Where do rights come from?

[Jludo]

You disagree with the President's Constitutional authority to set tariffs in order to pressure nations to conform to our will.

You oppose tariffs in order to fund the Federal Government. You prefer the income tax I suppose.

Tariffs only hurt US citizens like the tariff on Mexico.

OH! I forgot! Mexico and Guatemala have agreed to make refugees apply for asylum there and Mexico is helping stem the tide at our southern border.

I didn't say trump is a libertarian.

He is doing more to fix the US than any Dem or Rep has done in a long time.

As long as you aren't trying to make a libertarian case for him. Also according to the constitution congress should set tariffs, though I know constitutional conservatism isn't popular at the moment.

 

[jamil]

Yeah well that is blown out of the water by the right of kings. There was a time when this was ubiquitous and is still widely practiced.

Unless you include the responsibility to rule and reap the benefits of despotism. I would say that many elected officials in our country see this as their responsibility.

Right of kings is a hierarchical construct. If you’ve listened to Jordan Peterson, it’s older than lobsters.

 

[jamil]

It is not their belief that it is their responsibility to care for others, but that you should care for others.

I don’t really understand this reply because it doesn’t seem to apply to what I’ve said.

 

[jamil]

Are you making a libertarian case for Trump? I think that'd deserve it's own thread but I don't agree Trumps done much to make libertarians happy, cutting some regulation I will grant you. Wars, military spending, tariffs, increasing deficit etc. Haven't been good, I think Trumps matching up with libertarian ideology is more a broken clock type scenario.

I would say it this way. Trump is not a libertarian. He’s not making libertarian policies. However some of Trump’s policies overlap with libertarian policies. But just some. That’s not quite the same as the broken clock thing. Regardless, there is way more overlap in Trumps policies with sane libertarianism (as apposed to open-border, SJW-wannabe bat-**** crazy Gary Johnson big ass “L” Libertarian-ism).

I could vote libertarian this time around, if there were a serious candidate. Adam Kokesh? Seriously? Oh. And the literally insane murderer, is running again, I see.

 

[jamil]

You disagree with the President's Constitutional authority to set tariffs in order to pressure nations to conform to our will.

You oppose tariffs in order to fund the Federal Government. You prefer the income tax I suppose.

Tariffs only hurt US citizens like the tariff on Mexico.

OH! I forgot! Mexico and Guatemala have agreed to make refugees apply for asylum there and Mexico is helping stem the tide at our southern border.

I didn't say trump is a libertarian.

He is doing more to fix the US than any Dem or Rep has done in a long time.

I don’t disagree with using tariffs strategically, temporarily, to leverage nations which treat us unfairly. I disagree with using tariffs as a permanent fixture as tax revenue. That would be retarded.

 

[Jludo]

I don’t disagree with using tariffs strategically, temporarily, to leverage nations which treat us unfairly. I disagree with using tariffs as a permanent fixture as tax revenue. That would be retarded.

What dont you like about that? I feel the opposite, go through WTO trade mediation for unfair trade practices. I'd much prefer we abolished income tax and went back to broad tariffs for govt. revenue. I feel like that's something I could actually get on board with the trumpsters on.

 

[chipbennett]

Sure, laws can grant rights. Rights are granted by the society. Government is just a formal structure of the society.

By definition, society cannot grant rights. If rights can be granted by society, then they can be revoked by society - in which case, they would not be rights at all, but mere, societal privileges.

 

[chipbennett]

I didn't say natural rights are granted by a legal authority. Legal rights are granted by a legal authority. I have a right to drive on public roads because the state has granted me that right through my driver's license. You might say that's a privilege, not a right, but then you'd just be picking semantic nits.

Natural rights aren't granted. They exist through moral truths, and I suppose if you want to say the source of moral truths is God, you have every right to believe it is. But then that's derived from faith.

Emphatically, no. The difference between a right and a privilege is not mere semantics; it is the fundamental question under discussion. Conflating the two merely serves to confuse the discussion.

