Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33
  1. #1
    Forum Regular blackraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    Posts
    5,421

    God Given Right!

    I keep hearing in the news and from some people that Health Care is a God Given Right!
    It got me thinking that if health care is a right then why isn't food and housing a god given right?
    Why do we have people homeless and starving? And why stop there? What about college education. Why is that not free or subsidized? Shouldn't every one be on a level playing field with education so that they can compete in the job market? What a bunch of hippocrites in this country. We are only worried about ourselves and the money in our pockets.

    I'm just playing the 's advocate here!
    Pass Labs X250 amp, BAT Vk-51se Preamp,
    Thorens TD-145 TT, Bellari phono preamp, Nagaoka MP-200 Cartridge
    Magnepan QR1.6 speakers
    Luxman DA-06 DAC
    Van Alstine Ultra Plus Hybrid Tube DAC
    Dual Martin Logan Original Dynamo Subs
    Parasound A21 amp
    Vintage Luxman T-110 tuner
    Magnepan MMG's, Grant Fidelity DAC-11, Class D CDA254 amp
    Monitor Audio S1 speakers, PSB B6 speakers
    Vintage Technic's Integrated amp
    Music Hall 25.2 CDP
    Adcom GFR 700 AVR
    Cables- Cardas, Silnote, BJC
    Velodyne CHT 8 sub

  2. #2
    I put the Gee in Gear.... thekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    VB VA
    Posts
    2,307
    People throw around their "rights" whenever it comes to justifying their position on a particular topic. It becomes complicated however when you try to distinguish the rights of the individual as they exist within society. As the population grows and the world we live in becomes smaller the rights of the individual and society clash more and more. As an individual I would argue you have the right to do just about anything but once your actions impact those around you then society has the right to step in. My definition when it comes to rights is that yours end where my begin. So specific to health care or the other things you mention an individual does not have the "right" to those things as long as society is not preventing them from obtaining them. So if an individual wants to move to some desolate area away from society and die of starvation or some disease I'd argue they have the right to do that and since it does not impact the greater good let them have at it. However since that option does not exist for the majority of people how do we organize ourselves as a society to achieve the right balance of personal freedoms and rights?

    Specific to health care we as a society have decided that we will provide a certain basic amount of health care. Even an idot such as Sean Hannity argued with a caller just 2 days ago that we did not need this new health care program because everyone is all ready covered. He told the caller that if they are ill and just walk into an ER they will be treated through existing government programs. He is right.

    So going back to my definition of your rights end where my begin... Being treated in the ER or only when your illness has reached a catastrophic level is generally the most expensive type of medical treatment and at that point there is very little cost containment procedures in place. So can't society have the right to step in and say no more-we will create a health care program that will permit you to see regular doctors and be treated before your illness costs me 10 times what it will cost if you go through the ER or require hospitalization?

    As I have said before we already have in many ways universal health care in this country but it is costly and unregulated. Many of the people who are screaming about the government infringing on their rights ignore this fact. (Think back this summer to the town meetings where the people were yelling to stop government run health care but don't touch my Medicare)

    As a taxpayer all I want is the right to put an end to the current system that is leading to increased costs and a tiered health care system that can drop you from the top tier to the bottom tier based solely on your current employment status. Or one that if I change jobs or move to another state means that any illness my family might currently be getting tretment for will no longer be covered. This current health care only addresses a few of the current problems because it expands coverage and will hopefully put an end to the ER room being America's primary care doctor. It does next to nothing to address other issues that also are a cause of sky rocketing health care costs but at least it is a start and people on both sides of the political aisle will have to deal with health care and stop ignoring it.
    NAD D3020
    Denon 2910
    Denon DMD 1000
    MSB Link DAC III
    Von Schweikert VR2
    NAD 7240PE
    NAD 5240
    Hughes AK 100
    Tascam 122
    Technics SL 1700
    Rogers BBC Monitors LS3/6

  3. #3
    Vinyl Fundamentalist Forums Moderator poppachubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Analog Synagogue
    Posts
    4,363
    I can walk into a hospital with any problem and get care, worry free. Now that I have kids, I can take them also.

    When my youngest was born, he had a fever after only 2 days home. We took him to the local children's hospital and were treated like kings. My wife and I were beside ourselves with worry, but they did an amazing job of caring for my son and in a few days, he was ok.

