Use this thread to describe the issues pertaining to so-called rights and citizenship. Do you feel that rights are somehow inherent, or do you think that rights are only valid if they are protected by an entity or organization? Should citizens have to uphold certain responsibilities if they are to retain their rights? Please explain in detail why or why not.

Welcome, Patrick

This has been largely discussed here:

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9342


in a recent thread.

Thanks for the link, but I am more interested in discussing whether or not human being have inherent rights.

To quote the July 4, 1776 Declaration of the 13 United States, "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 all men are created equal.

This is ridiculous, because simple biology tells us the opposite. People are born with a preset intellectual potential, and certain individuals are more likely to commit crime because of their body's level of testosterone production. Furthermore, we should not rule out economics, as inheritance and class differences make it obvious that not everyone is equal. I also disagree that people are equal before the law, as members of the higher classes can obviously hire superior lawyers, and thus stand a better chance of being found innocent if they are charged.

>>That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

As much as I admire the idealism of the founding fathers, I have to disagree with this one too. People are not born with rights. Rights are a social insurance policies, if you will, that are guaranteed by the state. Does a Zulu tribesman have an inherent right not be eaten by his enemies?

Originally posted by Patrick Bateman
I also disagree that people are equal before the law, as members of the higher classes can obviously hire superior lawyers, and thus stand a better chance of being found innocent if they are charged.

That proves the point that the individual must be protected against the majority in any justice system. Otherwise, there is no justice.

Originally posted by Patrick Bateman
Does a Zulu tribesman have an inherent right not be eaten by his enemies?

If he is in the United States, yes.

>>That proves the point that the individual must be protected against the majority in any justice system.

Please explain to me exactly how the fact that wealthier people can afford to hire superior lawyers somehow proves your point. If anything, it should indicate that the current justice system favours the wealthy over the poor, and is therefore hardly just.

>>If he is in the United States, yes.

Then you admit that rights are not universal, and are instead limited to the jurisdiction of the entity that is protecting them?

Originally posted by Patrick Bateman
Please explain to me exactly how the fact that wealthier people can afford to hire superior lawyers somehow proves your point. If anything, it should indicate that the current justice system favours the wealthy over the poor, and is therefore hardly just.

The key to any system of liberty and freedom is that the individual must be protected against the majority. You claim testosterone laden folks are prone to crime. But if they are convicted as a result of poor representation in court as you imply and not as a result of their true guilt, and, in addition, that members of the majority are found innocent because of superior representation, your initial assumptions come into question. And it may not be testosterone, but simply poor representation or some other factor that is responsible for the high crime stats of the minority.

Originally posted by Patrick Bateman
Then you admit that rights are not universal, and are instead limited to the jurisdiction of the entity that is protecting them?

No. The assumptions in the introduction of the Declaration of Independence are universal. The obligation of the government's preservation of rights is limited to those governed, however.

Here is a little article that does a better job of explaining it than I can.

The most important concern you'll see addressed on this page, the central focus around which the issues discussed and the sites linked here were chosen, is that of rights. The very word - right - is always italicized on this page to emphasize that it is not petty squabbles over this policy issue or that with which I am concerned, but the inalienable and sacrosanct rights that reside in each of us as thinking, doing, existing human beings.
First and foremost, this site starts with the premise that rights reside in the individual. Any other conception of rights is, by definition, invalid. Rights cannot inhere in a group or collective; rights grow out of an individual's quest for self-preservation and the exemplify the necessities of that pursuit. As such, property rights are the foundation of all other rights. Property rights stem from the earliest days of human society: If I mix my labour with the land (literally or - in a division-of-labour society - figuratively), and produce something that would not otherwise exist, I have the absolute and incontrovertible right to the product of that labour. If you can take the fruits of my labour by force, then I have no rights and am your slave. Calvin Coolidge, of all people, put it best. "Ultimately," he said, "property rights and human rights are the same thing."

From that premise comes the further premise that principles (by reference to which rights are identified) are more important than circumstances (from which come needs). This means that rights trump needs, however defined. To put it more plainly, the need of Person X to eat does not ipso facto create a responsibility on my part to feed him. My property rights (my human rights) outweigh his need (his circumstances). There can be no right for one person that requires that abrogation of the rights of another for its fulfillment. In such a system, no-one has any rights. If we allow circumstances to over-rule principles, we invite anarchy, mutual distrust, and the dissolution of civil society. The proof is everywhere around us: It should be readily apparent that the scenario I have just described has already obtained in our society.

Teh rich can buy better health care, better leagal advice, better tax advice, better education, etc. What is the point of being poor if they can do the same things?

Saying basic human rights are universal is a corerect statement, it is no guarantee they will be observed, ie, Commmunist countries, Muslim countries.

" All men are equal" before the law, not in god given talent or looks. I don't ha ethe intelligence of Walter Williams, the musical ability of Barry Manilow, or the physical prowess of Arnold Scharzenegger, I have to rely on my exceedingly handsome countenence.:o

Rights are inherent. Whether those Rights are recognized and respected is another issue altogether.

For example, where does the Right to self defense emerge from? Nearly everyone readily agrees that each person has the Right to defend themselves from an attacker...regardless of what the government says or doesn't say about it.

The Right to think what one wants, and to put it into words is also inherent. Any violation of that is a violation of basic human Rights. This and many others, happen to be institutionalized in the United States in the form of the Bill of Rights. But, the Bill of Rights does not grant the Right to worship as we please, or to peacable assembly, or to speech.

The Bill of Rights is a contract among the People and between the People and the government. It is an agreement on exactly what our inherent Rights are. That's all. It does not confer them, endow them, or grant them. It only confirms them.

Originally posted by Patrick Bateman
This is ridiculous, because simple biology tells us the opposite.Well, in order to be created, there must be a Creator. Therefore, I think the DoI needs to be examined in that context. I believe that doing so quickly brings us to the conclusion that all men are created equal in the eyes of God.

Certainly, some are more intellegent than others. Some are born with a predisposition for physical strength. But, to God, we're all equally valuable. As such, if we respect God, then we should respect his crowning creation...human beings. Each and every person deserves that.

Originally posted by Patrick Bateman
certain individuals are more likely to commit crime because of their body's level of testosterone production.That sounds like an excuse to me. The vast majority of the manliest men ever to live were never criminals. Humans are more than just impluses, hormones, and primal urges. We have the ability to rise above that. We have the ability to reason and to control ourselves.

Originally posted by Patrick Bateman
Does a Zulu tribesman have an inherent right not be eaten by his enemies? Yes, I believe he does. Again, whether that legitimate Right will be honored is another story.

I think people here are confusing legal rights with human rights. In some instances, it may be difficult to seperate the two. I understand that.

But, legalities being what they are, it is nearly impossible to have a perfectly just system where everyone is absolutely equal. But, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for it or hold it as an ideal in our society.

>>The key to any system of liberty and freedom is that the individual must be protected against the majority

This is the key reason your criminal justice system is failing.

>>You claim testosterone laden folks are prone to crime.

This is well documented. Higher levels of testosterone statistically coincide with violent behaviour.

>> But if they are convicted as a result of poor representation in court as you imply and not as a result of their true guilt, and, in addition, that members of the majority are found innocent because of superior representation, your initial assumptions come into question.

