Author Topic: Commands From God Vs Our Inalienable Rights  (Read 5087 times)

Online Solar

  • -
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 53755
  • Gender: Male
Re: Commands From God Vs Our Inalienable Rights
« Reply #30 on: June 26, 2015, 12:42:40 PM »
Agreed 100% with her removal of society.  For a right to be inalienable then the logic has to hold up in all iterations.   Let's say one makes the claim that All Swans are white.  If one finds a swan that is black then the claim that All Swans are white has been falsified.

If one can find a counter example that disproves a claim or maxim then the maxim or claim can't hold up.   The idea of liberty cannot be inalienable because it fails to be upheld as inalienable in at least one iteration which is the typhoid Mary situation.   To claim liberty as an inalienable which has been demonstrated to be true in all iterations due to other people's rights as well is falsified.   

One does have liberty within certain constraints but to claim it to be inalienable can't be accepted as truth.  It makes no sense to stand by the claim that liberty is an inalienable right.    What I am saying is that there is a black Swan.   

They made the correct decision to quarantine her and by not treating her liberty as inalienable.  Therefore, the lesson is that black swans exist so therefore one can't accept as true that All Swans are White.
Liberty is not inalienablele. Inalienable Rights is spelled out in the Bill of Rights, leaving States to decide, but prohibits the Federal govt form usurping said Rights.
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline cubedemon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 403
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Commands From God Vs Our Inalienable Rights
« Reply #31 on: June 26, 2015, 05:56:20 PM »
Liberty is not inalienablele. Inalienable Rights is spelled out in the Bill of Rights, leaving States to decide, but prohibits the Federal govt form usurping said Rights.

Speaking of Bill of Rights, looking at the first amendment which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Here is something I don't get.  Why do people claim that others are banning their free speech when it only applies to congress?   Why can't state legislatures ban certain speech?   Why can't forum mods censure as well?  Let's say I own an apartment complex could I ban profanity as a stipulation for living there?  No one, not even I, is congress but only congress is congress.  It makes no sense but people apply the first amendment to other groups besides congress.  Why?

Online Solar

  • -
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 53755
  • Gender: Male
Re: Commands From God Vs Our Inalienable Rights
« Reply #32 on: June 26, 2015, 06:47:51 PM »
Speaking of Bill of Rights, looking at the first amendment which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Here is something I don't get.  Why do people claim that others are banning their free speech when it only applies to congress?   Why can't state legislatures ban certain speech?   Why can't forum mods censure as well?  Let's say I own an apartment complex could I ban profanity as a stipulation for living there?  No one, not even I, is congress but only congress is congress.  It makes no sense but people apply the first amendment to other groups besides congress.  Why?
Because they received a liberal education, and don't have the first clue about our Founding Documents and the restrictions put on Congress.
The Bill of Rights was to keep Congress at bay, leaving the States to set their laws, which is why this so called Fag marriage BS was totally unconstitutional on several levels.

They usurped States Rights, they killed and trampled the First Amendment etc.

And yes, we do ban people on this forum that spew hate and bigotry, and no, they do not have a First Amendment Right to abuse a privilege granted to them by Taxed, me, Boo, Walks, you and all the other members, by spewing their bull shit, and I refuse to allow them a podium from which to spread their Leftist hate.
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline GregR

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Commands From God Vs Our Inalienable Rights
« Reply #33 on: June 26, 2015, 10:01:43 PM »
JOHN 10:10 (NIV)
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

Might be the scripture the founders got it from.

I think that it's important to remember the Constitution's main function is to limit government. The Bill of Rights just further spells it out.


Offline milos

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
  • Gender: Male
  • Libertas est Christus
Re: Commands From God Vs Our Inalienable Rights
« Reply #34 on: June 26, 2015, 11:33:21 PM »
The reason I asked this question is so that I can achieve  completion in thought and in deed.  To do these things one must free one self from error.  Contradictions are ideas that are and aren't in the same instance.  Contradictions are a form of error.  To achieve completion one must free oneself from this form error.  If socialism and capitalism are free from contradiction then they're complete.  If not,  expunge the contradictions.  If expunging is not possible then discard the ideas and thoughts. To remove logical contradictions is the path to completion. 