    I can't imagine having to go through an ordeal like that and having to worry about whether I'm insured correctly, or how I'm going to pay.

    I hope you guys can work it out.

  4. #4
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by blackraven
    I keep hearing in the news and from some people that Health Care is a God Given Right!
    It got me thinking that if health care is a right then why isn't food and housing a god given right?
    Why do we have people homeless and starving? And why stop there? What about college education. Why is that not free or subsidized? Shouldn't every one be on a level playing field with education so that they can compete in the job market? What a bunch of hippocrites in this country. We are only worried about ourselves and the money in our pockets.

    I'm just playing the 's advocate here!
    I don't believe healthcare is a "God Given" right -- but then I don't believe in God.

    (On the other hand when you say, "What a bunch of hippocrites in this country. We are only worried about ourselves and the money in our pockets", some would say it's God's, not the Devil's advocate that your being.)

    To provide our fellow citizens with healthcare is a human decission. It is something entered into in a spirity of cooperative, community. Something we argee on in the conviction that a majority of us will benefit from it directly or indirectly, and that society will be an overall better place on account of it. To an extent we already do so for food and housing through programs the subsidize these essentials or the incomes of the people effected.

    Shall I point out that in France not only healthcare is completely free, but also education through the highest levels of university. This is the decission that the French, as a nation of people, have made. Of course the selfishness among the wealthier citizens constantly seek to undermine that happy status quo, but their efforts are unlikely to result in a complete reversal of it.

    We really need to get over the our excessive believe in "self-reliance", the "free market", "private enterprise", and the "inefficiency "of government, and realize that there are some things can be -- and are better -- done cooperatively.

  5. #5
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    Did someone say France?

    "French taxpayers fund a state health insurer, Assurance Maladie, proportionally to their income, and patients get treatment even if they can't pay for it. France spends 11% of national output on health services, compared with 17% in the U.S., and routinely outranks the U.S. in infant mortality and some other health measures.

    The problem is that Assurance Maladie has been in the red since 1989. This year the annual shortfall is expected to reach €9.4 billion ($13.5 billion), and €15 billion in 2010, or roughly 10% of its budget."

    Click for WSJ article.

    If one reads the article, one will find that the grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence. Also, keep in mind that France has about 20% of the population of the US, and Canada comes in at about 10%.

  6. #6
    Vinyl Fundamentalist Forums Moderator poppachubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Analog Synagogue
    Posts
    4,363
    A proper system will work for any size population if it's created correctly. More citizens should mean more in the pot...

    As for France, they do things different over there. For instance, our ambulances use the "snatch and run" technique. In France, they work on site until a person is fully stabilized. They are not perfect, but neither is Canada.

    Any system will have flaws but if it creates more good than bad, I would say it's a success. Being in the red billions is no good, but versus human life and health...

  7. #7
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Anywhere but here...
    Posts
    13,243
    Quote Originally Posted by poppachubby
    A proper system will work for any size population if it's created correctly. More citizens should mean more in the pot...

    As for France, they do things different over there. For instance, our ambulances use the "snatch and run" technique. In France, they work on site until a person is fully stabilized. They are not perfect, but neither is Canada.

    Any system will have flaws but if it creates more good than bad, I would say it's a success. Being in the red billions is no good, but versus human life and health...
    Maybe. More population does make it a little harder IMO though. Not that another’s system couldn’t be tweaked to work for us.

    I was picked up by an ambulance a little over a year ago here. We spent at least 45 minutes outside our home while they treated me and asked questions. I’m not so sure that qualifies as a “snatch and run”, but I don’t know much about France’s ambulances. Maybe they would have parked there overnight till I was better.

    I am surprised that no one has commented on how the republicans in congress have been acting like a bunch of spoiled children over the passing of the bill. It’s understandable that they are upset, but threats are no way to get their message across.
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

  8. #8
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    "French taxpayers fund a state health insurer, Assurance Maladie, proportionally to their income, and patients get treatment even if they can't pay for it. France spends 11% of national output on health services, compared with 17% in the U.S., and routinely outranks the U.S. in infant mortality and some other health measures.

    The problem is that Assurance Maladie has been in the red since 1989. This year the annual shortfall is expected to reach €9.4 billion ($13.5 billion), and €15 billion in 2010, or roughly 10% of its budget."