His assumption is that your criminal justice system is flawed. Perhaps you could elaborate on this and clarify your position. It looks vague to me.

>> And it may not be testosterone, but simply poor representation or some other factor that is responsible for the high crime stats of the minority.

Violent behaviour has been showed in dozens of studies to increase with higher levels of testosterone.

>> No. The assumptions in the introduction of the Declaration of Independence are universal.

Thomas Jefferson never believed in *equal* rights for all members of society.

>> The obligation of the government's preservation of rights is limited to those governed, however.

This doesn’t seem to coincide with the actions of the United States Government.

>>Teh rich can buy better health care, better leagal advice, better tax advice, better education, etc. What is the point of being poor if they can do the same things?

This seems to imply that justice in your society is for sale.

>>Saying basic human rights are universal is a corerect statement, it is no guarantee they will be observed, ie, Commmunist countries, Muslim countries

Justice is a feature of collective association defined by a political entity. Justice can never be found in the individual and *rights* where are defined by the collective are not inherent. A human being does not come into this world with an instruction book.

>>" All men are equal" before the law, not in god given talent or looks.

Rights are abstractions. Humans are by nature unequal.

>>I don't ha ethe intelligence of Walter Williams, the musical ability of Barry Manilow, or the physical prowess of Arnold Scharzenegger, I have to rely on my exceedingly handsome countenence.

Then you agree that none of these people are equal in any *innate* respect?

Rights and Reponsibilities are dependant on the morality, culture, and traditions of a society, and therefore what are rights in a society are not in another.

Rights are basically requests which are granted either because the request is of a certain force and the institution that is to grant them cannot restrain such a force and therefore has to surrender to such a request whether it is morally just or not, or because the request is morally justified and the institution that is to grant them seeks when granting rights what is morally just.

Rights should be granted and enforced by law when they are morally justified, when rights are simply granted because the force exerted to gain those rights is stronger than the force exerted to deny those rights which are deemed unjust by the state, than the state has lost the power it has to ensure moral justice when rights are concerned. In my opinion the state should be more concerned in morality, ethics, and justice, than the requests of a force of individuals which is strong. Any state which does not do so loses its credibility and lowers itself morally, something which denies a strong, moral, and just leadership of a nation.

Responsibilities towards a community exist, and such responsibilities should be enforced by laws or by morality or traditions. Basically laws are responsibilities, but not the sole responsibilities. The responsibilities towards the community depend on the sense of community that exists, nowadays in Western States individualism and materialism, have lowered the sense of community, and thus the individual feels no sense of responsibility towards the community.

Originally posted by Timothy Price
Rights are abstractions. Humans are by nature unequal.

Is this just your flair for the obvious or do you have a point?

>>Rights are inherent. Whether those Rights are recognized and respected is another issue altogether.

Put forth a process of proof that rights are biologically inherent. In your opinion, what is the origin of *rights*? Justice is not a product of strength of force, however respect for the law is dependent upon force and one’s will to power.

>>For example, where does the Right to self defense emerge from? Nearly everyone readily agrees that each person has the Right to defend themselves from an attacker...regardless of what the government says or doesn't say about it.

The *right* to self defense is codified in American law by a political association. This argument is argumentum ad populum.

>>The Right to think what one wants, and to put it into words is also inherent.

Prove it.

>>Any violation of that is a violation of basic human Rights.

*Rights* are an agreement amongst men, dependent upon association, and an abstraction. Rights are not biologically innate.

>>This and many others, happen to be institutionalized in the United States in the form of the Bill of Rights. But, the Bill of Rights does not grant the Right to worship as we please, or to peacable assembly, or to speech.

If *rights* are innate, how can the be granted. The U.S. Constitution is a list of delegated powers to the national government, from a sovereign entity, the people of the United States of America.

>> The Bill of Rights is a contract among the People and between the People and the government.

This contract was abrogated by the government a long time ago when it assumed sovereignty over and above the people.

>> It is an agreement on exactly what our inherent Rights are.

An agreement is a feature of political association. You seem to suggest rights are innate, then rely on what men think through conceptual abstraction to decide upon this. This is an inconsistency.

>>That's all. It does not confer them, endow them, or grant them. It only confirms them.

Rights are abstractions and you *innate* rights are abstractions preserved by force.

>>Is this just your flair for the obvious or do you have a point?

Some people seem to believe that rights are inherent rather than granted. We are debating that.

Originally posted by Timothy Price
Thomas Jefferson never believed in *equal* rights for all members of society.

Got a quote? Jefferson was a product of his era (if you're referring to slavery).

Jefferson STRONGLY endorsed the idea that <i>individuals</i> must be protected from the majority.

“The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.” – Thomas Jefferson

>>Well, in order to be created, there must be a Creator.

Existence exists and existence exists independent of consciousness.

>> Therefore, I think the DoI needs to be examined in that context. I believe that doing so quickly brings us to the conclusion that all men are created equal in the eyes of God.

This is mysticism. God does not exist.

>>Certainly, some are more intellegent than others. Some are born with a predisposition for physical strength.

Humans are not equal in every respect, this is self evident.

>> But, to God, we're all equally valuable.

This presupposes that God exists and created reality.

>>As such, if we respect God, then we should respect his crowning creation...human beings. Each and every person deserves that.

Your argument relies on subjective reality.

>>That sounds like an excuse to me. The vast majority of the manliest men ever to live were never criminals.

The vast majority of violent felons have higher levels of testosterone.

>> Humans are more than just impluses, hormones, and primal urges. We have the ability to rise above that.

It is impossible for humans to transcend existence, reality, and the law of identity. A is A; A is not non-A.

>> We have the ability to reason and to control ourselves.

Some of us are better able to reason than others.

>>Yes, I believe he does. Again, whether that legitimate Right will be honored is another story.

Rights that are not honoured have no validity. Rights are not inherent because there is no biological proof that humans are endowed with innate rights.

>>I think people here are confusing legal rights with human rights. In some instances, it may be difficult to seperate the two. I understand that.

[i]Argumentum Ad Populum

[b]>>But, legalities being what they are, it is nearly impossible to have a perfectly just system where everyone is absolutely equal.

This is because equality does not exist amongst unequal beings.

>> But, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for it or hold it as an ideal in our society.

While we should strive for perfection, we should not rely on assumptions lacking objective evidence.

>>Got a quote? Jefferson was a product of his era (if you're referring to slavery).

I do not like quotes because quotes taken out of context can, and are used to prove anything.

>> Jefferson STRONGLY endorsed the idea that <i>individuals</i> must be protected from the majority.

While this is true Jefferson never endorsed the idea that all men were innately equal, especially blacks and women, women who were citizens.

>> “The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.” – Thomas Jefferson

I agree with Jefferson in many respects, just not this one.

Why do you keep on bringing up the fact that HUMANS are not equal?

We know this. No one is denying any form of biological equality. That is silly to aruge there is such a thing as biological equality.

The thought is of ethics. Does each man have the same INHERENT rights?

This is not an question that has a finite answer, this question is based on how society as a whole makes value judgements. This is based on how morality and ethics are formed, which happens at a societal level.

Our society has deemed this to be true, that all people have certain INHERENT rights.

These rights are not rights granted by God, by government, but by mere existence.

>>Why do you keep on bringing up the fact that HUMANS are not equal?