If a set of inalienable rights are inconsistent to each other then they are not inalienable since to be something one can't not be something either.  For example, Typhoid Mary.  She claimed to have liberty to do what she did. Yet what she did was killing people.  Her liberty had to be taken away to save lives.

You are right that a state can't be perfect. Because, state is a manly creation, state is always secular by its nature, so it can't be perfect. Only God is perfect. From God's point of view, we don't need human laws, we just need his commandments. Establishing human laws is kind of opposing the God. That is why I believe a Christian anarcho-capitalism would be the perfect political system. But, the general opinion is that it would not be possible to sustain in this modern world we are living in, and that we need a state.

Speaking of liberty, Christians believe that God himself gave us free will, so that we are personally responsible for our actions. So, our inalienable personal liberty comes directly from our Christian belief. Since we are personally responsible for our actions, we must not allow someone hurt other people, so we must stop that. If we do nothing to stop a crime we are witnessing, then we are accomplices in that crime, and we are equally guilty for that crime.
"Walking is the best possible exercise. Habituate yourself to walk very far." - Thomas Jefferson

Darth Fife

  • Guest
Re: Commands From God Vs Our Inalienable Rights
« Reply #35 on: July 02, 2015, 10:19:53 AM »
There are some Christians who claim that our inalienable rights come from God and come from the bible. Our constitution and declaration of independence is biblically and God derived. If one looks at the bible, it is a collection of stories that teach a point as to what happens if one disobeys God and what happens if one obeys. In the bible God has given series of commands over the centuries to various people. Where does it say in the bible that one has a right to anything whatsoever? What our founding fathers and other philosophers and intellectuals did was took these commands and made them into rights. A command and edict by God becomes a right.

For example, thou shalt not kill somehow transforms into a right to life. Thou shalt not do x or Thou shalt do x is equal to having x or non-x. This is what our founding fathers and other intellectuals do with all of their ruminations on rights and liberties at least those who claim it is biblical. Does this hold up? If it does shouldn’t it be consistent? God also wanted people to clothe the naked and feed the hungry. My question for conservative Christians, the colonial traditionalists and strict constitutionalists is as follows. If one has the right to life which is based upon a command and an edict by God.

If clothing and feeding the hungry is also a command by God then by logical consistency doesn’t one have the RIGHT to be clothed, fed and sheltered if one cannot clothe, feed or shelter himself? Why do colonial traditionalists, strict constitutionalists, Christian conservatives, and personal responsibility advocates have such inconsistent standards? If one must derive a right from a command or edict in one sense then shouldn’t one derive rights from commands from God across the whole board? Why or Why not?

If you are familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand, she posits that there is only one "right" in all of existence - that is the right to one's own life. All other so-called rights are derived from that one basic right.

Ironically, even though Rand was an atheist, her concept fits nicely with our founders belief in God given unalienable rights. If there really is only one true "right" - the right to ones own life - and that life is, as Christian believe, a gift from God, then that right is truly God given and unalienable - as are the rights that are derived from it.

Yes, you do have a "right" to be clothed and fed etc, but you don't have a right to anyone else's food or shelter or clothing just as they don't have a "right" to yours. That is where voluntary cooperation comes in.




Offline cubedemon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 403
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Commands From God Vs Our Inalienable Rights
« Reply #36 on: July 02, 2015, 11:13:23 AM »
If you are familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand, she posits that there is only one "right" in all of existence - that is the right to one's own life. All other so-called rights are derived from that one basic right.

Ironically, even though Rand was an atheist, her concept fits nicely with our founders belief in God given unalienable rights. If there really is only one true "right" - the right to ones own life - and that life is, as Christian believe, a gift from God, then that right is truly God given and unalienable - as are the rights that are derived from it.

Yes, you do have a "right" to be clothed and fed etc, but you don't have a right to anyone else's food or shelter or clothing just as they don't have a "right" to yours. That is where voluntary cooperation comes in.

