23:42 Jormundr wrote:On May 23 2013 23:39 Kaitlin wrote:On May 23 2013 22:53 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 22:24 Kaitlin wrote:On May 23 2013 22:21 Talin wrote:On May 23 2013 22:16 Kaitlin wrote:
The line in the U.S. Constitution about "certain inalienable rights" "endowed by our Creator" disagrees with you. It makes the explicit point that the government does not bestow these rights, and does not have the authority to take them away. Whether you believe in God or not, the point is that rights are not provided to Citizens by the Government. The reality is that rights are provided by the Government. Maybe in your country, but not the U.S. That's not how geography or humanity works. Either humans are born with inalienable rights or they're not. They're not born with inalienable rights within an area designated by the US government, if they are born with rights only in the area designated by the US government then the rights are being provided by the US government. The rights are not provided by the U.S. Government, however the U.S. Government is obligated to defend those rights on behalf of its citizens. Rights provided by a government can be taken away by that government. "Inalienable" means they cannot be taken away. "Endowed by their Creator" means these rights came from a higher power than Government. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are rights not provided by the Government, although the Government is obligated to defend these rights of its citizens. No, the rights are provided by the government. Without the government, you do not have those rights. The government can also take away those rights. Death penalty, prison, and prison come to mind. No 'higher power' is going to come in and give ya some goddamn rights. Ain't nobody got time for that. Lol death pentalty, prison, and prison. The reason the government has the power to take away those rights is because an individual could threaten another individuals rights. Such as a murderer. They have already deprived somebody of their right to life, therefore, they are a threat to kill more people. In this regard we have to decide if we are going to protect the criminals rights or his potential victims rights. I think we make the right decision in putting his victims before him and keep him from doing it again. This isn't depriving people of their rights, this is protecting innocent people from getting their rights deprived from a criminal.
The rights aren't inalienable? But I thought you just said they were natural rights given by a higher power?
Reality check: There is no such thing. It's a nice philosophical ideal, and a goal of morality, but it only exists in theory. Your government gave you those rights and they can take those rights away VERY quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
