| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Peter Franks
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:58 am Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
 |
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:55:21 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
You may not be able to see a difference between what you and I wrote --
but there is a difference, a very real difference.
Well, slowy, but surely, most everyone is figuring out
that what you conclude is somewhere in lala land.
|
Whatever.
At least I'm trying; I have no idea what you pretend to do in this
forum. I have a couple of ideas, none of them are positive... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:59 am Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:56:44 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
An unconstitutional law is not legitimate.
So, then how did Jim Crow laws get enacted?
|
Illegitimately, I presume.
Is this hard to understand? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:13 am Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:55:21 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
You may not be able to see a difference between what you and I wrote --
but there is a difference, a very real difference.
Well, slowy, but surely, most everyone is figuring out
that what you conclude is somewhere in lala land.
|
Whatever.
At least I'm trying; I have no idea what you pretend to do in this forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:41 am Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:58:30 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:55:21 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
You may not be able to see a difference between what you and I wrote --
but there is a difference, a very real difference.
Well, slowy, but surely, most everyone is figuring out
that what you conclude is somewhere in lala land.
Whatever.
At least I'm trying; I have no idea what you pretend to do in this
forum. I have a couple of ideas, none of them are positive...
|
I would have thought you'd have picked up on the fact
that when someone starts these endless, nonsensical,
boring endeavors---that someone would come along and
point that out to you.
If you want to discuss/debate, or argue about
"Rights"----then state your warrant, produce your
evidence, then defend it.
You set up silly scenarios that have no basis in
reality---then demand someone come along and disprove
you.
Silly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:41 am Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:59:49 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:56:44 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
An unconstitutional law is not legitimate.
So, then how did Jim Crow laws get enacted?
Illegitimately, I presume.
|
Well, they were not
They lasted nearly a century. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:43 am Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:27:32 GMT, "JC"
<dontbother@imouttatown.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:62jp74p5kjvagqp3r4d0id0qjgsdfc6utn@4ax.com...
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:16:42 GMT, "JC"
dontbother@imouttatown.net> wrote:
Therefore, in your scenario, the bailouts are not legitimate, regardless
of their 'legislative' status.
But nobody seems to care whether laws are legitimate anymore.
Nobody seems to want to admit that what they consider
"illegitimate" is nothing more than them not getting
their way.
We are all at fault for allowing a government by the people to become
subjects of the government.
|
Well, again we do not
In order to defend that claim/statement---you must
provide some evidence that the government is acting
outside the bounds of the rule of law that it must
follow.
Most of the time, the real claim (or opinion) turns out
to be just adverse policy that you don't like. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:39 am Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:58:30 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:55:21 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
You may not be able to see a difference between what you and I wrote --
but there is a difference, a very real difference.
Well, slowy, but surely, most everyone is figuring out
that what you conclude is somewhere in lala land.
Whatever.
At least I'm trying; I have no idea what you pretend to do in this
forum. I have a couple of ideas, none of them are positive...
I would have thought you'd have picked up on the fact
that when someone starts these endless, nonsensical,
boring endeavors---that someone would come along and
point that out to you.
If you want to discuss/debate, or argue about
"Rights"----then state your warrant, produce your
evidence, then defend it.
You set up silly scenarios that have no basis in
reality---then demand someone come along and disprove
you.
Silly.
|
And yet you keep coming around and responding to my posts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:41 am Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:59:49 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:56:44 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
An unconstitutional law is not legitimate.
So, then how did Jim Crow laws get enacted?
Illegitimately, I presume.
Well, they were not
|
Well, thy were
| Quote: |
They lasted nearly a century.
|
They could have lasted a million millennia -- it doesn't matter.
Illegitimacy isn't legitimized by the passage of time. Illegitimate on
day one, illegitimate forever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
ZerkonX
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:25 pm Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:27:32 +0000, JC wrote:
| Quote: |
We are all at fault for allowing a government by the people to become
subjects of the government.
|
I believe this is due in no small part because of the issue raised in
this thread.
The concept of 'inalienable right' has been lost as a philosophical basis
because 'philosophy' or principles are not considered to be part of the
'real world'. This has led to the belief that since government can remove
rights through law, government then actually gives or permits rights.
