Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: RIGHTS you are born with and wants to improve life

Posted 7 years ago on March 29, 2012, 11:01 p.m. EST by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

There are only three RIGHTS that was agreed about from the start. You are born so you have the RIGHT to life and no one has the right to just kill you. You are born with Liberty/Freedom. No human can give you this RIGHT but they CAN and DO take it from you. You are born and have the RIGHT to try and get happiness.

After that there are no rights, they are just wants and the spice to life. Everyone here can agree that we would all love to be given everything that we wanted, That would be great, It is Impossible but it would be great. WE can all agree that there are thing that are needs to allow life. Step one: Food, Water, Housing, Heating in winter. This is needed so you do not DIE. Step Two: Health care, Electricity, Sanitation, a electrical washing machine for clothing. Step Three: Everything that takes time and resources, but are not needed and we all want.

I post this because i read and hear from the left about so many RIGHTS that i could write a book on that list alone.



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by jitooGopal (1) 7 years ago


We must observe the short term and long term here and be aware of each others conditions and what that means to both, needs and wants.

buy snow

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 7 years ago

Good post overall

[-] 1 points by forourfutures (393) 7 years ago

Needs before wants. "WE can all agree that there are thing that are needs to allow life."

When people place their wants over the needs of others, problems develop.

Rights have to do with meeting needs, wants come in later with "pursuit of happiness". We must observe the short term and long term here and be aware of each others conditions and what that means to both, needs and wants.

Personally, IF we have those needs, then we need an Article V convention to be sure corporations are not premptively dominating the resource etc. while schools fail to teach children how to meet needs, or even the differences.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 7 years ago

I would like to dispel some logical fallacies surrounding primary rights. In my view there is only one. It is the right of ownership of one's own life (which is distinctly different from the right to life). The "right to life" implies that death is a violation of one's right. This is absurd. Furthermore, it implies that if one's life is in danger, others must help one to survive. This is also absurd because it places arbitrary influences on their liberty to do with their lives as they please. So I propose that instead of the "right to life", one has the right to the ownership of one's own life. This necessitates that one owns what one is (mind, body, etc. However you want to define it). Ownership, to me, is the exclusive right to the use and disposal of that which is owned.

With that primary right established, the others follow. The right to liberty, of course, is implied in the right to the ownership of one's own life. But let us take a moment to also define the word "right" as opposed to privilege. I define a right as a basic principle upon which one may or may not act based solely on one's own volition, while not violating the similar rights of others, which are possessed by all people at all times. "Healthcare" is a right, but only the healthcare that one can provide for oneself. If one wishes for someone else to provide them with healthcare, they must trade something for the efforts of the other person, just as they would trade for shoes, clothes, food, etc. -- whatever they do not produce themselves. This is the basic principle of trade, a core feature of an advanced society.

There has been a huge disinformation campaign across the world since the concept of individual rights became a prominent feature of modern governments. The campaign has been an effort to equate rights with privileges, as if government (by divine right of kings, perhaps?) has the legitimate authority to grant or deny rights. It does not. The revolutionary war was fought by people trying to establish a system of government to protect their rights. What happened after that has been one disaster after another. If we are ever to establish a moral system of government, it must be one which exists solely to protect the rights of the people. But in order for this to occur, people must understand the difference between rights and privileges. The Bill of Rights (civil rights/civil liberties) is a list of privileges. Fortunately, one of them (the 9th amendment) secures to the people those rights not mentioned in the "Bill of Rights", thus protecting from infringement the rights of the people of this country. If you look through supreme court (and lower court) cases, you will NEVER see the 9th amendment mentioned. Why? Because people rely on lawyers to fight their cases and those lawyers are not trained to protect the rights of the people.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (4074) 7 years ago

Rights are earned through tax dollars taken - it's a simple equation really. Taxes, plus elected politicians who get paid to represent those "inalienable" constitutional RIGHTS = Representative Democracy. Otherwise we wouldn't bother to elect or pay people to keep our system of freedom in place (right now they are using our money to keep wall street represented/ which is why we are all here) . This doesn't take genius. Does propaganda seep into some people worse than others is the real question - Wall Street has been teaching you to appreciate the system that works against you - they have been doing it since your birth.

[-] 0 points by CCNN (8) from Walla Walla, WA 7 years ago

You three are so deluded you make me want to vomit. You understand nothing about this nation and your concept of freedom is so warped as to be insane.

[-] 0 points by elf3 (4074) 7 years ago

Freedom makes you want to vomit? I hear China is hiring - no ones's stopping you feel free to go someplace where rights aren't inherent in the government's eyes, where there is no constitution or "rights" to be upheld. Do you realize how ridiculous your belief set has become... you need to be deprogrammed from Wall Street's propaganda machines and the corporate media.

ishttp://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/01/05/cages/lg.04.jpg http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/01/05/cages/lg.05.jpg http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/01/05/cages/lg.07.jpg http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/01/05/cages/lg.10.jpg http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/01/05/cages/lg.11.jpg http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/01/05/cages/lg.13.jpg http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/01/05/cages/lg.15.jpg http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/01/05/cages/lg.13.jpg http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/01/05/cages/lg.01.jpg

[-] -1 points by CCNN (8) from Walla Walla, WA 7 years ago

No, you three Marxist assholes make me want to vomit. Your concept of freedom is warped. You filthy assholes would give government every fucking power over every person in this country. You sound like a bunch of deluded nazis.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

At least they confused the hell out of you.

You can't even get your insults straight.

