Who believes in more rights – Conservatives or Progressives?

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by Anders Hoveland, Feb 1, 2015.

?

Who believes more in individual rights?

  1. Conservatives

    16 vote(s)
    59.3%
  2. Progressives

    8 vote(s)
    29.6%
  3. hard to say

    3 vote(s)
    11.1%
  1. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness were in the Declaration and described as inalienable. Life, liberty and property were in the Constitution and while it doesn't say inalienable I believe it to be implide since it was stated in the Declaration of Ind that they were (obviously property and happiness were swapped out)

    Inalienable simply means granted from a higher authority and cannot be take away by any power of man. People were denied the right to vote and by extension their freedom of expression was also suppressed as well so no freedom of expression is NOT inalienable. While we do enjoy a great deal of freedom of expression in this country there are still limits on them. You can have your freedom of expression restricted even if you don't break any laws and there is no process that occurs in such a denial. The only way you can lose your life, liberty or property is if you break the laws and they can only be taken away by due process and private property that is taken for public use must be compensated for. This has been bastardized as of late with eminent domain laws which I believe to be to easily abused but that is another discussion.

    The Bill or Rights are officially part of the Constitution so it only has to be mentioned once for it be be the law of the land.

    If you research the history of the Constitution you will find that originally there was no Bill of Rights and it was a compromise to the anti-Federalists that they existed in the first place. You would also know that Madison begrudgingly wrote them and in fact there were initially more but some were culled. Prohibition took away alcohol and then restored it. People that were denied the right to vote were granted it in later amendments. It was only legal for income to be taxed at the Fed level after the Constitution was amended and so on.

    Being a deist I actually don't think God granted us anything at all. If we want something we need to earn it ourselves. There is no magical book with the "Laws of Man" sitting up in heaven somehwere. The majority of history clearly indicates that as freedom of expression and civil liberties is a relatively new concept in humanities timeline. However, I actually want a reference to a Creator or higher power in the documents because it prevents the government from denying people at least certain things on a theoretical legal level.
     
  2. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't suppose you're aware that you've shifted the goal posts.
     
  3. Woolley

    Woolley Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    4,134
    Likes Received:
    962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting question and one that is hard to answer. The right champions rights that tend to defend property first and foremost. They also champion rights to impose their religious views upon others. The left prefers to protect individual rights at the expense of property rights. They look to protect the rights of the minority against state sanctioned imposition of personal religious views. The right does not truly believe that the 9th amendment is important. The left believes that there are many new rights that need to be protected by law much in the spirit of the origination of the 9th amendment.

    One side prefers property and religion, the other freedom to live as one chooses free from the abuse of property holders imposing harsh living conditions on those without property. Take your pick.
     
  4. Unifier

    Unifier New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    14,479
    Likes Received:
    531
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The left doesn't even know what a right is. Pun intended.
     
  5. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But conservatives think that morality should be legislated.
     
  6. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not really. Just because I don't believe that God gave us any rights doesn't mean its a bad idea to codify that concept into law. Or are you referring to something else?
     
  7. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah really.

    What does this have to do with anything I said?

    Well yeah. Did you somehow fail to notice that I underlined "expression" in your response, which you speciously conflated with both speech and suffrage, when the latter is not an unalienable right?
     
  8. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Neither speech nor the right to vote are inalienable so what is your point? I clearly stated that the only inalienable rights that I see are life, liberty and property. Voting can be seen as a form of expression or just a one time act. There was a Supreme Court case about it although I don't recall the final ruling on it.

    Are you actually trying to argue a point or not?
     
  9. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You're dead wrong about speech. That's the point.
     
  10. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then fine, I stand corrected, but what exactly are you arguing? You still haven't made a single point beyond what I have posted. We were discussing inalienable rights and you keep changing the topic. I stated that freedom of speech is not an inalienable right in my view since there is no magical god to grant them in the first place. I am well aware that under the law they are considered inalienable but that assumes a belief in a God that actually gives it. I simply do not believe in natural rights beyond a concept that is useful to limit the governments power.

    Under the law the entirety of the BoR is considered inalienable. To me it is a concept and nothing more and it doesn't really exist. But that is my opinion.

    http://billofrightsinstitute.org/re...dia/americapedia-constitution/natural-rights/
     
  11. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I haven't made an argument yet. I was merely trying to ascertain whether you see the problem with your assertion - which you evidently do not.

    That's because all my efforts up to now have been directed at keeping you from flying off in a million different directions.

    Pilgrim, I asked you perfectly straightforward questions. You pontificated about things irrelevant to those questions and danced all around them, and I'm being an ass? Who the hell do you think you're kidding?
     
  12. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I actually edite that last part out because it was rude. I apologize. Then simply ask the question. My view is that there is no such thing as inalienable or natural rights. They don't exist because if God exists he isn't concerned with such trivialities. Freedom of speech and property ownership are human constructs.

    However, from a legal stand point I am fine with them being codified into law because then even the President of the US and Congress and the Supreme Court altogether are incapable of removing them. I hope that is clear.
     
  13. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To some extent there is some truth to this. Abraham Lincoln may have said it best: "Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property rights, human rights must prevail."

