Quote from: Skeptic on October 20, 2012, 11:35:38 AM
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Where did I say anything about giving up liberty? The reason the states united was for a common defense to protect liberty.

Quote from: Skeptic on October 20, 2012, 11:22:45 AM
Life, liberty, and property....it all sounds good in writing, but there really are no inalienable "God given" rights. Rights are something the government gives you, and the government takes away.

Not all inalienable rights claims are traceable to God.

A cogent argument for self ownership is made using pure logic, without resorting to God at all.

And if rights are mere government constructs, then they are arbitrary and are nothing more than privileges.

They can be taken and granted at will and have no logical basis.

Thus the term "rights" loses all meaning.

Quote

The bottom line is that there is no right that God will protect. You have to stand up for that right and preserve it yourself against the government. You do that by educating yourselves and others about their rights, campaigning for those rights, and holding politicians accountable. As the saying goes..."God helps those who help themselves."

Just because you have a right to self ownership does not mean it is not possible for it to be violated.

Nothing about inalienable rights presumes some mystical force. This is the realm of "oughts." It is a violation of natural liberty to initiate force, this does not mean that the initiation of force is not possible. Just that it is not moral.

Quote
You want to work on preserving those inalienable rights? Vote for a president who gives a damn about the Constitution. Obama is obviously the wrong choice for that.

I dont think supporting government in any capacity is a good way to support inalienable rights. Government is the systematic violator of rights, so looking to it for them is an exercise in futility.

Quote from: Solar on October 20, 2012, 11:41:35 AM
Our bill of Rights are rights usurping the govts. ability to remove said Rights, Rights no man may take away, because no man gave them to us, rather our Creator, hence the term Inalienable Rights.

I really wish I could believe that, but I fear that the Constitution will continue to be watered down by judicial activism to the point that one day in the future the Bill of Rights might be pretty much meaningless. Unless we get more Supreme Court Justices like Thomas and Scalia, we are headed down a dangerous path.

"A government is like fire, a handy servant, but a dangerous master." --George Washington.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on October 08, 2012, 03:32:25 PM
The idea of a natural right to individual liberty can be made, on purely objective grounds, in a way that transcends the is/ought problem and establishes the right to self ownership on purely logical and deductive grounds.

In other words, it can be shown that each individual owns them self, in a way that is not linked to the existence of God, and is not a matter of mere opinion.

First, the nature of ownership has to be properly put forth.

When someone owns something it means that they can decide what uses the thing can be put to, whether or not to use it all and whether or not to sell it. This is an exclusive thing.

If one man owns something, another cannot simultaneously own it, for neither would have complete control over the item, and therefore no one would truly own it.

So we see that the ability to decide the use of something, is tantamount to having ownership of it.

But ownership is not mere possession, for a thief can decide in what ways to spend his loot, but he does not truly own it, or have clear title to it. So for most things, ownership is not the same as possession. It is possession and peaceful acquisition (acquired through voluntary exchange, gift, etc)

The body is different. We don't have to inquire as to nature of its acquisition. That it was peacefully acquired by it's owner is indisputable.

The body is directed by the will.

The choice to sit up or lie down, run or walk, skip or jump, type or write, etc is decided by the will.

The will allocates its property, the body, to the movements and exercises suited to attaining the goals it has selected.

The body is the means. The will directs it to the ends it desires.

All action involves a goal, and a means. All action involves a will selecting a goal and then choosing a suitable means.

One cannot even form an argument against self ownership without at the same time, proving the existence of self ownership. For an argument involves the use of mental processes and energies, movements of mouth and tongue, or fingers and arms...  It necessarily involves the use of the body.

One can't use their body without demonstrating that they indeed own it.

So one is demonstrating self ownership when they act in any way what so ever.

For what is directing these actions, if not the will of the person?

This concept of self ownership was created by Murray Rothbard and refined, by Hans Hoppe.

Hoppe added "the argumentation ethic," which is the idea that one cannot form an argument against self ownership without demonstrating its truth content, at the same time. In this way, it is a performative contradiction, to argue otherwise.

Now, if each individual has self ownership, or has free will to choose the ways in which they will act, then substituting the will of one, or of many, for the will of an individual, and using force to accomplish this, necessarily separates that individual's will from directing their actions, as nature designed.

They are no longer enjoying their natural freedom of choice and action.

This is a violation of their "natural rights."

So you see this is an objective morality that posits freedom in a negative sense. Natural rights do not imply one has a "right" to anything, in the sense that something is owed to them.

It only means that using violence to blunt their will is a violation of their self ownership, and is therefore morally wrong.

Where as Aquinas, the Scholastics, the Jesuits, etc took a theological perspective on natural rights, this is a branch of natural law that stems from the Protestant Jurist, Hugo Grotius, and has a rational and secular foundation.

This is not to suggest that secularism is right, only that, if God is truth, then we can use our God given reason to discover it and know it for ourselves.