    Click for WSJ article.

    If one reads the article, one will find that the grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence. Also, keep in mind that France has about 20% of the population of the US, and Canada comes in at about 10%.
    Your sentence about France spending less and more is the real bottom line.

    The "problem" with France's healthcare system isn't the system itself: it's the usual human propensity to want something for nothing, and -- specifically -- to feel that lower taxes are the be-all & end-all of human existance.

    I agree with Poppachubby: I don't see the relevance of the size of the country. The truth is that Canada has a bigger problem because quality care must be delivered to sparse populations in areas much more remote than anywhere in the lower 48.
    Last edited by Feanor; 03-25-2010 at 09:04 AM.

  9. #9
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by poppachubby
    I can walk into a hospital with any problem and get care, worry free. Now that I have kids, I can take them also.

    When my youngest was born, he had a fever after only 2 days home. We took him to the local children's hospital and were treated like kings. My wife and I were beside ourselves with worry, but they did an amazing job of caring for my son and in a few days, he was ok.

    I can't imagine having to go through an ordeal like that and having to worry about whether I'm insured correctly, or how I'm going to pay.

    I hope you guys can work it out.
    When I tell Americans that I got a US$ 150,000 course of treatment for my occluded arteries for free out-of-pocket, some aren't impressed. Go figure.

  10. #10
    Vinyl Fundamentalist Forums Moderator poppachubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Analog Synagogue
    Posts
    4,363
    Quote Originally Posted by GMichael
    Maybe. More population does make it a little harder IMO though. Not that anotherís system couldnít be tweaked to work for us.

    I was picked up by an ambulance a little over a year ago here. We spent at least 45 minutes outside our home while they treated me and asked questions. Iím not so sure that qualifies as a ďsnatch and runĒ, but I donít know much about Franceís ambulances. Maybe they would have parked there overnight till I was better.

    I am surprised that no one has commented on how the republicans in congress have been acting like a bunch of spoiled children over the passing of the bill. Itís understandable that they are upset, but threats are no way to get their message across.
    Well I would say your case wasn't that big of an emergency. 45 minutes outside of your home. With emergencies, snatch and run is what's employed in N. America. Of course, it's always situational. If someone has no heart beat, they will try to bring them back on site, etc etc....

  11. #11
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by GMichael
    ...

    I am surprised that no one has commented on how the republicans in congress have been acting like a bunch of spoiled children over the passing of the bill. Itís understandable that they are upset, but threats are no way to get their message across.
    Have I not explained that reasonableness and moderation have departed the Republican Party? (I grant you the reasonable ones didn't migrated to the Democratic Party either.)

  12. #12
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    4,380
    Interesting thought.

    So now if it is mandatory or get fined, we will have homeless starving people sleeping on street vents......but they will have to have Health Care.

  13. #13
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Anywhere but here...
    Posts
    13,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Have I not explained that reasonableness and moderation have departed the Republican Party? (I grant you the reasonable ones didn't migrated to the Democratic Party either.)
    I still feel that reasonableness and moderation have departed both parties. The Reps are sure doing a great job of looking bad today though.
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

  14. #14
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Anywhere but here...
    Posts
    13,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Hyfi
    Interesting thought.

    So now if it is mandatory or get fined, we will have homeless starving people sleeping on street vents......but they will have to have Health Care.
    Little steps?
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

  15. #15
    Forum Regular blackraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    Posts
    5,421
    You guys missed my point. First off, I'm not against universal health care. Secondly, why don't we address a more important problem of people not being able to afford a home or food. It seems to me that is just as important as health care if not more important.
    Pass Labs X250 amp, BAT Vk-51se Preamp,
    Thorens TD-145 TT, Bellari phono preamp, Nagaoka MP-200 Cartridge
    Magnepan QR1.6 speakers
    Luxman DA-06 DAC
    Van Alstine Ultra Plus Hybrid Tube DAC
    Dual Martin Logan Original Dynamo Subs
    Parasound A21 amp
    Vintage Luxman T-110 tuner
    Magnepan MMG's, Grant Fidelity DAC-11, Class D CDA254 amp
    Monitor Audio S1 speakers, PSB B6 speakers
    Vintage Technic's Integrated amp
    Music Hall 25.2 CDP
    Adcom GFR 700 AVR
    Cables- Cardas, Silnote, BJC
    Velodyne CHT 8 sub