Forgetting welfare programs and the morality of them for a second and let's touch upon an idea you brought up which is voluntary cooperation.   Problem is, is that we already tried this with the Articles of Confederation.  What you want is unanimous or 100% consent by the governed.  This has been proven to not work especially since the federal government could not collect taxes to pay off the war debts and put down rebellions without an ok from all of the states. 

An all voluntary cooperative society cannot work especially if it going to be a coherent society in which things can get done that need to get done.   None of us agree upon everything and do all members on this board agree with all of the policies on this board?   I am sure there have been squabbles and hurt feelings.   If you all don't agree with what the rules are here and how things are done then any member doesn't have to come back and can go to another board of their liking.

I wrote this here a while back about Ayn Rand and social security and she still collected social security even though she believed it was immoral.  This is my rebuttal.  https://whyifailedinamerica1.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/my-response-to-mr-ghate/

By the nature of staying in our society we implicitly agree that we may not get what we want and we may have to compromise since 100% agreement and consent is impossible.   The problem with the old Soviet Union and East Germany is that they built a wall to prevent people from leaving.   

Back to the idea of welfare and you said "Yes, you do have a "right" to be clothed and fed etc, but you don't have a right to anyone else's food or shelter or clothing just as they don't have a "right" to yours. "   This has been agreed to without unanimous consent, which is impossible to obtain in almost any avenue outside of this, and if one does not agree with how things are now one can add one's voice to the mix like you all are doing or one can vote with his feet and attempt to create a new society with 100% cooperation.   

I may complain a lot about how people are and about society in general and how things can be better for people and how things are unfair but there is one thing I love about American society and other societies like ours.   We have a checks and balance type system, not only within our government but from people to the government, government to the people, people to people. 

We all check each other and no one has absolute power.  No one is going to agree upon everything but those who are here in the USA and other socities which don't block their citizens from leaving and have not left has implicitly consented to be govern by the laws done through process of checks and balances through our various branches of governments and by the people themselves in which we can all put our two cents in, write about, vote, write our representatives, etc, etc. 

Offline kroz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5688
  • Gender: Female
  • Conservative to the core!
Re: Commands From God Vs Our Inalienable Rights
« Reply #37 on: July 02, 2015, 12:53:58 PM »
Speaking of Ayn Rand...... I attended a political Conference in D.C. a few years ago.  All the typical "think tank" organizations were represented with speakers and break-out groups.  The usual groups are Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and similar groups.  However, this Convention had a break-out evening presentation by the Ayn Rand Society.  It was well attended.  There were many different speakers during the evening but I was shocked at the anti-semitism in some of the speeches.  One man in particular was extremely anti-semitic.  There was a question and answer session at the end of the evening and the audience made it very clear that they did not agree with the anti-semitism being expressed during the evening.   Most of the audience were TEA people and very conservative.

Since then I have wondered if Ayn was anti-semitic.  I don't recall anything about it in her books.  Maybe it went over my head.   

Offline milos

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
  • Gender: Male
  • Libertas est Christus
Re: Commands From God Vs Our Inalienable Rights
« Reply #38 on: July 02, 2015, 11:38:42 PM »
Since then I have wondered if Ayn was anti-semitic.  I don't recall anything about it in her books.  Maybe it went over my head.

Ayn was a Jew herself, born Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum.
"Walking is the best possible exercise. Habituate yourself to walk very far." - Thomas Jefferson

Darth Fife

  • Guest
Re: Commands From God Vs Our Inalienable Rights
« Reply #39 on: July 03, 2015, 07:59:08 AM »
Forgetting welfare programs and the morality of them for a second and let's touch upon an idea you brought up which is voluntary cooperation.   Problem is, is that we already tried this with the Articles of Confederation.  What you want is unanimous or 100% consent by the governed.  This has been proven to not work especially since the federal government could not collect taxes to pay off the war debts and put down rebellions without an ok from all of the states. 

An all voluntary cooperative society cannot work especially if it going to be a coherent society in which things can get done that need to get done.   None of us agree upon everything and do all members on this board agree with all of the policies on this board?   I am sure there have been squabbles and hurt feelings.   If you all don't agree with what the rules are here and how things are done then any member doesn't have to come back and can go to another board of their liking.