Quote from: Skeptic on October 20, 2012, 11:46:55 AM
I really wish I could believe that, but I fear that the Constitution will continue to be watered down by judicial activism to the point that one day in the future the Bill of Rights might be pretty much meaningless. Unless we get more Supreme Court Justices like Thomas and Scalia, we are headed down a dangerous path.

"A government is like fire, a handy servant, but a dangerous master." --George Washington.

Which is the reason our Founders created the Bill of Rights, these are Rights that precede Govt power to dictate over them.

Quote from: Solar on October 20, 2012, 11:51:26 AM
Which is the reason our Founders created the Bill of Rights, these are Rights that precede Govt power to dictate over them.

In my view, the Bill of Rights is the prime motivator of thought such as our dear lawyer holds. There was no need to include them in the Constitution at all except for a compromise to get it ratified. The Constitution is a document that spells out the powers of government, and the lines that it isn't allowed to cross. Outside of those lines, we are free to act as we will.

Quote from: Harry on October 20, 2012, 11:57:17 AM
In my view, the Bill of Rights is the prime motivator of thought such as our dear lawyer holds. There was no need to include them in the Constitution at all except for a compromise to get it ratified. The Constitution is a document that spells out the powers of government, and the lines that it isn't allowed to cross. Outside of those lines, we are free to act as we will.

If nothing else is taught in school, the Constitution should be a required course for graduation.
For far too long, the leftists have opened it up to be considered a living document open for interpretation, which is far from reality.

Quote from: Solar on October 20, 2012, 12:04:39 PM
If nothing else is taught in school, the Constitution should be a required course for graduation.
For far too long, the leftists have opened it up to be considered a living document open for interpretation, which is far from reality.

The simplicity is there for all to read. The problem comes in the form of context, and the lack of real history being taught. Kids today get classes on social science, instead of real history lessons.

Quote from: Harry on October 20, 2012, 12:09:11 PM
The simplicity is there for all to read. The problem comes in the form of context, and the lack of real history being taught. Kids today get classes on social science, instead of real history lessons.

The state has always taught pro-state perspectives on history.

It is nothing new.

Just look at how dismal the masses understanding of the great wars and the great depression is.

We are kept ignorant so as to submit to our serfdom.

Quote from: Harry on October 20, 2012, 12:09:11 PM
The simplicity is there for all to read. The problem comes in the form of context, and the lack of real history being taught. Kids today get classes on social science, instead of real history lessons.

Like here in Ca, someones sexual preference takes precedence over actual American history.
It's more important that Harvey Milk was a fag, regardless of the fact that his only contribution was to history was the queer agenda.
But it's important that kids learn these ridiculous facts over those of our Founders.

Quote from: Harry on October 20, 2012, 11:57:17 AM
In my view, the Bill of Rights is the prime motivator of thought such as our dear lawyer holds. There was no need to include them in the Constitution at all except for a compromise to get it ratified. The Constitution is a document that spells out the powers of government, and the lines that it isn't allowed to cross. Outside of those lines, we are free to act as we will.

George Mason would certainly have disagreed with you Harry. I believe as Jefferson and Patrick Henry would have also.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on October 20, 2012, 12:11:09 PM
The state has always taught pro-state perspectives on history.

It is nothing new.

Just look at how dismal the masses understanding of the great wars and the great depression is.

We are kept ignorant so as to submit to our serfdom.

The state certainly has an incentive to show that it is right. I don't think this is planned per se, but instead an affect of the human condition itself. The state is us. Whether we agree with it or not, that is true.

Quote from: Harry on October 20, 2012, 11:57:17 AM
In my view, the Bill of Rights is the prime motivator of thought such as our dear lawyer holds. There was no need to include them in the Constitution at all except for a compromise to get it ratified. The Constitution is a document that spells out the powers of government, and the lines that it isn't allowed to cross. Outside of those lines, we are free to act as we will.

The Bill of Ri9ghts is all 95% know of the Constitution. It is absolutely essential since that same 95% still believe the Constitution is what gives the Godvernment its power. Even with the Bill of Rights they think this is what the Godvernment ALLOWS. Just think where we'd be today if those rights weren't spelled out.

Yeah, training in the Constitution -- from the right perspective -- should be taught all through school, from grade school to the end of high school

Constitution 101

Quote from: Harry on October 20, 2012, 12:18:29 PM
The state certainly has an incentive to show that it is right. I don't think this is planned per se, but instead an affect of the human condition itself. The state is us. Whether we agree with it or not, that is true.

Well it is pretty clear the curriculum as it regards history and economics is to aggrandize the state and to minimize the individual.

Not saying it is a conspiracy, just a tendency inherent in the nature of the beast.

Quote from: Solar on October 20, 2012, 12:13:46 PM
Like here in Ca, someones sexual preference takes precedence over actual American history.
It's more important that Harvey Milk was a fag, regardless of the fact that his only contribution was to history was the queer agenda.
But it's important that kids learn these ridiculous facts over those of our Founders.

I agree completely. A certain segment of the population, whether gay or not, feels a need to push the agenda. I don't understand the thought line. Earlier, someone here said that we should all mind our own business about the issue, and just ignore it, but how can such be said with the government pushing the agenda?