Soylentgreen has suggested that all of mankind is endowed with *equal* rights, rights that are innate. I disagree and have requested proof.

>>We know this. No one is denying any form of biological equality. That is silly to aruge there is such a thing as biological equality.

Of course it is, this is precisely why equal rights cannot be biologically innate.

>>The thought is of ethics. Does each man have the same INHERENT rights?

Yes this is an ethical question and we should refrain from making Appeals to Nature.

>> This is not an question that has a finite answer, this question is based on how society as a whole makes value judgements.

I agree, justice is a feature of political association, the state, and not the individual.

>>This is based on how morality and ethics are formed, which happens at a societal level.

I agree. *Rights* are an agreement amongst men and thus a feature of the state, not the individual. We are arguing over whether or not this is the case.

>>Our society has deemed this to be true, that all people have certain INHERENT rights.

An agreement can never be inhernet. The United States was not founded on the premise that all individuals are endowed with equal and innate rights. This came much later.

>>These rights are not rights granted by God, by government, but by mere existence.

How has existence granted innate rights?

You sya rights are defined by men...we have defined 'certain inherent rights' that are granted BY existence...

>>You sya rights are defined by men...we have defined 'certain inherent rights' that are granted BY existence...

Rights are a feature of political association, the community, and not the individual. Reality exists independent of consciousness therefore reality cannot accord *rights* which are abstractions and better yet agreements amongst men. What rights in your opinion are granted by reality? Also can you prove these rights are granted by reality?

Originally posted by Timothy Price
>>You sya rights are defined by men...we have defined 'certain inherent rights' that are granted BY existence...

Rights are a feature of political association, the community, and not the individual. Reality exists independent of consciousness therefore reality cannot accord *rights* which are abstractions and better yet agreements amongst men. What rights in your opinion are granted by reality? Also can you prove these rights are granted by reality?



can you prove otherwise?

Originally posted by Timothy Price
Rights are a feature of political association, the community, and not the individual.

This is relevent in arguing for a Nietzschian totalitarian regime such as Communism or Nazism. These totalitarian regimes murdered millions of people and have been proven to be failures by those who believe in freedom and justice.

Since we have direct evidence that rights granted by government can be used against the people, it seems crazy to think people have rights because they are granted by the government. That means at any time they decide, people's rights could be reduced or abolished by the government. Rights are granted by the Creator in part because that is the only way to restrain government from inflicting its will on people.

Again, the objective of the US Constitution is to protect the individual from the government. It is understandable that Southerners are angry because in the mid-1800's, the federal government and several states (like Virginia breaking in two) did many unConstitution actions and passed unConstitutional law.

Originally posted by Timothy Price
I do not like quotes because quotes taken out of context can, and are used to prove anything.

This belief doesn't apply in this case. Nothing was taken out of context. It's a declarative statement. Jefferson MEANT what he said.

I think you need to review the the first few lines of the Declaration of Independence because it outlines exactly where our Rights come from...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[i]>>can you prove otherwise?[i/]

Why are you asking me to prove a negative? That is impossible.

>>This is relevent in arguing for a Nietzschian totalitarian regime such as Communism or Nazism. These totalitarian regimes murdered millions of people and have been proven to be failures by those who believe in freedom and justice.

ROFL you don’t read much Nietzsche do you? Since when was Nietzsche ever a statist or anti semite? Nietzsche hated socialism. Carry on though.

>>Since we have direct evidence that rights granted by government can be used against the people, it seems crazy to think people have rights because they are granted by the government.

The Bill of Rights in the United States, our supposed *rights*, were accorded by an association of men. Because rights granted by the government against people, it does not logically follow that they *are* used against people. That is post hoc.

>> That means at any time they decide, people's rights could be reduced or abolished by the government.

This is ridiciulous because justice is based in consent and not force, respect for justice is indeed based on force and the will to power however.

>>Rights are granted by the Creator in part because that is the only way to restrain government from inflicting its will on people.

This presupposes that there is a creator and the universe conforms to consciousness and not existence.

>>Again, the objective of the US Constitution is to protect the individual from the government.

Obviously it didn’t protect the South from the United States.

>>It is understandable that Southerners are angry because in the mid-1800's, the federal government and several states (like Virginia breaking in two) did many unConstitution actions and passed unConstitutional law.

How can you support a government that lies on the consent of the governed yet support a government that denied that right to millions of people? Is that your position? Please clarify.

>>This belief doesn't apply in this case. Nothing was taken out of context. It's a declarative statement. Jefferson MEANT what he said.

Jefferson believed that blacks were inferior to whites and that they should be deported to Africa. Would you like me to quote him?

>>I think you need to review the the first few lines of the Declaration of Independence because it outlines exactly where our Rights come from...

Perhaps you should read the autobiography of Thomas Jefferson for you can understand the Declaration of Independence and his views.

Was not this *right* denied to millions of American Southerners?

Originally posted by Timothy Price
This is mysticism. God does not exist.

Mere opinion. How do you know that God doesn't exist? Got proof?


Originally posted by Timothy Price
Humans are not equal in every respect, this is self evident.

Equal by what measure? We ARE equal in that we are endowed with unalienable Rights: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. You've read the DoI and the views of the Founding Fathers, right?


Originally posted by Timothy Price
Rights are not inherent because there is no biological proof that humans are endowed with innate rights.

Biological proof is irrelevant in a discussion about political philosophy. How do you prove an abstraction? One can't. You either BELIEVE in it or you don't.


Originally posted by Timothy Price
This is because equality does not exist amongst unequal beings.

Based on your biological argument, which is - again - irrelevant.

>>Mere opinion. How do you know that God doesn't exist? Got proof?

This one is easy. Existence exists and existence exists independently from consciousness. Prove to me God exists, that he created the universe, and that existence conforms to consciousness. Who created God?

>>Equal by what measure? We ARE equal in that we are endowed with unalienable Rights: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. You've read the DoI and the views of the Founding Fathers, right?

These *rights* were a political agreement amongst men, they are not inherent rights discovered by objective science. The Founders were religious men, as were most people at that time. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is an agreement amongst a plurality.

>>Biological proof is irrelevant in a discussion about political philosophy.

Are we not discussing inherent rights?

>> How do you prove an abstraction? One can't. You either BELIEVE in it or you don't.

Easy. Abstractions are attributes of entities grounded in objective reality observable through introspection.

>> Based on your biological argument, which is - again - irrelevant.

Innate rights are inseperable from one’s being, if that is the case how can we take away the *inherent* rights of criminals? Rights are an agreement of political association, they are not inherent, and they can be taken away which we do on an everyday basis.

Originally posted by Timothy Price
ROFL you don’t read much Nietzsche do you? Since when was Nietzsche ever a statist or anti semite? Nietzsche hated socialism. Carry on though.

Hitler was indeed heavily influenced by Nietzsche's philosophy the culmination of which occurred April 30, 1945.

Nietzsche was a generation later than Marx and Engels but shared their view that rejection of a Creator freed governments to do whatever they chose, for whatever reason they chose, to meet whatever objectives they chose. The theoretical differences between Communism and Nazism fade away since the essence is concentrating and attaining power by claiming certain people are villains and certain people are better than others.

You must have read Nietzsche's Zur Genealogie der Moral and Der Wille zur Macht.

