That's true jinx. Perhaps the problem is that the constitution is based on a philosophy or philosophical thought, and I guess it's pretty easy to see that if philosophy is a way of thinking about things, then it follows that people will interpret what is written differently.

The philosophy behind the Constitution is known as libertarianism. It affords people maximum liberty at minimum cost. It means all power comes from the people and is retained by the people. It means government has only those specific powers granted to it by the people and that these powers will never be above those of individual Americans.

Some thought our rights were so self-evident that nobody would dare contest them and saw no need for a bill of rights. We can see how wrong they were. Now we have anti-gun nutjobs claiming that government should have all the guns....the exact opposite of the philosophy of our founders and the opposite of what they had risked their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to defend.

I've still yet to see proof to back up your argument.

Rights are not tangible to gravity. We've already been over this before and you have just shown your lack of knowledge in physics. Rights would be tangible to morals. Morals and rights mean shit when there is only one person because they involve the interaction between two people, so therefore you need a society to exercise rights and morals. Morals are influenced by society and so are rights.


Just because I probably will have to spell this out for you, I do believe in the idea of rights, it is imperative for our society to avoid falling apart, but I do not believe some magical creature or a nihilistic cage gave them to me either.

You believe a piece of paper gave them to you?

No, I believe that society determines how important a single right is. For example, American society places the right to bear arms as much more important than British society does. Western society has the right to free speech as much more important than Islamic society does.

Rights work in basically the same way as morals do. To a single person, rights and morals mean nothing because you need a second a party for them to have any meaning. But once you get a society together, rights and morals are needed for that society to survive and just like a society will place special emphasis on some morals, it will also place special emphasis on some rights.

To think that our society has perfected unalienable rights while all others has not is foolish and it makes much more sense that we just embrace the rights that our society emphasizes as the "true rights".

Because honestly, how do we know which rights are the "true rights"? How did we discover them? The only way that makes sense is that we took the ones that benefited us the most and made them "true rights" just like religion has taken morals and tried to make them absolute.

We've been through this before and you proved that you know absolutely nothing about physics or about rights. You proved that you would deny gravity while falling off a cliff. Deny rights all you like, but as I said, you'll feel a very real and tangible bullet going through your skull when you try to violate my rights.

Society has no bearing on rights. Nor does the number of people who exist. Our rights are the same regardless of how oppressive a government we happen to be living under. Our rights are the same even if we're the only person on earth. If you believe our rights have anything to do with the society in which we live, or you believe rights have anything to do with morality, you are clueless.

Our unalienable rights are self-evident and are as real and tangible as gravity. If you deny that they are self-evident and tangible, you are just a 'tard and a childish little troll as we discovered during our last conversation.

I don't believe in god. I don't believe in magic. I do believe in rights because they are very real and tangible as I've proven many times over.

You come off as a pseudo-intellectual wannabe who is over compensating for your woefully pitiful understanding on the subject. Perhaps if you would actually read a few books, you'd have a better understanding of our very real, tangible, undeniable, and unalienable rights.

Start off by reading these...

Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do - Peter McWilliams
The Law - Frederic Bastiat
Natural Law - Lysander Spooner
Libertarianism in One Lesson - David Bergland
Restoring the American Dream - Robert Ringer
The Discovery of Freedom - Rose Wilder Lane
The Ethics of Liberty - Murray N. Rothbard
On Liberty - John Stuart Mill
Two Treatises of Government - John Locke
Declaration of Independence - Thomas Jefferson
Man vs. the State - Herbert Spencer
Essays on Freedom & Power - Lord Acton
Civil Disobedience - Henry David Thoreau

Then you'll be partially qualified to have a conversation with me on the topic of human rights. Until you've read those all twice and let them sink in, you know less than nothing about the subject.

That's a lot of reading to figure something out that is supposed to be self evident.

Some people are stupid enough to deny their own existence. They need things drummed into their empty little skulls. For 99.9999999% of the earth rights are self-evident, tangible, and real and have nothing to do with the society in which we live, public morality, or the number of people who happen to be there. For the retarded, insane, poorly educated, or purposely obtuse others, it must be spoon fed.

The word "society" immediately translates to "majority rule", in my mind.
Majority rule is exactly what the founding fathers were trying to avoid.
The Bill of Rights spells out, the majority are NOT allowed to infringe upon, or dictate to, any minority.... even a minority of one.

