What are people entitled to?

[SpellAndShield]

The right to be left alone and the right to voluntary interaction.

[AlexxEG]

You have the rights the government is willing to grant you, so long as it is willing to grant them. There are provisions in our constitution, or, various laws.... that provide for implementing Martial Law.... at which point, no one has ANY rights that the MILITARY doesn't give you.

 

There is no such thing as "God Granted", or "inalienable" rights. Everything is at the whim of someone higher in authority than you.

Agreed, it may not sound nice, but that's not a reason to make stuff up.

It's reality and it's not always beautiful.

[ginnyfizz]

I do not see how the fact that the US, in common with most goverments, has provisions for the imposition of martial law, negates those rights which have been referred to as inalienable. Martial law is not a licence to go on a killing and looting spree, despite the fact it is seen that way by certain dictators. As one writer has put it;-

 

"The function of rights is to keep society from riding roughshod over the individual. ... Individual rights are inalienable--which means, they were not transferred to you by anyone or any government." -- Wayne Dunn

 

Ie if the Government did not transfer them to you in the first place, they cannot take them away. Martial law or not.

 

I have to say, where would we be if our ancestors and illustrious civil rights leaders of both the past and the present had not believed that there were certain rights that are inalienable?

People have been prepared to die for their beliefs - Martin Luther King had a dream that he died for. Should he and the rest of the civil rights movement have given up because they were facing opposition from those in power? Of course not! They would not take no for an answer, because they believed in their rights and were prepared to stand up for them.

 

If people had not had a belief in the rights of man, there would be no universal suffrage, period, let alone women's suffrage. Let alone a USA.

 

Getting your rights recognised and upheld can be a long hard road, and requires a huge amount of getting off your butt and sometimes a huge personal risk. There is a great danger that when people become apathetic and decide that "There's nothing we can do about it" that we will sleepwalk to tyranny. A classic example is the extreme measures that are still in place as a result of the war on terror, one of which has meant the ripping up of the writ of Habeas Corpus, at least in my country. Believe me, those measures are being abused.

[Ghogiel]

Ie if the Government did not transfer them to you in the first place, they cannot take them away. Martial law or not.

 

If we forget how you might have been granted these rights, so we suppose for a second you somehow have these rights beyond the government granting them to you, Why would it be impossible for governments to take them away?

 

Getting your rights recognised and upheld can be a long hard road, and requires a huge amount of getting off your butt and sometimes a huge personal risk.

Is there actually a difference in believing you should have something and actually having it?

 

You don't have those rights unless they are recognised. Without being recognised they are in effect non existent. it can be witnessed that these rights are only in effect as long as they are granted, protected and upheld. The ones upholding this promise, this act of good faith, are mainly governments and organisations. Further more we can find examples where this promise can be broken and voided.

 

The charge is to prove that they are universal, inherent, and cannot be taken away. What happens in reality is that these rights are not universal or inherent, some people just don't enjoy the privilege, and even if you do they can be taken away for a variety of reasons.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Ghogiel

[HeyYou]

I do not see how the fact that the US, in common with most goverments, has provisions for the imposition of martial law, negates those rights which have been referred to as inalienable. Martial law is not a licence to go on a killing and looting spree, despite the fact it is seen that way by certain dictators. As one writer has put it;-

 

"The function of rights is to keep society from riding roughshod over the individual. ... Individual rights are inalienable--which means, they were not transferred to you by anyone or any government." -- Wayne Dunn

 

Ie if the Government did not transfer them to you in the first place, they cannot take them away. Martial law or not.

 

I have to say, where would we be if our ancestors and illustrious civil rights leaders of both the past and the present had not believed that there were certain rights that are inalienable?

People have been prepared to die for their beliefs - Martin Luther King had a dream that he died for. Should he and the rest of the civil rights movement have given up because they were facing opposition from those in power? Of course not! They would not take no for an answer, because they believed in their rights and were prepared to stand up for them.

 

If people had not had a belief in the rights of man, there would be no universal suffrage, period, let alone women's suffrage. Let alone a USA.