The following is an except you may be familiar with.

The strong men, the masters, regain the pure conscience of a beast of prey; monsters filled with joy, they can return from a fearful succession of murder, arson, rape and torture with the same joy in their hearts, the same contentment in their souls as if they had indulged in a student's rag...When a man is capable of commanding, when he is by nature a "Master," when he is violent in act and gesture, of what importance are treaties to him? ...To judge morality properly, it must be replaced by teo concepts borrowed from zoology: the taming of the beast and the breeding of a specific species

He was obviously influenced by Darwinist thought also.

Originally posted by Timothy Price
The Bill of Rights in the United States, our supposed *rights*, were accorded by an association of men. Because rights granted by the government against people, it does not logically follow that they *are* used against people.

No, the rights are acknowledged by men and officially applied to all citizens. If rights were granted, they can be taken away. This is not only logical, it happens often.

Originally posted by Timothy Price
...because justice is based in consent and not force, respect for justice is indeed based on force and the will to power however.

Your Nietzschian use of "Will to Power" reminded me of The Glass Bead Game by Hermann Hesse. I tossed that book out unfortunately. But justice is based on consistent application of law regardless of who the humanoid is.

Originally posted by Timothy Price
This presupposes that there is a creator and the universe conforms to consciousness and not existence.

True it presupposes a Creator and that it is not for his creation to judge others at their whim. If you reduce all humans to animals and a Darwinian, Nietzschian "exisistence" with no consicence, then there is no hope for humanoids. History proves that again and again.

Originally posted by Timothy Price
How can you support a government that lies on the consent of the governed yet support a government that denied that right to millions of people? Is that your position? Please clarify.

I do not support the US government when it acts unConstitutionally. Unfortunately, the remedy requires electing representatives not politicians. The US government was designed to be Constitutionally Federated Republic. Lincoln set a pattern of going far beyond the bounds of the Constution in the early 1860's.

>>Hitler was indeed heavily influenced by Nietzsche's philosophy the culmination of which occurred April 30, 1945.

ROFL answer these questions:

Was Nietzsche a Nationalist? Yes or No?

Was Nietzsche an Anti-Semite? Yes or No?

Was Nietzsche as Socialist? Yes or No?

I am quite familiar with Nietzsche and look forward to your response.

>>Nietzsche was a generation later than Marx and Engels but shared their view that rejection of a Creator freed governments to do whatever they chose, for whatever reason they chose, to meet whatever objectives they chose.

Nietzsche rejected Atheism and he rejected mysticism as the basis of politcal association. Nietzsche was an opponent of social equality and democracy which he laughed at as nonsense and herd morality. Nietzsche did not believe in collectivist state power and it is ridiculous to suggest that he did.

>> The theoretical differences between Communism and Nazism fade away since the essence is concentrating and attaining power by claiming certain people are villains and certain people are better than others.

This is ridiculous because Communism is based on egalitarian social equality and Nazism is antithetical too that.

>>You must have read Nietzsche's Zur Genealogie der Moral and Der Wille zur Macht.

I have personal copies of both The Will to Power and On the Genealogy of Morals

>>He was obviously influenced by Darwinist thought also.

Yes he was. Nietzsche was an opponent of herdist slave morality. He believed in natural rulers and great individual men whom he called free spirits. Of course I am sure you knew this from your glaringly extensive knowledge of Nietzsche. Nietzsche put the individual before the community but he did not believe all individuals to be inherently equal.

>>No, the rights are acknowledged by men and officially applied to all citizens.

This presupposes that *rights* are an agreement or an association.

>>If rights were granted, they can be taken away. This is not only logical, it happens often.

Yes that is my point. If rights are inherent then they cannot be taken away, however we do this on a daily basies. Rights are not inherent.

>>Your Nietzschian use of "Will to Power" reminded me of The Glass Bead Game by Hermann Hesse. I tossed that book out unfortunately.

The gist of that is that only force and determination has validity. Have you ever read The Will to Power?

>>But justice is based on consistent application of law regardless of who the humanoid is.

If the law is not applied, if the law is not enforced then it goes unrespected and without validity. This confirms my statement above.

>>True it presupposes a Creator and that it is not for his creation to judge others at their whim.

Prove there is a creator and that existence conforms to consciousness.

>>If you reduce all humans to animals and a Darwinian, Nietzschian "exisistence" with no consicence, then there is no hope for humanoids. History proves that again and again.

Consciousness is a corrollary of existence and identity. It does exist but you are misrepresenting my argument.

>> I do not support the US government when it acts unConstitutionally. Unfortunately, the remedy requires electing representatives not politicians.

Our representatives are politicans. Was Lincoln’s War constitutional in your opinon?

>>. The US government was designed to be Constitutionally Federated Republic.

The U.S. Government was a limited association of sovereign states delegated a limited number of rescindable powers.

>> Lincoln set a pattern of going far beyond the bounds of the Constution in the early 1860's.

Lincoln was a war criminal and a fascist.

>>The key to any system of liberty and freedom is that the individual must be protected against the majority.

If that is your definition of freedom, then you have completely debased the word. Perhaps protecting the individual from the majority might work well for a short while, but the government will be left helpless when circumstances threaten the needs of its people as a whole. The state must have the power to act to insure the welfare of its citizens—the majority of individuals.

>>You claim testosterone laden folks are prone to crime.

I do not claim so. I know so. It is a well-documented fact.

>>But if they are convicted as a result of poor representation in court as you imply and not as a result of their true guilt, and, in addition, that members of the majority are found innocent because of superior representation, your initial assumptions come into question.

Representation in court has little or nothing to do with the propensity to commit violent crime.

>>And it may not be testosterone, but simply poor representation or some other factor that is responsible for the high crime stats of the minority.

I hope you realize you are criticizing your own system. Better luck next time.

>>The assumptions in the introduction of the Declaration of Independence are universal.

The assumptions in the introduction of the Declaration of Independence are also aimed solely at White men, as Blacks were considered to be only three fifths of a person. Is that assumption universal too? Should all Blacks be the subject of slavery?

>>The obligation of the government's preservation of rights is limited to those governed, however.

Do you believe the government is responsible for non-citizens who are within the borders of the nation?

>>Rights are inherent. Whether those Rights are recognized and respected is another issue altogether.

The idea that rights are inherent is ridiculous. Are these inherent rights confined only to humans? If so, would a homo erectus have the same rights as a modern human? What about a homo habilis? Are these inherent rights you speak of confined to those being who are self-conscious? Would a chimpanzee, which has the mental capacity of a five-year-old, be given the same rights as a toddler? What about a useless retard, or someone in a coma?

>>For example, where does the Right to self defense emerge from?

Obviously, self-defence is not a right, but rather an action based on common sense.

>>The Right to think what one wants, and to put it into words is also inherent.

Apparently not, since the supposedly free and democratic nation of Canada forbids its citizens from publicly displaying writing which promotes hatred against an identifiable group. The United States is moving more and more in this direction too, as so-called hate crimes, which are based upon what the attacker was thinking at the time of the offence, are being promoted as progressive.

>>Any violation of that is a violation of basic human Rights.

If that is indeed the case, then the governments of both Canada and Germany are oppressive regimes.

Originally posted by Timothy Price
This one is easy. Existence exists and existence exists independently from consciousness. Prove to me God exists, that he created the universe, and that existence conforms to consciousness. Who created God?”