 

[nonobaddog]

By definition, society cannot grant rights. If rights can be granted by society, then they can be revoked by society - in which case, they would not be rights at all, but mere, societal privileges.

What definition of a right are you using?
Certainly rights can be revoked by society. Certainly rights can be revoked by legislation.
Rights can be respected, ignored, created, revoked, violated, etc.

 

[chipbennett]

What definition of a right are you using?

I am using the same understanding of "right" as was written in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Certainly rights can be revoked by society. Certainly rights can be revoked by legislation.
Rights can be respected, ignored, created, revoked, violated, etc.

Not if rights are an endowment from our Creator, they cannot. They can only be respected or violated.

Your assertion is only true if rights are a creation of humans in the first place - and we are right back to what must be a binary view of rights: either they are an endowment from a Supreme Being or else they are a human creation.

 

[2A_Tom]

There is no basis for rights without God.

If God did not give us life, then we are no more than a lump of cells that can be aborted by those who want to.

If you believe in natural rights, look at Chicago or any other city over run with thugs.

If you are athiest all you can hope for is that your gang is stronger and better armed than all of the other gangs.

The TV show Revolution was a good example of society left to its own ends.

ETA: [h=1]3 dead 12 hurt at Garlic Festival, 9 dead 39 wounded in Chicago[/h]

 

[Kutnupe14]

There is no basis for rights without God.

If God did not give us life, then we are no more than a lump of cells that can be aborted by those who want to.

If you believe in natural rights, look at Chicago or any other city over run with thugs.

If you are athiest all you can hope for is that your gang is stronger and better armed than all of the other gangs.

The TV show Revolution was a good example of society left to its own ends.

There's no basis for anything without God, because everything in existence can be attributed to him. But to say God endorses "rights" isn't quite correct. The Bible itself actually contradicts the idea of what we consider rights.

 

[chipbennett]

There's no basis for anything without God, because everything in existence can be attributed to him. But to say God endorses "rights" isn't quite correct. The Bible itself actually contradicts the idea of what we consider rights.

Do tell. This seems like an interesting avenue for discussion.

 

[2A_Tom]

You are using the wrong Book.

 

[Jludo]

There is no basis for rights without God.

If God did not give us life, then we are no more than a lump of cells that can be aborted by those who want to.

If you believe in natural rights, look at Chicago or any other city over run with thugs.

If you are athiest all you can hope for is that your gang is stronger and better armed than all of the other gangs.

The TV show Revolution was a good example of society left to its own ends.

ETA: [h=1]3 dead 12 hurt at Garlic Festival, 9 dead 39 wounded in Chicago[/h]

Atheists aren't capable of drafting a constitution and forming a civil society? I think you're conflating atheist with anarchist. There's no inherent reason non belief in God precludes you from entering into the social contract.

 

[2A_Tom]

Atheists aren't capable of drafting a constitution and forming a civil society? I think you're conflating atheist with anarchist. There's no inherent reason non belief in God precludes you from entering into the social contract.

So, you have no rights, only privileges granted by society?

 

[Brad69]

Can someone talk this deity and get a list of laws or rights?

 

[Jludo]

You are using the wrong Book.

Jeffersons bible is my go to. That guy who wrote the declaration of independence had a pretty good grasp on religion and government.

 

[Jludo]

So, you have no rights, only privileges granted by society?

Call it rights or privileges protected by society, I'm not sure the wording matters. Put yourself in a stateless society and see how much better you fair than the atheist boasting 'god gave me rights so you have to respect them'.

 

[Wolfhound]

Can someone talk (to) this deity and get a list of laws or rights?

Didn't Moses already take care of that?

After reading through some of this thread I think people get confused when thinking that government grants rights. What the government does is steal your rights and then try to sell them back to you in the form of licenses and permits. Some confuse this theft as granting of rights which it obviously is not.