When political rhetoric become dangerous (Ricin laced letters)

[colourwheel]

 

Correct, but the purpose of law is to protect those basic natural rights and the rights derived from them. Legal rights are derived from natural rights, which we inherently possess but may be unable to protect without the aid of a government. When the law codifies a legal right it is not granting us something that did not exist before, rather it is attempting to offer protection against infringement of our rights to ensure that we continue to possess what we already had.

 

Then you agree, the right to bare arms was never an unalienable right...

 

Also you should note that "inalienable" and "unalienable" are different ...

 

Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.

 

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.

Edited June 11, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

Then you agree, the right to bare arms was never an unalienable right

I do not agree.

 

 

 

 

Also you should note that "inalienable" and "unalienable" are different ...

 

Wow, we're going to have a grammar critique now? I think that means that, according to the rules of the internet, I really have officially won the debate. Here we go.....

 

You should note that the definitions that you posted are nearly identical, aside from one being a single word definition and the other being a definition of a two word phrase that includes an alternate Anglicized spelling of the first word. One word uses the latin negative prefix "in-". The other uses an english negative prefix "un-". The founders used the Anglicized version in the Declaration of Independence because that was the more common spelling among English speaking literates at the time. The Latin prefixed version is more commonly used today.

Edited June 12, 2013 by TRoaches

[colourwheel]

 

I think that means that, according to the rules of the internet, I really have officially won the debate.

 

If you think so ;D ....But, I was taught in college, anyone who claim to have won a debate then has explain why, hasn't won anything.... ;D

Edited June 12, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

I should have known better than to try to insert a joke about "the rules of the internet" into that post.

 

The point was that you had resorted to a grammatical critique (and an erroneous one at that, a beautiful example of Muphry's Law), which indicates that you had perhaps given up on trying to make any sort of meaningful or coherent point.

Edited June 12, 2013 by TRoaches

[Lisnpuppy]

Some of these post are crazily off-topic and getting a bit too personal. Commenting on if someone reads something or what their level of understanding of something is really isn't necessary.

 

Some of you need to take a breather. Also other people are trying to participate in this thread and their post are by in large, being ignored. Play nice with everyone as it's not much fun to come here and play otherwise. I don't want to close down another debates thread but I will if need be.~Lisnpuppy

[Maharg67]

We already went over the fact that in the our legal system the government does not grant the citizens rights. The citizens are understood to inherently possess their rights, and the government is limited by its own laws in to the extent to which it may infringe upon them. Describing them as "god-given" is not a religious statement as much as a turn of phrase that means "inherent from birth". Even if the use of the word god in this context is a reference to religion there is no reason that an elected official or party cannot invoke their religious beliefs as a basis or justification for their agenda. They are free to do so as a part of their protected right to expression.

 

TRoaches, the reason that any government exists, in all of its forms, is to both grant the citizens rights, to enforce legal obligations but also to limit the power of government. Government has a pluralism in any healthier nation-state otherwise why separate bodies that can at times conflict with each other. In the USA there is the White House and the Congress. The odd contradiction in the American experience is that while the inheritent right of citizens is said to be automatic it also must, in reality, be protected by the government system to have any real existece. The intrinsic right of individuals is seen to be automatic and yet it only exists, in reality, when defined in relation to the government as an institution of authority.

 

There is no such thing as naturally occuring instrinsic rights of any individual. It has to be created artificially by a society and then enforced by that society in both boosting those rights and suppressing any form of threats to those rights.

 

In your legal system the early government did grant the citizens rights by first creating them though this process may be seen as just defining rights that already exist. The acting of 'defining' is in this case the same as that of 'creating' those rights in any practical sense.

 

I am not trying to be critical of the idea of instrinsic citizen rights. The creation of the American Bill of Rights was one of the greats achievements in political legal history. I am just saying that with out government, or similar type institution, there can be no such thing.

 

GGP

Edited June 12, 2013 by Maharg67

[TRoaches]

Different government exist, and have existed, for a variety of reasons. Not all governments have recognized natural rights or built their legal system around the concept, and many governments that currently recognize natural rights did not always do so. For much of history in much of the world, including some current governments, the natural rights of an individual have not always been recognized or even considered by governments. A person was considered to be some form of a "subject" to the autocracy or oligarchy, and they existed only because the authority allowed them to. Over time the idea of natural rights became more acceptable to various governments, either by their own will or by the force of uprisings among their subjects, and this lead to changes such as those instituted by the Magna Carta and other similar legal revisions.

 

The term "human rights" is really just a modernized rephrasing of "natural rights", and perhaps one that most of us are more familiar with than "natural rights". There are plenty of examples to be found around the world of governments that violate their citizens human, or natural, rights while simultaneously codifying their legal rights. According to the theory of natural law those people do still possess their natural rights, but they cannot exercise them because of their oppressive governments. Those governments are considered to be in violation of the natural law.

 

Consider a person who is living under a government that is a human rights nightmare somewhere in the world. We could use North Korea as an example, where people have very little choice about how they live their lives and are provided only the most basic living accommodations. There are two ways that you could describe that scenario:

 

1) The government granted them the right to work, the right to food rations sufficient to prevent starvation, the right to a sufficiently comfortable home, the right to access the literature and culture that has been approved by the monitoring authorities, and the right to travel within designated and approved locations within their country.

 

2) The government has denied them the right to work where they choose, to be self employed, or to not work at all; denied them the right to eat whatever they can afford, grow, or otherwise procure; denied them the right to possess whatever property they can purchase, inherent, claim, or otherwise procure; denied them the right to express themselves and to witness the expression of others; and denied them the right to travel outside of their borders or to emigrate from their society.

 

The difference between those two schools of thought is subtle but significant, like a glass half-full/half-empty sort of paradigm. The first choice is based on the idea that government grants rights to its citizens. The second choice is based on the theory of natural law and natural rights. There is nothing illegal about what the government is doing, but its legal government violates the the natural law and the natural rights of its citizens, which are inherent to their humanity and exist independent from the legal system.

 

The question philosophical question "do humans have natural rights?" has been debated for a long time, and it does not have an inherently right or wrong answer. It is a matter of philosophical opinion, not a logical or factual premise. Interestingly, it is debatable whether any particular right is a natural one or not. The gun question is a perfect example: One could make a very good argument that the right to arms is not a natural right, and another could make a very good argument that it is a natural right. Another good example would be legal executions. My personal opinion is that legal executions violate the natural rights of the condemned, but there are many intelligent people who would disagree with my opinion about that as well.

[Hardwaremaster]

I'm confused didn't people use Castor Oil all the time back in the sixites which has Ricin in it.

 

---------------------------------------------------

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castor_oil

[colourwheel]

 

I'm confused didn't people use Castor Oil all the time back in the sixites which has Ricin in it.

 

Ricin is part of the waste leftover after production of castor oil, rather than being included with the oil.

[HeyYou]

Citizens only have the rights their government is willing to 'grant' them. They can be just as easily legislated away, without so much as a by-your-leave. The american government spying on its citizens, not to mention the "patriot act" should prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

You don't have the "right" to anything that your government doesn't give you.