LOL! Nice side-step. This proves nothing. You have ZERO proof – only a claim. Which is exactly where I expected you to go…


Originally posted by Timothy Price
These *rights* were a political agreement amongst men, they are not inherent rights discovered by objective science. The Founders were religious men, as were most people at that time. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is an agreement amongst a plurality.

Wrong, sir. Did you R-E-A-D the Declaration of Independence? I posted the salient points for you to absorb and process once again. I did NOT reference the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are a check on government that was agreed to by men. It doesn’t outline where their philosophy of rights emanated – that’s in the DoI. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are there to outline government's purpose and set limits on an entity that history has shown turns into a tyrannical menace when men who are drunk with power overtake its reins.

Now, not EVERY Founding Father was a Christian. This is a myth. Several prominent Founders were Deists: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen, and later John Quincy Adams. And it could be argued too that James Madison had primarily Deist leanings.

Many of the Founding Fathers were students of and participants in the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, and the Scientific Revolution. During this time, it was common to believe in a “mechanistic God” – one who created the universe but left humans with free will to make decisions on their own and work through their own problems. Within the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence we find the essence of the Enlightenment in relation to Religion: “…the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them…” Continuing with this Enlightenment theme, the phrase “…they are endowed by their Creator…” also highlights the Founding Fathers’ emphasis on a Deity but of NO particular faith. Two other instances occur in the Constitution…

The First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...”

Article VI, Section 3:
“...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Jefferson and Franklin were known to believe and said that the only redeeming quality in the New Testament was the Sermon on the Mount. John Adams was a very religious man privately, but he wrote this to Charles Cushing: “Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’”

Here are some additional thoughts to ponder…

Thomas Jefferson’s interpretation of the first amendment in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802):
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

Jefferson said concerning Christianity, "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

Thomas Jefferson’s “The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom”:
“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry....The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

“George Washington never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washinton uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance.”
From: George Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller Jr., pp. 16, 87, 88, 108, 113, 121, 127 (1963, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX)

James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, was not religious in any conventional sense. "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
From: The Madisons by Virginia Moore, P. 43 (1979, McGraw-Hill Co. New York, NY) quoting a letter by JM to William Bradford April 1, 1774, and <I>James Madison, A Biography in his Own Words</I>, edited by Joseph Gardner, p. 93, (1974, Newsweek, New York, NY) Quoting Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by JM, June 1785.

James Madison:
“Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”


Benjamin Franklin, delegate to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, said:
“As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble.” He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.
From: Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Thomas Fleming, p. 404, (1972, Newsweek, New York, NY) quoting letter by BF to Exra Stiles March 9, 1970.

From Ben Franklin’s autobiography:
“...Some books against Deism fell into my hands....It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”


Ethan Allen, whose capture of Fort Ticonderoga while commanding the Green Mountain Boys helped inspire Congress and the country to pursue the War of Independence, said, "That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." In the same book, Allen noted that he was generally "denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian." When Allen married Fanny Buchanan, he stopped his own wedding ceremony when the judge asked him if he promised "to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God." Allen refused to answer until the judge agreed that the God referred to was the God of Nature, and the laws those "written in the great book of nature."
From: Religion of the American Enlightenment by G. Adolph Koch, p. 40 (1968, Thomas Crowell Co., New York, NY.) quoting preface and p. 352 of Reason, the Only Oracle of Man and A Sense of History compiled by American Heritage Press Inc., p. 103 (1985, American Heritage Press, Inc., New York, NY.)

Ethan Allen:
“Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.”

Thomas Paine:
“It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.” And “My own mind is my own church.”

So, the Founding Fathers’ beliefs are pretty clear when you review the Declaration of Independence, which is a Lockean document rooted firmly in Enlightenment principles and beliefs, and if you know and understand the intellectual history of the Revolutionary era in the American Colonies. The Founding Fathers wanted no STATE-SPONSERED religion. There was to be no theocracy here. As Gordon Wood wrote in his Pulitzer Prize winning book The Radicalism of the American Revolution, “At best, most of the revolutionary gentry only passively believed in organized Christianity and, at worst, privately scorned and ridiculed it.”


Originally posted by Timothy Price
Are we not discussing inherent rights?

No sir. YOU are discussing “inherent rights.” Our Rights are unalieniable. We have “inherent rights” – philosophically not biologically – inasmuch that “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.” Just because you happen to NOT believe in God doesn’t make this belief disappear. Your Rights are still endowed upon you. Instead of a monarch being ordained by God with dictatorial authority to say what Rights you may and may not possess, the Declaration of Independence sliced through this staid philosophy and inert line of thinking. This was and is still a philosophical and revolutionary way of thinking.


Originally posted by Timothy Price
Easy. Abstractions are attributes of entities grounded in objective reality observable through introspection.

Not so easy. How are abstractions “observable”? Observable how? Do you have visual confirmation or tangibility via introspection? What are these “attributes of entities”? Not terribly scientific…

Rights are what each individual can wrest from his fellows. Most are gained or lost under socio-economic-political systems whose "rights" come from the barrel of a gun.

Or has human nature recently changed when I wasn't paying attention?

You missed that staff meeting. I sent you a memo.

Originally posted by hammegk
Rights are what each individual can wrest from his fellows. Most are gained or lost under socio-economic-political systems whose "rights" come from the barrel of a gun.

Or has human nature recently changed when I wasn't paying attention?


I never said rights were "inherent." I said they are unalieniable. I thought, hamm, that you mentioned at one time that you believed in God and implied within your numerous posts that you were a fan of the Founding Fathers and their seminal documents?

>>LOL! Nice side-step. This proves nothing. You have ZERO proof – only a claim. Which is exactly where I expected you to go…

Lets take a look at reality. We have reality and reality exists. Reality was not created by anyone or anything, it has always existed. Another question, if God created reality, who created God? I suppose if we are going to look at the basis of reality we should look at objective facts rather than jumping to *other worlds* based no evidence whatsoever. Reality exists independently of consciousness and consciousness is a corollary of existence. Every object has a nature, its identity, and it is impossible for something to be something and not something at the same time in the same respect. Humans can only have knowledge of reality, and of existents, which are observable through consciousness. I propose a test that will conclusively prove that reality is objective, not subjective or conforming to consciousness. Here is my proposal.

-Buy yourself a high-powered revolver (assuming they are legal where you live).
-Load it with FMJ ammo.
-Point it against your head.
-Take the safety off and pull the trigger.

Now, if something can be something and not something at the same time, if the bullet can be anything other than a bullet then you are ok. Of course if the bullet follows the laws of physics (which are "independent of your feelings, wishes, hopes or fears") the bullet will pass straight through your head, presumably splattering the contents of your head (if any) across the room you are in. Of course since according to you something can be something and not something at the same time you don’t have much to worry about, reality would simply conform to your consciousness and you could simply *wish* the bullet into non-existence.

Well? What are you waiting for?

>>Wrong, sir. Did you R-E-A-D the Declaration of Independence? I posted the salient points for you to absorb and process once again.

Yes I have read the Declaration of Independence. Also good job plagiarizing with copy and paste Steven Morris‘s 1995 article ”The Founding Fathers Were Not Christians“ which appeared in The Los Angeles Times. I suppose you located it using a search engine and then copy and pasted it in here as your own research. Bravo.

