our rights come from nature and god
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2012, 01:32 PM
RE: our rights come from nature and god
I guess one has to be glad Paul Ryan leaves things up to god and nature...

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
14-08-2012, 03:00 PM
RE: our rights come from nature and god
(14-08-2012 01:32 PM)Dom Wrote:  I guess one has to be glad Paul Ryan leaves things up to god and nature...

I think I would view him differently if his job was Forest Ranger, instead holding a higher government official. Wink

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
14-08-2012, 05:21 PM
RE: our rights come from nature and god
(14-08-2012 12:25 PM)kim Wrote:  Just a few interesting thoughts little Adolph had on his mind...
********

I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature.

Struggle is the father of all things. It is not by the principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself above the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle.

Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong.

Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.

The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it.

The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category

What good fortune for governments that the people do not think.

Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction.

Who says I am not under the special protection of God?

Darwin has a lot to answer for!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
18-08-2012, 10:30 PM
RE: our rights come from nature and god
(13-08-2012 08:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-08-2012 06:26 AM)Dom Wrote:  I quote Paul Ryan:

"Or rights come from nature and god, not from the government."

He said that in a speech last night.

He got it 1/3 right.
Our rights are those agreed upon by the people. It's called the social contract.
We then form a government to protect, adjudicate, and enforce.


The social contract is not all that is important or controlling in Ryan's argument. Conservatives will also rely on the concept of Natural Law, which is definitely an idea incorporated into our governing documents and polity. Conservatives would acknowledge such a thing as a social contract, however they would say that since our rights are inalienable, encroaching on individual rights in ways not agreed to in the constitution are an explicit violation of our natural rights in violation of our contract ( the Constitution ).

It is the left that violates the social contract. Every conservative would agree that we can agree by contract to give up individual rights for the greater good. That is precisely what the US Constitution does already for an itemized list of things the federal government has been empowered to do. Conservatives just think we should actually agree to new provisions for the greater good by contract, and they view amending our constitution is the only legitimate way to do that.

Why is it that the left NEVER wants to actually make the Constitution say what they want it to. Why not argue for health care rights in the Constitution? Why not argue for all the social welfare state they want to erect to be included by amendment into the Constitution? They don't propose this, because they know they will not get the consent of the people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2012, 06:50 AM
RE: our rights come from nature and god
(18-08-2012 10:30 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(13-08-2012 08:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  He got it 1/3 right.
Our rights are those agreed upon by the people. It's called the social contract.
We then form a government to protect, adjudicate, and enforce.


The social contract is not all that is important or controlling in Ryan's argument. Conservatives will also rely on the concept of Natural Law, which is definitely an idea incorporated into our governing documents and polity. Conservatives would acknowledge such a thing as a social contract, however they would say that since our rights are inalienable, encroaching on individual rights in ways not agreed to in the constitution are an explicit violation of our natural rights in violation of our contract ( the Constitution ).

It is the left that violates the social contract. Every conservative would agree that we can agree by contract to give up individual rights for the greater good. That is precisely what the US Constitution does already for an itemized list of things the federal government has been empowered to do. Conservatives just think we should actually agree to new provisions for the greater good by contract, and they view amending our constitution is the only legitimate way to do that.

Why is it that the left NEVER wants to actually make the Constitution say what they want it to. Why not argue for health care rights in the Constitution? Why not argue for all the social welfare state they want to erect to be included by amendment into the Constitution? They don't propose this, because they know they will not get the consent of the people.

I think the liberals don't argue from a Constitutional change stance because they don't think it is required. Whether or not their view is correct, the "general welfare" stated in the Constitution is viewed as making social welfare legislation Constitutional.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2012, 07:56 AM
RE: our rights come from nature and god
(19-08-2012 06:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-08-2012 10:30 PM)BryanS Wrote:  The social contract is not all that is important or controlling in Ryan's argument. Conservatives will also rely on the concept of Natural Law, which is definitely an idea incorporated into our governing documents and polity. Conservatives would acknowledge such a thing as a social contract, however they would say that since our rights are inalienable, encroaching on individual rights in ways not agreed to in the constitution are an explicit violation of our natural rights in violation of our contract ( the Constitution ).

It is the left that violates the social contract. Every conservative would agree that we can agree by contract to give up individual rights for the greater good. That is precisely what the US Constitution does already for an itemized list of things the federal government has been empowered to do. Conservatives just think we should actually agree to new provisions for the greater good by contract, and they view amending our constitution is the only legitimate way to do that.

Why is it that the left NEVER wants to actually make the Constitution say what they want it to. Why not argue for health care rights in the Constitution? Why not argue for all the social welfare state they want to erect to be included by amendment into the Constitution? They don't propose this, because they know they will not get the consent of the people.

I think the liberals don't argue from a Constitutional change stance because they don't think it is required. Whether or not their view is correct, the "general welfare" stated in the Constitution is viewed as making social welfare legislation Constitutional.

Then why bother with a written constitution if there are no limits whatsoever on the good the government can do on our behalf? That interpretation is not in any way consistent with the tenth amendment in the bill of rights which plainly states that any rights not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states. According to the liberal interpretation, then, states have no rights whatsoever because everything has been delegated to the federal government.

The idea that a preamble obviates the explicit clarifications in the Bill of Rights defies logic. Remember these amendments were added for the very specific reason that delegates wanted to make crystal clear that the Constitution stated what was otherwise understood to be the case without the Bill of Rights spelling it out. The left's interpretation turns the constitution into a document which spells out limited rights we have rather than spelling out limited rights the government has. That sounds tyrannical to me.

By the way, the US Supreme Court has never held that the 'General Welfare' clause means anything like what the left wants it to. The only case the Supreme Court has ever ruled directly on whether the Preamble has this meaning is a 1904 case:

Quote: In rejecting Jacobson’s claim, the Court wrote that "the Preamble indicates the general purpose for which the people ordained and established the Constitution" and went on to point out that "[the Preamble] has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government..." .

(ref.http://www.conlaw.org/cites2.htm which includes links to the actual court decisions)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2012, 08:01 AM
RE: our rights come from nature and god
(19-08-2012 07:56 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(19-08-2012 06:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  I think the liberals don't argue from a Constitutional change stance because they don't think it is required. Whether or not their view is correct, the "general welfare" stated in the Constitution is viewed as making social welfare legislation Constitutional.

Then why bother with a written constitution if there are no limits whatsoever on the good the government can do on our behalf? That interpretation is not in any way consistent with the tenth amendment in the bill of rights which plainly states that any rights not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states. According to the liberal interpretation, then, states have no rights whatsoever because everything has been delegated to the federal government.

The idea that a preamble obviates the explicit clarifications in the Bill of Rights defies logic. Remember these amendments were added for the very specific reason that delegates wanted to make crystal clear that the Constitution stated what was otherwise understood to be the case without the Bill of Rights spelling it out. The left's interpretation turns the constitution into a document which spells out limited rights we have rather than spelling out limited rights the government has. That sounds tyrannical to me.

By the way, the US Supreme Court has never held that the 'General Welfare' clause means anything like what the left wants it to. The only case the Supreme Court has ever ruled directly on whether the Preamble has this meaning is a 1904 case:

Quote: In rejecting Jacobson’s claim, the Court wrote that "the Preamble indicates the general purpose for which the people ordained and established the Constitution" and went on to point out that "[the Preamble] has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government..." .

(ref.http://www.conlaw.org/cites2.htm which includes links to the actual court decisions)

I'm not trying to defend the view, merely explore it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: