Forum Post: My fellow Occupiers

The conservatives are correct about our constitution and our inalienable rights. Their main argument is protecting people's property rights. By the text of our constitution and the text of our founding fathers they are correct by the founding father's standards. Within the founding father's context everything the conservatives say is correct. When the founding father's created our constitution, the declaration of independence, and our bill of rights they did not forsee us having all of this technology including a global network.

They did not forsee us having nuclear weapons. The population was much smaller. What if by all of our technology and population growth these rights are unenforcable in the founding father's form because they seem to contradict in different ways?It is claimed that people have a right to their property. My questin is this. Do other people's right end where some begin? Yes, the one percentagers have a right to their property but at what cost? What if the right to their property is impacting people's lives? I have another question. Does everyone human being on the earth today have a fundamental right to exist and to be here? If yes, what if the one percentagers are violating the right for some to exist through their policies and their greed. They have great power that comes from their property but does not great power come with great responsibility? How responsible have these one percentagers been? Some conservatives love to talk about self-responsibility all the time.

Let's start taking these one percentagers to task. Let's not only do that but let's take the strict constitutionalists and our very founding father's to task ask "does one person or a group of people have a right to all of the land and resources of the earth if they earn it?" Is there something even more valuable and that takes more precedent than some people's property rights? Is one person who is starving on the streets life more valuable then these one percentager's property? Should this one person be left to starve in the streets because we want to protect a billionaire's property rights? If a person's life is more precious and the most precious jewel of all then are some rights more inalienable than others? Let me ask this. If I had a wife and she had cancer and a billionire had a cure for cancer what if I can't afford it and he will not give it to me and the law would not make the billionare give it to me? I would break into his facilities and take the cure.

My wife's life is more precious than this billionare's property in which I can't afford. By this standard, is the social contract broken? Do we have an absolute right to our property or are there is there a greater moral law than our property rights and our inalienable rights themselves and that is the right to exist? Should there be those who live in poverty? My own ethical principles can't allow this because of a billionaire's property rights. I value the person who lives on the street and is almost starving more than a billionaire's property rights. Should a person who has a disability starve in the streets? I'm sorry but I value the preciousness of life itself over the some people's property rights. God tells me to choose life. I choose life.