Too much meth?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 7 years ago

So you believe the gov't has no place in regulating pollutants that endanger my life or regulate companies who refuse to provide health insurance which endangers my life, or for government to ensure that companies pay me a living wage, which without, my life is endangered? I'll concede that gov't should not be tasked with making the populous happy, but they better protect my life from money grubbing business interests, for that is why they were created.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 7 years ago

The Government was not created to protect you from Companies. Also just where did you get the ideal I said that that Government had no place to regulate? I am talking about RIGHTS and WANTS. What a Government is and what it does I did not say anything about.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 7 years ago

I guess that is where we'll just have to agree to disagree. there are many historical precedents that make my case for me that government has stepped in between business and their labor practices.

And the difference between a want and a right is the difference between a good and a common good.

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 7 years ago

That only HAPPENED in the last 100 years or so. This Government was setup with many hopes, Most of them to protect you from the Government.

I need you to clarify what you mean by good and common good.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 7 years ago

Article one, section eight of the constitution will enlighten you to what I'm talking about. You should read it; it is a beautiful document. Also, slavery was legal over a hundred years ago too. So what is your point?

[-] -2 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 7 years ago

A good way I've found to describe it is that rights are what government leaves for you to figure out for yourself, not what it agrees to take from someone else on your behalf.

The loons think things like healthcare are rights. But that "right" can only be created by a negative right, an obligation, on someone else. They think things fall from the sky and make attachment to where it comes from. No, government gives you the freedom to figure it out for yourself, that's the right of healthcare.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

That's why you didn't get treated for getting hit in the head!!!!

Yer too dumb to find a real job.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Well put Jesse.

I would add that one other thing missing, is that it states "We the People", not "I the Person".

It's a concept that is very difficult from some political points of view.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 7 years ago

Agreed. I don't understand why these freedom loving yahoos can't see that it is in their self interests to have universal health insurance. They pay higher rates year after year because of the uninsured that use the service. Why would they not want to enlarge the pool in which insurance derives from? To bring down the cost, there has to be more people added to the actuary tables that determine the cost of health insurance.

As is, with the mandate, there is now an incentive to raise minimum wage to ensure more people are out of the federal poverty limit. Those working at Wall Mart will be exempt from the mandate, so I believe from reading the bill. To keep costs down for everyone, everyone must make enough to be above the federal poverty limit.

[-] 0 points by CCNN (8) from Walla Walla, WA 7 years ago


[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 7 years ago

Who answers a question with why? Or to be more pointed, why what?

[-] -2 points by CCNN (8) from Walla Walla, WA 7 years ago

Why do you so completly trust this government with so much power over your life?

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 7 years ago

I trust a bureaucrat more than I trust a for profit institution that has a track record of overcharging the gov't when being made whole through medicare. Medicare and medicaid are what is bankrupting our nation and most of it is because of fraud. It is a historical fact that when ever Private/ public partnerships take place, the private sector over charges the gov't, ie, the tax payer. Everyone has heard of a two thousand dollar toilet seat billed to the gov't when the private sector bills the gov't.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 7 years ago

A business can be shut down in a day make that a second.

The government can not be shut down in one day. The more power we give them the more likely they will remain in control till we have no rights at all. I don't care if that worlds a utopia i want my rights

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 7 years ago

That is a very valid point if it is a small business, but I don't see you shutting GE down in one day, one year nor one election cycle, no matter how upset you get with their corporate welfare.

Also, your point is lost when you factor in globalization. Some of these multinational corporations are bigger and more influential than most governments and the majority in our nation. It's hard to boycott something when their markets transcend national borders.

No, in this era you are better off voting out bad policy, then you are at closing bad, big businesses.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 7 years ago

We have the power to call to ban companies from our shores. But we have to look at their practices GE is looking for the next giant leap in advancing the human race. They do absolutely amazing stuff with there labs. Honestly i would be ecstatic to work in there experimental design unit. Now they just need a little pick up that say hey this is the new standard for your work ethics and that is it.

I agree business need new regulation but we also need to change government. globalization is also bad for government the Chinese government is one of the worst in human history in terms of environment and human control. It is not our government job to police other corporations outside the US or other countries.

The world just has to make it 10 more years and everything will be solved. Im not joking about that.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 7 years ago

Do you know that the majority of the companies that built up China's economy were American corporations trying to get over on the American working class, so pardon me if I don't jump for joy at their advancements. Also, last I heard, GE uses its brightest human capital to usurp American tax payments.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 7 years ago

no im happy for capitalism over in china i really am. I dont like there government i have friends from china who have told me the horror stories that they went through.

No that would be a waste of time on GE part to even do that

[-] -2 points by CCNN (8) from Walla Walla, WA 7 years ago

Hmmm...Ruby Ridge. Waco , internment camps, holding citizens without charges, spying on our own people, propping up dictatorships, need I go on? Sorry, I forgot you liberals worship big government.and no that isn't a "fact" that the private sector always over charges. That's okay, you keep on begging for more government control. Some of us will go the other way.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 7 years ago

I've come to the realization that if gov't is a thorn in my side, I have to ask who in the private sector made it so. Remember Gov't is a tool, and when it becomes an oppressive tool, someone in the private sector is getting the benefit. I could see your statement having validity if we lived by the law of a king, but in a republic, you comment falls straight on its face. good try though. Does you logicless statement have a positive effect on your drinking buddies? Maybe they should spend more time in a university, and less time drinking their problems away.

[-] -1 points by CCNN (8) from Walla Walla, WA 7 years ago

Are you listening to yourself? If that government government becomes an oppressive tool what difference does it make why it does? And it's nice to see you dismiss those things I listed. I see what your mindset is now. O ahead, grovel at their feet. You are disgusting.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 7 years ago

ditto, dog.