>>The Constitution and Bill of Rights are a check on government that was agreed to by men.

The *rights* accorded to American citizen through the Bill of Rights are an agreement/compact of political association, of men, a plurality, and thus a feature of the state and not the individual.

>>It doesn’t outline where their philosophy of rights emanated – that’s in the DoI.

LOL Thomas Jefferson did not write the Constitution.

>>The Constitution and Bill of Rights are there to outline government's purpose and set limits on an entity that history has shown turns into a tyrannical menace when men who are drunk with power overtake its reins.

The Constitution and the Federal Government created by it is a compact of delegated powers from sovereign entities. The Federal Government was not created as the Leviathan it is today by the Founders.

>>set limits on an entity that history has shown turns into a tyrannical menace when men who are drunk with power overtake its reins

LOL <see Abraham Lincoln>

>>Now, not EVERY Founding Father was a Christian. This is a myth.

This presupposes that I said the Founding Fathers were Christians, which I didn’t say did I? ROFL.

>>Several prominent Founders were Deists: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen, and later John Quincy Adams. And it could be argued too that James Madison had primarily Deist leanings.

Yes I know this, your point?

Deism FAQ

Is Deism a form of atheism? No. Atheism teaches that there is no God. Deism teaches there is a God. Deism rejects the "revelations" of the "revealed" religions but does not reject God.

And Deist is defined in the same dictionary as: "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason."

http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm

Thus Deism, which professes a belief in a *God,* is a religion. The founders who ascribed to Deism were *religious* men.

>>Many of the Founding Fathers were students of and participants in the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, and the Scientific Revolution. During this time, it was common to believe in a “mechanistic God” – one who created the universe but left humans with free will to make decisions on their own and work through their own problems. Within the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence we find the essence of the Enlightenment in relation to Religion: “…the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them…” Continuing with this Enlightenment theme, the phrase “…they are endowed by their Creator…” also highlights the Founding Fathers’ emphasis on a Deity but of NO particular faith. Two other instances occur in the Constitution…

We have already established that Deism is a religion and that the Founders who were deists were thus religious men.

>> The First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...” Article VI, Section 3: “...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

I am aware of this your point of posting this is?

<Inserts Plagiarized Article/Copy & Paste>

>>No sir. YOU are discussing “inherent rights.” Our Rights are unalieniable.

un·al·ien·a·ble - (n-ly-n-bl, -l--) adj. Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable: “All of them... claim unalienable dignity as individuals” (Garrison Keillor).

Inherent - \In*her"ent\, a. [L. inhaerens, -entis, p. pr. of inhaerere: cf. F. inh['e]rent. See Inhere.] Permanently existing in something; inseparably attached or connected; naturally pertaining to; innate; inalienable; as, polarity is an inherent quality of the magnet; the inherent right of men to life, liberty, and protection. ``A most inherent baseness.'' --Shak.

Notice: Inherent and Unalienable is exactly the same thing.

>>We have “inherent rights” – philosophically not biologically – inasmuch that “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.”

This is amusing. If these *rights* are inherent/unalienable, if it is impossible to deprive someone of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness then what the hell are we doing to convicted criminals on an everyday basis.

>>Just because you happen to NOT believe in God doesn’t make this belief disappear.

LOL God does not exist. If God did exist and if reality was created by consciousness then reality would be subjective, which it is not.

>>Your Rights are still endowed upon you. Instead of a monarch being ordained by God with dictatorial authority to say what Rights you may and may not possess, the Declaration of Independence sliced through this staid philosophy and inert line of thinking. This was and is still a philosophical and revolutionary way of thinking.

These so called *rights* were endowed upon me by an agreement amongst men, codified in a document, and preserved by force. These *rights* are an agreement of political association, a feature of the state, and not the individual.

>> Not so easy. How are abstractions “observable”? Observable how? Do you have visual confirmation or tangibility via introspection? What are these “attributes of entities”? Not terribly scientific…

These abstractions are observable because they are grounded in objective reality, they are grounded in *existents.* I suppose *man* as a concept does not exist. I suppose *table* as a concept, as a form does not exist. Funny.

Originally posted by eanax

....I thought, hamm, that you mentioned at one time that you believed in God and implied within your numerous posts that you were a fan of the Founding Fathers and their seminal documents?
I've alluded to the fact that I don't have sufficient "faith" in current science to be a strict Materialist, and I am a Deist alright.

I won't bother to look up the source & quote, but it's along the lines of "The US system of democracy is horrible, but so much better than any other system as yet tried".

Originally posted by Timothy Price
Lets take a look at reality. We have reality and reality exists. Reality was not created by anyone or anything, it has always existed.

How do you know that reality has always existed? You’re making an assumption here and you have no evidence to prove this to be the case.


Originally posted by Timothy Price
Another question, if God created reality, who created God?

God created MORE than reality, Mr. Price. Who created God? I don’t know that this was necessary. How do you know God had to be created? You’re assuming, again, that this action had to take place. It could be that God just was and is.


Originally posted by Timothy Price
I suppose if we are going to look at the basis of reality we should look at objective facts rather than jumping to *other worlds* based no evidence whatsoever.

Fine. I like facts.


Originally posted by Timothy Price
Reality exists independently of consciousness and consciousness is a corollary of existence. Every object has a nature, its identity, and it is impossible for something to be something and not something at the same time in the same respect. Humans can only have knowledge of reality, and of existents, which are observable through consciousness. I propose a test that will conclusively prove that reality is objective, not subjective or conforming to consciousness.

Another assumption that God operates within what we know as objective. There’s no proof that God must operate within these bounds. Our knowledge is limited and fallible.


Originally posted by Timothy Price
Here is my proposal.

-Buy yourself a high-powered revolver (assuming they are legal where you live).
-Load it with FMJ ammo.
-Point it against your head.
-Take the safety off and pull the trigger.

Now, if something can be something and not something at the same time, if the bullet can be anything other than a bullet then you are ok. Of course if the bullet follows the laws of physics (which are "independent of your feelings, wishes, hopes or fears") the bullet will pass straight through your head, presumably splattering the contents of your head (if any) across the room you are in. Of course since according to you something can be something and not something at the same time you don’t have much to worry about, reality would simply conform to your consciousness and you could simply *wish* the bullet into non-existence.

Well? What are you waiting for?

Cute. However, you’ve still failed to provide proof that God doesn’t exist, as you assert. You are assuming that the laws of physics that we humans and other species are subjected to automatically apply to God as well. You have NO proof other than our own experience to work from, and our experience is limited. Your reality argument fails as proof of God not existing.


Originally posted by Timothy Price
Yes I have read the Declaration of Independence. Also good job plagiarizing with copy and paste Steven Morris‘s 1995 article ”The Founding Fathers Were Not Christians“ which appeared in The Los Angeles Times. I suppose you located it using a search engine and then copy and pasted it in here as your own research. Bravo.

Wow! Is that the only place to find this information?!?!? (deep_sarcasm) Look, Price, it’s well documented that many of the Founders were not Christians – they were Deists, which was NOT uncommon for learned men who were students of the Enlightenment. I hardly copied and pasted from this article. In fact, I’ve NEVER read that article. I’ve had this kind of information for quite awhile, and I’ve read much about this era of American history. I’m fully aware of what Deists are about – I am one.