I wrote this here a while back about Ayn Rand and social security and she still collected social security even though she believed it was immoral.  This is my rebuttal.  https://whyifailedinamerica1.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/my-response-to-mr-ghate/

By the nature of staying in our society we implicitly agree that we may not get what we want and we may have to compromise since 100% agreement and consent is impossible.   The problem with the old Soviet Union and East Germany is that they built a wall to prevent people from leaving.   

Back to the idea of welfare and you said "Yes, you do have a "right" to be clothed and fed etc, but you don't have a right to anyone else's food or shelter or clothing just as they don't have a "right" to yours. "   This has been agreed to without unanimous consent, which is impossible to obtain in almost any avenue outside of this, and if one does not agree with how things are now one can add one's voice to the mix like you all are doing or one can vote with his feet and attempt to create a new society with 100% cooperation.   

I may complain a lot about how people are and about society in general and how things can be better for people and how things are unfair but there is one thing I love about American society and other societies like ours.   We have a checks and balance type system, not only within our government but from people to the government, government to the people, people to people. 

We all check each other and no one has absolute power.  No one is going to agree upon everything but those who are here in the USA and other socities which don't block their citizens from leaving and have not left has implicitly consented to be govern by the laws done through process of checks and balances through our various branches of governments and by the people themselves in which we can all put our two cents in, write about, vote, write our representatives, etc, etc.

Slow day at the office?

The only point I was trying to make was in line with the question posed by this thread - do our rights come from "God" or the State?

As far as State run welfare being "moral", what is "moral" about a government agent sticking a gun in your face and saying "GIVE"?

While it is true, you will never get 100% of humans to agree to anything, what is the problem with letting the ones who want to give money to the poor do as they wish and leaving the ones who don't want to give to the poor alone? Private organizations are far better, and far more efficient at this than the Government.

They are also far better at discerning who actually needs help and who doesn't and are better at helping lift people out of poverty. The Government, on the other hand is often rife with corruption and has a vested interest in maintaining an underclass which is perpetually dependent upon Government handouts!

Not to mention, it really isn't the Government's job.




Offline kroz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5688
  • Gender: Female
  • Conservative to the core!
Re: Commands From God Vs Our Inalienable Rights
« Reply #40 on: July 03, 2015, 12:05:19 PM »
Slow day at the office?

The only point I was trying to make was in line with the question posed by this thread - do our rights come from "God" or the State?

As far as State run welfare being "moral", what is "moral" about a government agent sticking a gun in your face and saying "GIVE"?

While it is true, you will never get 100% of humans to agree to anything, what is the problem with letting the ones who want to give money to the poor do as they wish and leaving the ones who don't want to give to the poor alone? Private organizations are far better, and far more efficient at this than the Government.

They are also far better at discerning who actually needs help and who doesn't and are better at helping lift people out of poverty. The Government, on the other hand is often rife with corruption and has a vested interest in maintaining an underclass which is perpetually dependent upon Government handouts!

Not to mention, it really isn't the Government's job.

I am in total agreement with that post!!

Online Solar

  • -
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 53755
  • Gender: Male
Re: Commands From God Vs Our Inalienable Rights
« Reply #41 on: July 03, 2015, 02:26:45 PM »
Slow day at the office?

The only point I was trying to make was in line with the question posed by this thread - do our rights come from "God" or the State?

As far as State run welfare being "moral", what is "moral" about a government agent sticking a gun in your face and saying "GIVE"?

While it is true, you will never get 100% of humans to agree to anything, what is the problem with letting the ones who want to give money to the poor do as they wish and leaving the ones who don't want to give to the poor alone? Private organizations are far better, and far more efficient at this than the Government.

They are also far better at discerning who actually needs help and who doesn't and are better at helping lift people out of poverty. The Government, on the other hand is often rife with corruption and has a vested interest in maintaining an underclass which is perpetually dependent upon Government handouts!