  16. #16
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Anywhere but here...
    Posts
    13,243
    Quote Originally Posted by blackraven
    You guys missed my point. First off, I'm not against universal health care. Secondly, why don't we address a more important problem of people not being able to afford a home or food. It seems to me that is just as important as health care if not more important.
    Sorry. I didn't really miss it. "Little steps" is just what I always hear from the Dems.
    I agree with you. Those problems should have been address first, but they weren't what was in the spotlight. When they come around to being the "in thing" to worry about, maybe someone will do something then.
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

  17. #17
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by GMichael
    I still feel that reasonableness and moderation have departed both parties. The Reps are sure doing a great job of looking bad today though.
    Reps have been looking bad since Goldwater, IMO. But you're right: not a lot of reasonableness in either party.

    I made the point in another thread that "two-party" system in the US is an anomaly on the world scene, and that only two parties does not allow for sufficient diversity of opinion. One consequence of this is a lot of shenanigans, (e.g. pork-barrel bribes and rub-my-back deals, etc), whenever you try to get anything done.

    Anywhere but in the US -- and now increasingly in the US -- you see more dogmatic party positions as the norm. There is more party discipline and, if you're lucky, fewer deals. Get used to this!! Just now the Republicans are 'way ahead of the Democrats with respect to party enforcing solidarity.

  18. #18
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Reps have been looking bad since Goldwater, IMO. But you're right: not a lot of reasonableness in either party.

    I made the point in another thread that "two-party" system in the US is an anomaly on the world scene, and that only two parties does not allow for sufficient diversity of opinion. One consequence of this is a lot of shenanigans, (e.g. pork-barrel bribes and rub-my-back deals, etc), whenever you try to get anything done.

    Anywhere but in the US -- and now increasingly in the US -- you see more dogmatic party positions as the norm. There is more party discipline and, if you're lucky, fewer deals. Get used to this!! Just now the Republicans are 'way ahead of the Democrats with respect to party enforcing solidarity.
    I agree, the Republicans are way ahead of the Democrats in solidarity. They are because they have no ideas, no real strong leadership, no message but no, they are trying to reclaim a position they lost in the previous eight years(physical financial restraint, and anti big government) by trying to apply it when the economy needs the government most.

    When you are in that profound state of dysfunction, you better stick together.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  19. #19
    3LB
    3LB is offline
    cunning linguist 3LB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    hiding out in treetops, shouting out rude names
    Posts
    1,737
    I don't give much credence to corporate bought politicians who want to evoke the name of God to validate their positions. Hell, the Taliban evokes the same God to justify their actions. Its all relative. I know those are two completely different ends of the spectrum, but if both get their way, they'll achieve the same results. The difference being that the US corporetariat has more patience.
    Repost this on your wall if you love Jesus.

  20. #20
    Musicaholic Forums Moderator ForeverAutumn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    9,769
    This question is going to sound like I'm mocking, but I promise that I'm not. What is the definition of a "god-given right"? Is there really such a thing or is this just slang for something that is so important that it should be something bestowed by god?

  21. #21
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Anywhere but here...
    Posts
    13,243
    Quote Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn
    This question is going to sound like I'm mocking, but I promise that I'm not. What is the definition of a "god-given right"? Is there really such a thing or is this just slang for something that is so important that it should be something bestowed by god?
    Slang.....
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

  22. #22
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Anywhere but here...
    Posts
    13,243
    Quote Originally Posted by GMichael
    Slang.....

    Or... from here....http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/Am...stick/pr3.html



    A Principle of The Traditional American Philosophy
    3. Unalienable Rights - From God

    ". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ." (Declaration of Independence)
    The Principle

    1. The traditional American philosophy teaches that Man, The Individual, is endowed at birth with rights which are unalienable because given by his Creator.

    The Only Moral Basis

    2. This governmental philosophy is uniquely American. The concept of Man's rights being unalienable is based solely upon the belief in their Divine origin. Lacking this belief, there is no moral basis for any claim that they are unalienable or for any claim to the great benefits flowing from this concept. God-given rights are sometimes called Natural Rights--those possessed by Man under the Laws of Nature, meaning under the laws of God's creation and therefore by gift of God. Man has no power to alienate--to dispose of, by surrender, barter or gift--his God-given rights, according to the American philosophy. This is the meaning of "unalienable."