Originally posted by Timothy Price
The *rights* accorded to American citizen through the Bill of Rights are an agreement/compact of political association, of men, a plurality, and thus a feature of the state and not the individual.

Wrong. These were individuals who agreed to this compact. These rights are organized in a political structure (a constitution and law) to protect the individual (via the court system and the legislature) from a tyrannical government or leadership (i.e. a monarchy or dictatorship, etc.).


Originally posted by Timothy Price
LOL Thomas Jefferson did not write the Constitution.

A straw man! Did I say – in declarative form – that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Constitution? No. You A-S-S-U-M-E that I believe such, therefore making an A-S-S out of U and not M-E. Jefferson was one of many who had a hand in crafting the DoI. ANYONE who’s studied this time in American history knows this.


Originally posted by Timothy Price
The Constitution and the Federal Government created by it is a compact of delegated powers from sovereign entities.

We the people of the United States…


Originally posted by Timothy Price
The Federal Government was not created as the Leviathan it is today by the Founders.

Agreed.


Originally posted by Timothy Price
This presupposes that I said the Founding Fathers were Christians, which I didn’t say did I? ROFL.

You wrote: “The Founders were religious men, as were most people at that time.” And religious men – when speaking of this era in American history – automatically defaults to Christianity. Who’s laughing now? Me…


Originally posted by Timothy Price
un·al·ien·a·ble - (?n-?l?y?-n?-b?l, -??l?-?-) adj. Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable: “All of them... claim unalienable dignity as individuals” (Garrison Keillor).

Inherent - \In*her"ent\, a. [L. inhaerens, -entis, p. pr. of inhaerere: cf. F. inh['e]rent. See Inhere.] Permanently existing in something; inseparably attached or connected; naturally pertaining to; innate; inalienable; as, polarity is an inherent quality of the magnet; the inherent right of men to life, liberty, and protection. ``A most inherent baseness.'' --Shak.

Notice: Inherent and Unalienable is exactly the same thing.


I’d suggest that you do more thorough research than that, Mr. Price.

Main Entry: in·her·ent
Pronunciation: -&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin inhaerent-, inhaerens, present participle of inhaerEre
Date: 1581
: involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit : INTRINSIC

NOTE: Neither unalienable nor inalienable are listed as synonyms for inherent.

Main Entry: un·alien·able
Pronunciation: "&n-'Al-y&-n&-b&l, -'A-lE-&-
Function: adjective
Date: 1611
: INALIENABLE

Main Entry: in·alien·able
Pronunciation: (")i-'nAl-y&-n&-b&l, -'nA-lE-&-n&-
Function: adjective
Etymology: probably from French inaliénable, from in- + aliénable alienable
Date: circa 1645
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm

As you can READ, Mr. Price, by the definitions from Merriam-Webster.com, these terms are NOT synonyms. You, sir, are wrong. There’s a difference between being born with something within your system (i.e. genes, which are inherent) and something that is conferred upon you at birth that – philosophically – can’t be taken away (unalienable/inalienable rights). Again, read the DoI with the political philosophy of the day in mind, and maybe you’ll come to comprehend its meaning.


Originally posted by Timothy Price
I am aware of this your point of posting this is?

<Inserts Plagiarized Article/Copy & Paste>

Once again we see Mr. Price engage in the same fallacies that he rails against and is quick to point out. Plagiarism is using someone’s ideas as your own AND not referencing them. That’s not what I did.

Main Entry: pla·gia·rize
Pronunciation: 'plA-j&-"rIz also -jE-&-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -rized; -riz·ing
Etymology: plagiary
Date: 1716
transitive senses : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm

I source my material. This is a deliberate contortion on YOUR part. Nice schoolboy trick. Well done. You’ve surely come to understand that there are very few “original” ideas…right? We ALL beg, borrow and steal from multiple sources. Ideas are what fuel the contemplative process, and – in turn – carve out new lines of thought.


Originally posted by Timothy Price
This is amusing. If these *rights* are inherent/unalienable, if it is impossible to deprive someone of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness then what the hell are we doing to convicted criminals on an everyday basis.

This is a specious argument. They are receiving due process of law. I already pointed out that the terms inherent and unalienable are NOT synonyms.


Originally posted by Timothy Price
These so called *rights* were endowed upon me by an agreement amongst men, codified in a document, and preserved by force. These *rights* are an agreement of political association, a feature of the state, and not the individual.

Wrong, they are endowed by your Creator (as stated in the DoI), and agreed to be outlined as such in a constitution and defended by men in a court of law. This structure IS setup to protect the individual.


Originally posted by Timothy Price
These abstractions are observable because they are grounded in objective reality, they are grounded in *existents.* I suppose *man* as a concept does not exist. I suppose *table* as a concept, as a form does not exist. Funny.

You’re mixing abstractions with tangible, observable objects. What’s truly funny is that you claim you can observe abstractions.

Nonetheless, a table isn’t an abstraction. It’s a thing – it’s tangible, as is man. These things are easily agreed to by all that observe them. However, you won’t find agreement in abstractions like beauty, love, justice, etc. When you ask folks about these things, they aren’t universally agreed to. One person’s justice is certainly not another’s justice. Therefore, this negates your assertion that abstractions are rooted in “objective reality.”

By the way, did I mention that assumption is the mother of all f*ckups?

>>How do you know that reality has always existed? You’re making an assumption here and you have no evidence to prove this to be the case.

Proof is based on antecedent knowledge. All knowledge is traceable through the chain of causation using logic back to the self-evident, primary knowledge incapable of being reduced. The self evident is the foundation of all knowledge, and of all epistemology. It is self evident that existence exists, that consciousness is our means of perceiving existence, that objects which exist have identity and act according to their nature. These are three inescapable facts. Here is Parmenides syllogism. Reality never came into being because if it did:

#1. It would have to come either from itself or from what does not exist (what-is not).
#2. But what-is cannot come from itself because it already is.
#3. And what-is cannot come from what-is not because what-is not cannot cause anything to come into being.
#4. Therefore, what-is cannot come into being, and is eternal.

>>God created MORE than reality, Mr. Price. Who created God?

This is easy, God, and all other worlds, were created by man. God is a product of man’s consciousness.

>>I don’t know that this was necessary. How do you know God had to be created?

God was created for men could endure the hardships of this world. God is an escape to another world, a world which doesn’t exist and is a figment of your imagination. Reality exists and we can observe reality. Reality is.

>>You’re assuming, again, that this action had to take place. It could be that God just was and is.

Here you admit that there is an irreducible primary, yet you have cast this primary into an other world which cannot be observed. Consciousness is dependent on existence. Existence is, not consciousness. Existence is self-evident, God is not.

>>Fine. I like facts.

You do not like facts because you have denied the primacy or reality, you have jumped to other worlds.

>> Another assumption that God operates within what we know as objective. There’s no proof that God must operate within these bounds. Our knowledge is limited and fallible.

Reality is not subjective, reality is objective. Proof is based on antecedent knowledge, reduced to self evident primaries. Proof relies on existence, which is self evident, God is not self evident. It cannot be proven that God exists. Truth exists. We can percieve reality, reality is objective, and not subjective.

>>Cute. However, you’ve still failed to provide proof that God doesn’t exist, as you assert.