The idea explored here is that human right is untouchable by government.
Granted it is difficult to even conceptualize rights apart from social
action. The 'right' as being separate from the 'right to...'. The first
being an ideal which forces a belief in the nature of every human being,
the second, the traditional tangible of 'how one behaves' that any type
of government, monarchy to communist, concerns itself.
However, I think this distinction has value. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
JC
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:27 pm Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
<Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:ifkq74t1mr7jq992u38ms7e88gq77p0deq@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:27:32 GMT, "JC"
dontbother@imouttatown.net> wrote:
Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:62jp74p5kjvagqp3r4d0id0qjgsdfc6utn@4ax.com...
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:16:42 GMT, "JC"
dontbother@imouttatown.net> wrote:
Therefore, in your scenario, the bailouts are not legitimate,
regardless
of their 'legislative' status.
But nobody seems to care whether laws are legitimate anymore.
Nobody seems to want to admit that what they consider
"illegitimate" is nothing more than them not getting
their way.
We are all at fault for allowing a government by the people to become
subjects of the government.
Well, again we do not
In order to defend that claim/statement---you must
provide some evidence that the government is acting
outside the bounds of the rule of law that it must
follow.
Most of the time, the real claim (or opinion) turns out
to be just adverse policy that you don't like.
|
Oh, I like it that the government can spy on me, don't you? It's probably
very rare that the government acts outside the bounds of the rule of law
that it must follow. It just makes laws to cover themselves in those
instances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
JC
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:30 pm Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
"ZerkonX" <Z@X.net> wrote in message news:pan.2008.07.16.11.25.10@X.net...
| Quote: |
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:27:32 +0000, JC wrote:
We are all at fault for allowing a government by the people to become
subjects of the government.
I believe this is due in no small part because of the issue raised in
this thread.
The concept of 'inalienable right' has been lost as a philosophical basis
because 'philosophy' or principles are not considered to be part of the
'real world'. This has led to the belief that since government can remove
rights through law, government then actually gives or permits rights.
The idea explored here is that human right is untouchable by government.
Granted it is difficult to even conceptualize rights apart from social
action. The 'right' as being separate from the 'right to...'. The first
being an ideal which forces a belief in the nature of every human being,
the second, the traditional tangible of 'how one behaves' that any type
of government, monarchy to communist, concerns itself.
However, I think this distinction has value.
|
I've just finished reading (for the second time) "Commentaries on the
Constitution" by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, circa 1833. If you want
to know why things are so screwed up today, just read that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:53 pm Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:27:32 GMT, "JC"
<dontbother@imouttatown.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Most of the time, the real claim (or opinion) turns out
to be just adverse policy that you don't like.
Oh, I like it that the government can spy on me, don't you? It's probably
very rare that the government acts outside the bounds of the rule of law
that it must follow. It just makes laws to cover themselves in those
instances.
|
Your beef is with a Executive, not a government.
Government is directed by the politician in power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:54 pm Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:39:42 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
You set up silly scenarios that have no basis in
reality---then demand someone come along and disprove
you.
Silly.
And yet you keep coming around and responding to my posts.
|
Silence would be taken as tacit agreement with
silliness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:02 pm Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:25:04 +0000, ZerkonX <Z@X.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
The concept of 'inalienable right' has been lost as a philosophical basis
because 'philosophy' or principles are not considered to be part of the
'real world'.
|
But they are.
"Inalienable rights" are given by a (creator)---are not
given to someone else (ie, king, government) to
transfer or give you for some consideration. They are
a philosophical agreement in terms of meaning.
you do not have "absolute" rights---those which cannot
be altered or regulated by circumstances, government,
or other behavior.
You have an "inalienable right" to "life", "liberty"
and pursuing those things that make you happy---
You do not have an absolute right when pursuing them to
step outside the bounds of the restriction placed on
behavior or acts as laid down you the society, or the
government that is elected by it.
You forfeit those "inalienable rights" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:02 pm Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:25:04 +0000, ZerkonX <Z@X.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
The idea explored here is that human right is untouchable by government.
|
Human rights are "inalienable"---they are not absolute. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
137 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