Pardon me for butting in here but.....has it been proven that one would actually feel the destruction of one's brain, the organ that registers the senses?

In that circumstance, would someone not just "wake up dead" without feeling the bullet?

Just askin' here.

Back up your shit Radar. I have yet to see proof of unalienable rights.

Where did I say this Radar? I think you are throwing words in my mouth again.

Ok, I will get into this. First of all, do you know how gravity works Radar? There is something that causes the acceleration of gravity whether it is a particle or something else, something causes gravity. What causes rights? Who gives us rights?

Then, you can take away gravity but not rights. If I take away whatever is causing gravity I can physically have a world without gravity. You cannot do the same things with rights. You cannot have a physical person without rights, it is impossible to even imagine. That is why rights are abstract concepts. You cannot take away their effects so therefore you can not tell if rights are real or not.

Are you sure about this? Can you give me at least a survey that suggests this? Because actually, this is the only board I've been too that thinks we have unalienable rights.


Radar, can you answer these questions.

What is the difference between philosophy and science?

Who or what gives us rights? If you say that nothing gives us rights than name something else in the universe that we have or affect by but is not caused by anything.

How do you know that "killing all the Jews" isn't an unalienable right because some people believe it is?

How do we know that "bearing arms" is an unalienable right and "killing all the Jews" isn't? Who told us? What told them or how did they find out?

Lets be realistic, the majority are not allowed to infringe on a minority as long as the majority allows them too. If a gay man wants to get married to another man, why are we taking away his rights to do so?


This isn't necessarily directed at you Bruce...

Because remember, according the declaration of independence only white males are allowed to have rights. Non-whites and woman (probably homosexuals too) are not allowed to have them.

Why did we change that? Did we discover something else or did *gasp* society change its views on race and gender?

How is that relevant? A real and tangible bullet goes through brains with no regard to whose rights are what.

It's been my experience, and observation that peoples fears (real and perceived), the real and perceived need for self preservation, selfishness, greed, social standing, emotional condition, religious belief, all play a much larger role then their knowledge of any existence of rights they were born with. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's been my experience that 99.9 % of the world does not know this thing about rights, and if they do, they really don't give a damn. If they do they sure do understand them differently then what we are discussing on this board.

We have such a luxury that we can laze around and discuss this. Believe me, I'm grateful for that.

I think it's ironic that in one breath people I know personally say that they are patriots, and American! Law abiding tax paying citizens! And in the next breath they say that if Congress repeals the 2nd amendment, and bans or restricts guns in the U.S. they will kill the guy that comes for theirs. Rather then run for office or get seriously involved in the process we have here for change. It sounds inconsistent to me.

What really burns my nads is this: when I have to give something up because someone else has abused something. A guy walks into a mall, probably mentally ill, drunk, high or all three. Kills some people with a fire arm. I have to give up mine, for that? I'm not mentally ill, I don't drink alcohol, and I don't use mind altering drugs. Nope, it is not right that I should have to give mine up for that.

It's not the only place I've experience this type of thinking. Very few things get my blood up more then that kind of injustice.

It's like saying that flies cause garbage, and getting rid of all the flies will get rid of all the garbage.

Wrong. You've seen it many times, but you just deny it much like a child putting fingers in their ears while saying, "I can't hear you!".


By denying the existence of natural rights, you deny the existence of gravity. Both are equally part of natural law.


Natural law encompasses gravity and natural rights. You claim that gravity exists because a particle exists. Natural rights exist because nature exists.

No, you can't take away gravity. Society has no bearing on gravity. Every single person on earth could unanimously vote to get rid of gravity, and it would still exist. The same is true of our natural rights. If every single person on earth voted for our rights to go away, we'd still have them. Nothing you say or do will remove either gravity or our natural rights.


Yes I'm sure about it and I don't need to provide a survey. By all means do your own survey. Ask everyone you meet if they have the right to live. Then ask if that right comes from their government or if they are born with that right.


I'll wait to answer this until you've completed your assigned reading.

Nature (aka the laws of physics) grant us these rights at birth.

I know that murdering Jews isn't a right because if one human being has a right to life, we all do. My rights end where another person's begin. I don't have a right to kill another human unless it is in my own defense. My right to swing my fist ends where another person's nose begins.

Bearing arms does not infringe on the rights of others. Murder does. Bearing arms is part of our right to life. Murder is not one of our rights because our rights don't include infringing on the rights of others.

Now shut up your yap, and do some reading.