 

Getting your rights recognised and upheld can be a long hard road, and requires a huge amount of getting off your butt and sometimes a huge personal risk. There is a great danger that when people become apathetic and decide that "There's nothing we can do about it" that we will sleepwalk to tyranny. A classic example is the extreme measures that are still in place as a result of the war on terror, one of which has meant the ripping up of the writ of Habeas Corpus, at least in my country. Believe me, those measures are being abused.

 

When they declare martial law, a fair few of your 'inalienable' rights go right out the window. Liberty being right there at the top of the list. Or, are they using the "alien" part, to imply that if your government does it to you, that's ok?

[ginnyfizz]

If rights be innate, then they are still extant whether or not the government of the day chooses to suppress them, or refuses to recognise them. It may at any point be difficult or even impossible to exercise them, but that does not mean they do not exist or that it is acceptable for the government to stamp on them.

 

Should we blindly accept everything that a government does? Is there no point then in defiance?

[Aurielius]

If rights be innate, then they are still extant whether or not the government of the day chooses to suppress them, or refuses to recognise them. It may at any point be difficult or even impossible to exercise them, but that does not mean they do not exist or that it is acceptable for the government to stamp on them.

 

Should we blindly accept everything that a government does? Is there no point then in defiance?

This is precisely the rationale of the colonial revolutionaries in relation to various acts of Parliament that attempted to infringe on the rights of the common ex Englishmen of the American colonies. There is always a point to defying governmental tyranny. The English Civil War and our Revolutionary War are directly linked in terms of cause and effect, both Charles II and George III found to their dismay what happens when they tried to trample on rights that should have continued without impingement

[HeyYou]

If rights be innate, then they are still extant whether or not the government of the day chooses to suppress them, or refuses to recognise them. It may at any point be difficult or even impossible to exercise them, but that does not mean they do not exist or that it is acceptable for the government to stamp on them.

 

Should we blindly accept everything that a government does? Is there no point then in defiance?

This is precisely the rationale of the colonial revolutionaries in relation to various acts of Parliament that attempted to infringe on the rights of the common ex Englishmen of the American colonies. There is always a point to defying governmental tyranny. The English Civil War and our Revolutionary War are directly linked in terms of cause and effect, both Charles II and George III found to their dismay what happens when they tried to trample on rights that should have continued without impingement

 

Think the US government will remember that little lesson?

 

What good is a right that you can't exercise? You may have a right to a fair trial, but, if you don't get one, whattayagonnado? Protest?

 

The only REAL 'innate' Right you have, that no one can take away, is the right to drop dead. (sorry, that seems kinda harsh..... not meant that way.) If your government decides you don't have the right of free speech, and denies you the exercise of that right, then was it really a 'right' to begin with? Or, was it a privilege of living in the right country?

[marharth]

Think the US government will remember that little lesson?

 

What good is a right that you can't exercise? You may have a right to a fair trial, but, if you don't get one, whattayagonnado? Protest?

 

The only REAL 'innate' Right you have, that no one can take away, is the right to drop dead. (sorry, that seems kinda harsh..... not meant that way.) If your government decides you don't have the right of free speech, and denies you the exercise of that right, then was it really a 'right' to begin with? Or, was it a privilege of living in the right country?

I fail to understand why your argument is even a subject of this debate. It seems to me what you said should be obvious, and everyone would agree with it.

 

Nonetheless I agree with that, it pretty much sums up the topic.

[Aurielius]

What good is a right that you can't exercise? You may have a right to a fair trial, but, if you don't get one, whattayagonnado? Protest?

The only REAL 'innate' Right you have, that no one can take away, is the right to drop dead. (sorry, that seems kinda harsh..... not meant that way.) If your government decides you don't have the right of free speech, and denies you the exercise of that right, then was it really a 'right' to begin with? Or, was it a privilege of living in the right country?

I am surprised at you, you of all people debating this know that freedom is not free but carries with it the highest price of all, the same goes for your rights. It seems that at least ostensibly you are willing to let the government take away your rights if they so decide, I would not thought that of you if asked by another. The government exists by the consent of the governed, at least that is the formula that ours is structured under, if it exceeds it's mandate then you as an American have to hold them accountable and force the redress. There is the judiciary and the ballot box which provide remedies or recourse to a government that has overstepped it's bounds.

 

"We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom and our rights: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box."