Proof relies on the chain of causation, logic, and the reduction to the self evident. It is not self evident that God exists. I have proven, see above, that reality exists, and that reality is eternal.

>>You are assuming that the laws of physics that we humans and other species are subjected to automatically apply to God as well. You have NO proof other than our own experience to work from, and our experience is limited. Your reality argument fails as proof of God not existing.

I have proven reality exists, that reality is eternal and self evident primary, and that the universe is objective. It is impossible for a thing to be a thing and not a thing at the same time in the same respect. A is A; A is not non-A. Carry on with your delusions and other worlds however, its funny. I suppose you tried my test and wished the bullet into non-existence.

>>Wow! Is that the only place to find this information?!?!? (deep_sarcasm) Look, Price, it’s well documented that many of the Founders were not Christians – they were Deists, which was NOT uncommon for learned men who were students of the Enlightenment.

I said the founders were religious men, this does not presuppose that all the founders were Christians which I didn’t state was my case. You thought that I did, you jumped to a conclusion and built a case upon it. You plagiarized your article, copy and pasted it in, and then made it appear like your own research. Funny.

>>I hardly copied and pasted from this article. In fact, I’ve NEVER read that article.

The website you got that from, was copy and paste, of that article written by that person. I tracked it down. It appears on several websites LOL.

>>I’ve had this kind of information for quite awhile, and I’ve read much about this era of American history. I’m fully aware of what Deists are about – I am one.

Well that is great. Next time present you own case, or if you are going to copy and paste, at least point that out.

>> Wrong. These were individuals who agreed to this compact.

The Constitution was ratified by a political association, of men. The *rights* contained in the Constitution are in essence an agreement amongst men. The Constitution did not have existence until man created that arrangement.

>>These rights are organized in a political structure (a constitution and law) to protect the individual (via the court system and the legislature) from a tyrannical government or leadership (i.e. a monarchy or dictatorship, etc.).

This does not negate the fact that the constitution was created by men, and was an agreement amongst men, amongst a political association. The organization of our government is a corollary of that.

>>A straw man! Did I say – in declarative form – that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Constitution? No. You A-S-S-U-M-E that I believe such, therefore making an A-S-S out of U and not M-E. Jefferson was one of many who had a hand in crafting the DoI. ANYONE who’s studied this time in American history knows this.

Wrong, sir. Did you R-E-A-D the Declaration of Independence? I posted the salient points for you to absorb and process once again. I did NOT reference the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are a check on government that was agreed to by men. It doesn’t outline where their philosophy of rights emanated – that’s in the DoI. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are there to outline government's purpose and set limits on an entity that history has shown turns into a tyrannical menace when men who are drunk with power overtake its reins.

Here is your original paragraph. You start out by discussing the Declaration of Independence. In the fourth sentence you say you are not referring to the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. You then go on to talk about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, in reference to the Declaration of Independence. The Bill of Rights contains a list of rights accorded to individuals. Thomas Jefferson did not write the bill of rights. It is not my fault you are unable to coherently organize your responses.

>>We the people of the United States…

I suppose you then will agree that the people are the sovereign entity, because the people are delegating the government a limited number of powers. Delegated powers are rescindable. If they are not this presupposes that the government, and not the people are sovereign. Agreed?

>>Agreed.

The Federal Government we have today came into being with the illegal 14th Amendment following the Civil War.

>>You wrote: “The Founders were religious men, as were most people at that time.” And religious men – when speaking of this era in American history – automatically defaults to Christianity. Who’s laughing now? Me…

Nice way to try to avoid your intentional misrepresentation. I said the founders were religious men, of course that could imply any faith. I was well aware that many of the founders were Deists. You misrepresented my argument and attempted to knock over a straw man.

>>As you can READ, Mr. Price, by the definitions from Merriam-Webster.com, these terms are NOT synonyms. You, sir, are wrong. There’s a difference between being born with something within your system (i.e. genes, which are inherent) and something that is conferred upon you at birth that – philosophically – can’t be taken away (unalienable/inalienable rights).

Something which is inherent is something that is impossible to transfer. It is also impossible to transfer something which in inalienable. In either case the essence of the definition is that it is something which cannot be transferred.

>>You, sir, are wrong. There’s a difference between being born with something within your system (i.e. genes, which are inherent) and something that is conferred upon you at birth that – philosophically – can’t be taken away (unalienable/inalienable rights).

We take away inalienable rights all the time, using due process of law, we transfer the so called inalienable rights of individuals to the state. Rights are not inalienable because they are taken away under the fifth amendment by due process of law. If rights were inherent they could not be transferred.

>>Again, read the DoI with the political philosophy of the day in mind, and maybe you’ll come to comprehend its meaning.

This is funny because you are struggling to reply. Rights are not inherent because they are conferred by a political association, this exactly the case in the United States. Rights are not inalienable in our system of government, for evidence of that, see above.

>>Once again we see Mr. Price engage in the same fallacies that he rails against and is quick to point out. Plagiarism is using someone’s ideas as your own AND not referencing them. That’s not what I did.

You did not reference your ideas nor did you reference the source of them. Those citations were not yours, but copy and paste from the article.

>> I source my material. This is a deliberate contortion on YOUR part. Nice schoolboy trick.

You copy and pasted off a website and did not source the author of the work whom I located. You did not even provide a link to your source. That is plagarism.

>>You’ve surely come to understand that there are very few “original” ideas…right? We ALL beg, borrow and steal from multiple sources. Ideas are what fuel the contemplative process, and – in turn – carve out new lines of thought.

Do not pass off the research of others as your own and you will not have a problem with me. In the future either provide a link or a source.

>>This is a specious argument. They are receiving due process of law. I already pointed out that the terms inherent and unalienable are NOT synonyms.

Something which is unalienable cannot be transferred. Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence listed some so called inalienable rights. These rights are not inalienable because they are transferred to the state by due process of law under the 5th Amendment.

>>Wrong, they are endowed by your Creator (as stated in the DoI), and agreed to be outlined as such in a constitution and defended by men in a court of law. This structure IS setup to protect the individual.

I was created by my parents, not by God. That is ridiculous.

>>You’re mixing abstractions with tangible, observable objects. What’s truly funny is that you claim you can observe abstractions.

Abstractions do have existence because they are grounded in objective reality, in existents. Men can observe categories, and do on a daily basis. These categories are observable through reason and introspection. This conceptualization is the basis of cogntion. LOL carry on though.

>>However, you won’t find agreement in abstractions like beauty, love, justice, etc. When you ask folks about these things, they aren’t universally agreed to.

These are not first level abstractions.

>> One person’s justice is certainly not another’s justice. Therefore, this negates your assertion that abstractions are rooted in “objective reality.”

All these notions are concepts based on observable existence, they are higher level abstractions.

>>By the way, did I mention that assumption is the mother of all f*ckups?

Yes, assuming God exists is one of the biggest ones.

Originally posted by Snouter

Rights are granted by the Creator in part because that is the only way to restrain government from inflicting its will on people.


LOL.

When have you seen the Creator organize a bunch of people with guns and a mission?

THAT is what creates, and maintains, "rights".

>>When have you seen the Creator organize a bunch of people with guns and a mission? THAT is what creates, and maintains, "rights".

Absolutely correct.