    One underlying consideration is that for every such right there is a correlative, inseparable duty--for every aspect of freedom there is a corresponding responsibility; so that it is always Right-Duty and Freedom-Responsibility, or Liberty-Responsibility. There is a duty, or responsibility, to God as the giver of these unalienable rights: a moral duty--to keep secure and use soundly these gifts, with due respect for the equal rights of others and for the right of Posterity to their just heritage of liberty. Since this moral duty cannot be surrendered, bartered, given away, abandoned, delegated or otherwise alienated, so is the inseparable right likewise unalienable. This concept of rights being unalienable is thus dependent upon belief in God as the giver. This indicates the basis and the soundness of Jefferson's statement (1796 letter to John Adams): "If ever the morals of a people could be made the basis of their own government it is our case . . ."

    Right, Reason, and Capacity to Be Self-governing

    3. For the security and enjoyment by Man of his Divinely created rights, it follows implicitly that Man is endowed by his Creator not only with the right to be self-governing but also with the capacity to reason and, therefore, with the capacity to be self-governing. This is implicit in the philosophy proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. Otherwise, Man's unalienable rights would be of little or no use or benefit to him. Faith in Man--in his capacity to be self-governing--is thus related to faith in God as his Creator, as the giver of these unalienable rights and this capacity.

    Rights--as Prohibitions Against Government

    4. Certain specific rights of The Individual are protected in the original Constitution but this is by way of statements "in reverse"--by way of express prohibitions against government. The word "right" does not appear in the original instrument. This is because it was designed to express the grant by the people of specific, limited powers to the central government--created by them through this basic law--as well as certain specific limitations on its powers, and on the preexisting powers of the State governments, expressed as prohibitions of things forbidden. Every provision in it pertains to power.

    The Constitution's first eight (Bill of Rights) amendments list certain rights of The Individual and prohibit the doing of certain things by the central, or Federal, government which, if done, would violate these rights. These amendments were intended by their Framers and Adopters merely to make express a few of the already-existing, implied prohibitions against the Federal government only--supplementing the prohibitions previously specified expressly in the original Constitution and supplementing and confirming its general, over-all, implied, prohibition as to all things concerning which it withheld power from this government. Merely confirming expressly some of the already-existing, implied prohibitions, these amendments did not create any new ones. They are, therefore, more properly referred to as a partial list of limitations--or a partial Bill of Prohibitions--as was indicated by Hamilton in The Federalist number 84. This hinges upon the uniquely American concepts stated in the Declaration of Independence: that Men, created of God, in turn create their governments and grant to them only "just" (limited) powers--primarily to make and keep secure their God-given, unalienable rights including, in part, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. As Hamilton stated, under the American philosophy and system of constitutionally limited government, "the people surrender nothing;" instead, they merely delegate to government--to public servants as public trustees--limited powers and therefore, he added, "they have no need of particular reservations" (in a Bill of Rights). This is the basic reason why the Framing Convention omitted from the Constitution anything in the nature of a separate Bill of Rights, as being unnecessary.

    An Endless List of Rights

    5. To attempt to name all of these rights--starting with "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence--would be to start an endless list which would add up to the whole of Man's Freedom (Freedom from Government-over-Man). They would add up to the entirety of Individual Liberty (Liberty against Government-over-Man). Innumerable rights of The Individual are embraced in the Ninth Amendment, which states: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Here "Constitution" includes the amendments.) Some idea of how vast the list would be is indicated by just one general freedom which leads into almost all of Free Man's activities of daily living throughout life: freedom of choice. This term stands for the right to do--and equally not to do--this or that, as conscience, whim or judgement, taste or desire, of The Individual may prompt from moment to moment, day by day, for as long as life lasts; but always, of course, with due regard for the equal rights of others and for the just laws expressive of the above-mentioned "just powers" of government designed to help safeguard the equal rights of all Individuals. Spelled out in detail, this single freedom--freedom of choice--is almost all-embracing.