    However, on the other hand, when individuals basically have no property rights, and are entirely reliant on government or the collective, that is not conducive to individual liberty either. It's no coincidence that communist governments, once they secured direct control over all the property, were able to so easily exercise totalitarian power over the entire society.
     
  14. Woolley

    Woolley Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    4,134
    Likes Received:
    962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well there is a conflict between property rights and personal rights that has always been an issue for any government. Dred Scott was the prime case that showed us just how extreme this debate can become if unchallenged property rights trump individual rights. The debate about the commerce clause is really about property rights in many ways. A conservative wants the right to use or abuse their property at will. The government though wants the right to protect the environment which by nature over rides private property rights.
     
  15. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You apologize and I "keep changing the topic"?

    Keep your apology.

    Then there's no way you can understand them, so you have no business talking about which rights are unalienable and which are not.

    Why would He consider something that has direct bearing on the welfare of His creatures a triviality?

    The only things that are "constructs" about freedom of speech are the laws enacted to protect it and all the theorizing about it. The element itself has existed from the first time one person said something another person didn't want to hear.

    Nonsense. Every syllable of it could be repealed under the Constitution.
     
  16. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have never believed people have absolute rights over their property, especially when that property is something natural like land (property who's inherent value mostly derives not from the labor of men). However, I'm not sure if I like the idea of government being able to come in on the slightest whim and tell the owner what they can and cannot do, or be able to just confiscate away the property entirely without some sort of fair process and safeguards.

    And you may be confusing extraneous rights with inherent rights. I should not be able to just construct a huge wind turbine on my property right against the property of a neighbor, close to his house. That wind turbine will have effects (though difficult to quantify) on their well being. (There is all sorts of controversy on this issue)
     
  17. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And why is that land valuable? Because of the labor of men. A piece of land might have natural value, such as a river running through it, but its usefulness (and value) is greatly enhanced by the man that dredges the channel to allow ships to transport down the river, or builds the water powered mill, or the bridge, or the fishery. Some land has minimal value until a man comes along and modifies the land - a desert is uninhabitable and worthless until a man digs a well and irrigation system. Land represents opportunity more than value.


     
  18. JoeSixpack

    JoeSixpack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    10,940
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is a scam, the parties are bought and paid for by the rich/elites. Anything one likes or defends something the other dislikes and tries to prevent. Different sides of the same coin.
     
  19. ballantine

    ballantine Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    5,297
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No.

    A very small subset of misguided conservatives believe that morality can be legislated.
     
  20. Woolley

    Woolley Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    4,134
    Likes Received:
    962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well then you agree that our current system of laws has evolved over time to attempt to balance all the various rights and deal with their conflicts. The top post was about which side wants more rights. In this regard, the left does want more rights protected by law and the right really just wants existing rights to remain as defined, by them.
     
  21. Gorn Captain

    Gorn Captain Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2012
    Messages:
    35,580
    Likes Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would point out that the OP has stated on the "Abortion" Forum, that under an "Abortion Prohibition" (nation-wide banning of abortion)....

    he would support.....mandatory ultrasounds of women at airports and border crossings (to prevent them from "escaping" to another country to have an abortion)......monitoring the Internet activity of women to make sure they were not visitng sites that offered help or advice on abortions.....and the potential bio-chipping of women so that the Government could use remote monitoring to keep tabs on their reproductive state.
     
  22. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What part of under the law don't you get? By the very definition of being under the law that means it could be changed. Clearly you don't know anything that you are talking about.

    Freedom of expression are human constructs. They did not appear until relatively recently in human society unless you by the laws of nature argument which presumes a God that gave mankind their rights. For the vast majority of human society you could and often were punished or killed for speaking out against the powers that be. This is basic history 101. Since God does not concern himself with such trivialities then how could you possibly claim that those rights exist..........God didn't give them in the first place.

    You are assuming that God takes a personal interest in us or in lifeforms in general. This is an unsupported assumption. The only way you could argue it is by using religious arguments and if you are seriously arguing that God cares whether or not you eat bacon or if you work on the Sabbath then you are beyond help.
     
  23. Woolley

    Woolley Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Messages:
    4,134
    Likes Received:
    962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    that is alarming...I have no idea why people get so worked up about a zygote and have no desire to turn this into an abortion thread.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Well said. Natural rights is a wonderful philosophical concept and it was a key concern of Jefferson and Madison but lets all agree that no one has ever fully defined what the entire list of natural rights are. that is why we have the 9th amendment.
     
  24. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you're under the impression that unalienable rights can be changed. Don't guess I have any reason to be surprised at this point.

    I'll definitely cop to not knowing what you're talking about, but clearly that would make at least two of us.

    You did it again, and that's where I stopped reading; and since I'm not much for conversing with the functionally schizophrenic, the conversation ends here.
     
  25. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They don't exist so yes they could be changed if we wrote a new constitution. You tell me what are the odds of us writing a new constitution or adding an amendment that removes the freedom of speech or even something more controversial like removal of the right to bear arms? Is that realistically going to happen? If it isn't then the defacto status is that according to law they are inalienable. Short of us turning into an authoritarian regime that isn't going to happen...........ever.

    Glad to see that you finally admit defeat.
     

Share This Page