Not to mention, it really isn't the Government's job.
Prove it! Hehe, just channeling Cube. :biggrin:
No offense Cube, just teasing. You do understand teasing, right?
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Darth Fife

  • Guest
Re: Commands From God Vs Our Inalienable Rights
« Reply #42 on: July 04, 2015, 02:52:53 PM »
Prove it! Hehe, just channeling Cube. :biggrin:
No offense Cube, just teasing. You do understand teasing, right?

It's more provable than Global Warming!  :rolleyes:

Offline cubedemon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 403
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Commands From God Vs Our Inalienable Rights
« Reply #43 on: July 04, 2015, 09:14:58 PM »
Quote
Slow day at the office?

Why are you asking me this question?

Quote
The only point I was trying to make was in line with the question posed by this thread - do our rights come from "God" or the State?

Neither

https://whyifailedinamerica1.wordpress.com/2015/04/19/rights-do-we-really-have-them/



Quote
As far as State run welfare being "moral", what is "moral" about a government agent sticking a gun in your face and saying "GIVE"?

Then, by this logic having a military, hospitals, fire departments, police departments, etc is immoral since the government has to stick a gun in your face and say "GIVE" to fund these things.  If a is a member of z and b and c are members of z and if the superset of these subsets is true then all of these members must be true as well.  If something is true in one iteration then why isn't it true in all iterations?

Quote
While it is true, you will never get 100% of humans to agree to anything, what is the problem with letting the ones who want to give money to the poor do as they wish and leaving the ones who don't want to give to the poor alone?

A lot of liberals did not support the war in Iraq and disagreed with it.  By your logic, why put a gun to their head to force them to pay for it through their tax dollars?  For a given maxim, in order for it to hold up then it must be true in all iterations.

Quote
Private organizations are far better, and far more efficient at this than the Government.

How do you know?

Quote
They are also far better at discerning who actually needs help and who doesn't and are better at helping lift people out of poverty.

How do you know?

Quote
The Government, on the other hand is often rife with corruption ...

So are private institutions or at least some of them.

Quote
...and has a vested interest in maintaining an underclass which is perpetually dependent upon Government handouts!

What is the vested interest?

Quote
Not to mention, it really isn't the Government's job.

Who is the definer of what these things are, what the Government's job is, and how do you know they had every relevant piece of data to come up with these things?  What was the criteria that made the data relevant?

Darth Fife

  • Guest
Re: Commands From God Vs Our Inalienable Rights
« Reply #44 on: July 06, 2015, 07:32:41 AM »

Then, by this logic having a military, hospitals, fire departments, police departments, etc is immoral since the government has to stick a gun in your face and say "GIVE" to fund these things.  If a is a member of z and b and c are members of z and if the superset of these subsets is true then all of these members must be true as well.  If something is true in one iteration then why isn't it true in all iterations?

Classic "apples to oranges" comparison!

In the case of the military, police departments, fire departments etc, citizens are paying for services provided by those organization for the common good. Money is paid for services rendered. 

In the case of the Welfare State, the Government is arbitrarily taking wealth from one group of citizens and re-distributing it to another group of citizens.

Quote
A lot of liberals did not support the war in Iraq and disagreed with it.  By your logic, why put a gun to their head to force them to pay for it through their tax dollars?  For a given maxim, in order for it to hold up then it must be true in all iterations.

A lot of Conservatives don't support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan either. However, the military (and its use) is specifically authorized by the U.S. Constitution. Redistribution of wealth is not. The maxim holds up because, as with the fire department, police department, etc, it is money paid for services rendered. If you don't like what your elected officials are doing with those services, maybe you should think about electing officials who will repeal the War Powers act.

Quote
How do you know?

How do you know?

Because that is the way it worked for about 150 years before the Government decided it had a sworn duty to "help the poor".

Quote
So are private institutions or at least some of them.

It is far easier to hold corrupt private organization to account than it is the Federal Government.

Quote
What is the vested interest?

The development of a large class of poor people who are dependent upon the Government for their very livelihood.

Quote
Who is the definer of what these things are, what the Government's job is, and how do you know they had every relevant piece of data to come up with these things?  What was the criteria that made the data relevant?

The Constitution of the United States of America.

Perhaps you should read it sometime...

 :rolleyes:

 

Powered by EzPortal