    Right To Be Let Alone

    6. In one sense, such freedom to choose involves Man's right to be let alone, which is possessed by The Individual in keeping with the Declaration and Constitution as against government: in enjoyment of his unalienable rights, while respecting the equal rights of others and just laws (as defined in Paragraph 5 above). This right to be let alone is the most comprehensive of rights and the right of most prized by civilized men. This right is, of course, also possessed as against all other Individuals, all obligated to act strictly within the limits of their own equal rights. Consequently any infringement of any Individual's rights is precluded.

    Rights Inviolable by Government or by Others

    7. Neither government nor any Individuals--acting singly, or in groups, or in organizations--could possibly possess any "just power" (to use again the significant term of the Declaration) to violate any Individual's God-given, unalienable rights or the supporting rights. No government can abolish or destroy--nor can it rightfully, or constitutionally, violate--Man's God-given rights. Government cannot justly interfere with Man's deserved enjoyment of any of these rights. No public official, nor all such officials combined, could possibly have any such power morally. Government can, to be sure, unjustly and unconstitutionally interfere by force with the deserved enjoyment of Man's unalienable rights. It is, however, completely powerless to abolish or destroy them. It is in defense of these rights of all Individuals, in last analysis, that the self-governing people--acting in accordance with, and in support of, the Constitution--oppose any and all violators, whether public officials or usurpers, or others (par. 9 below).

    Each Individual Consents to Some Limitations

    8. In creating governments as their tools, or instruments, and equally in continuing to maintain them--for the purpose primarily of making and keeping their unalienable rights--all Individuals composing the self-governing people impliedly and in effect consent to some degree of limitation of their freedom to exercise some of their rights. This does not involve the surrender, or the alienation, of any of these rights but only the partial, conditional and limited relinquishment of freedom to exercise a few of them and solely for the purpose of insuring the greater security and enjoyment of all of them; and, moreover, such relinquishment is always upon condition that public officials, as public servants and trustees, faithfully use the limited powers delegated to government strictly in keeping with their prescribed limits and with this limited purpose at all times. It was in this sense that George Washington, as President of the Framing Convention in September, 1787, wrote to the Congress of the Confederation--in transmitting to it, for consideration, the draft of the proposed Constitution: ". . . Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest." Here he meant merely conditional relinquishment of liberty of action in the exercise of certain aspects of unalienable rights--not the surrender of any unalienable rights, which would be impossible because a nullity, a void act.

    An Offender's Just Punishment

    9. Whenever Man violates either the equal rights of others or the above-mentioned just laws, he thereby forfeits his immunity in this regard; by his misconduct, he destroys the moral and legal basis for his immunity and opens the door to just reprisal against himself, by government. This means that any person, as such offender, may justly be punished by the people's proper instrumentality--the government, including the courts--under a sound system of equal justice under equal laws; that is, under Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution). Such punishment is justified morally because of the duty of all Individuals--in keeping with Individual Liberty-Responsibility--to cooperate, through their instrumentality, government, for the mutual protection of the unalienable rights of all Individuals. The offender is also justly answerable to the aggrieved Individual, acting properly through duly-established machinery of government, including courts, designed for the protection of the equal rights of all Individuals.

    It is the offender's breach of the duty aspect of Individual Liberty-Responsibility which makes just, proper and necessary government's punitive action and deprives him of any moral basis for protest. By such breach he forfeits his moral claim to the inviolability of his rights and makes himself vulnerable to reprisal by the people, through government, in defense of their own unalienable rights. By this lack of self-discipline required by that duty, he invites and makes necessary his being disciplined by government.

    The Conclusion

    10. Man's unalienable rights are sacred for the same reason that they are unalienable--because of their Divine origin, according to the traditional American philosophy.


    (Got all that?)
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

  23. #23
    3LB
    3LB is offline
    cunning linguist 3LB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    hiding out in treetops, shouting out rude names
    Posts
    1,737
    could you be more specific GM?
    Repost this on your wall if you love Jesus.

  24. #24
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by GMichael
    Or... from here....http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/Am...stick/pr3.html
    ....

    (Got all that?)
    Bear in mind that none of the above poop is actually in either the Declaration of Independence or Constitution.

    "National Socialist Fascist Communist Healthcare" by Bill Huff ... can you say full of sh!t.

  25. #25
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Home Of The Fighting Gamecocks
    Posts
    1,701
    The new GOP Faith Based Health Care Alternative - "Pray You Don't Get Sick"

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •