Constitutional Amendment to Protect our Inalienable Rights

not at all. it is only your understanding of socialism that limits your view of it.

Socialism starts with a social contract not a capital contract.

 

While there is little question that the Southern Plantation (slave) owners probaly believed this it was not the foundation for our government as expressed by Madison and Jefferson that could be considered as the foremost representatives of the "Federalists" and "Anti-Federalists" that represented the political ideology of the United States. The actual ideology was that no person had the "divine right of kings" as that violated the "natural (inalienable) rights of the person" established by the arguments of John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government (which was the ideology that the United States was founded upon).

 

In point of fact all governments are established based upon a "social contract" (regardless of whether the people believe in that contract) and the foundations for "socialism" were based upon John Locke's establishment of the "natural rights of the person" in his Second Treatise of Civil Government" but unfortunately Marx deviated from it by not embracing the full understanding of the "natural right of property" in Chapter V. It could be argued that Marx had a better understanding of Chapter V than what we've adopted in the US though where we've ignored it for the most part.

 

Yes, I can demonstrate that and I will provide an example.

Based upon the "natural (inalienable) right of Property" and person can acquire a right of ownership of enough "land" to provide for their basic survival and comfort based solely upon their labor with the caveat that "enough, and as good as" remains for all other persons. Because that "natural (inalienable) right" is not, by definition, transferrable they cannot transfer the "right of ownership of land" they establish by their labor to someone else. Under the statutory laws of ownership they can so let's see what happens.

In the hypothetical mathmatical equation only 400 acres exist and two people, "A" and "B", and each establish ownership of 40 acres based upon their labor. "A" buys "B's" land (but not the "natural right to the land" which is not transferrable) and "B" then establishes ownership of another 40 acres based upon their labor. Once again "A" purchases "B's" second parcel of 40 acres. Repeat this and eventually "B" will not have any land left to provide for their basic survival and comfort and person "B" will die. The "death" of person B is a predictable event based upon the violation of the "natural (Inalienable) Right of Property" under the statutory laws of ownership where the property, but not the "right of property", is transferrable. Eventually Person A owns all of the land leaving no land for Person B to survive on. Death is mathmatically inevitable and we can prove that by experiment.​

 

In another hypothetical equation 400 acres exist and 400 people too. Death is mathematically inevitable and we can prove that by experiment too. In another hypothetical we don't let people buy or sell anything. In a third we say the natural right to land can only belong to a group of two people. In a fourth we say the natural right to food is the rule, so you gotta feed folks when they're starving and you have extra food. None of these hypotheticals demonstrate the existence of a natural right to own land. They just explore rules of behavior we might choose to abide, or we might choose to ignore.

All you're showing is your rules work together and solve some problems you choose to explore. You have not demonstrated that those rules represent anything real. It's like saying the rules of chess are natural laws, because you can offer and solve a chess problem. The rules of chess only exist because we believe in them. There is nothing in reality that prevents me from moving a knight four squares diagonally.

Gravity exists because we can demonstrate it. We can pick up an apple, release it and rediscover gravity. I can point to that falling apple to show gravity exists. That's an observation. It's reproducible, predictable, and whether I believe it or not -- the apple will always fall.





​

 

I still believe our Founding Fathers did an excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution.

 

Your hypothetical example of one person per acre of land fails because the Earth cannot support a population density of one person per acre of land. Yes, death would also be inevitable in that case.

When Einstein published his Theory of Gravity the model used to verify it was that during a solar eclipes a star located directly behind the sun could be seen. The proof was effectively an "illusion" because the star was not actually in a line-of-sight with the Earth. Science understands that "truths" are often represented by illusions when we address natural laws.

What cannot be denied is that based upon the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" no one else's rights, such as the right to provide for one's survival and comfort based upon labor, are violated. Everyone has an equal Right of Survival and Comfort based upon their labor as a person so long as they don't diminish that same ability of another person. It is a Right based upon natural law. Our statutory laws of property violate that fundamental law of nature.

 

Do you understand the difference between a theory and a law? A theory of gravity is not the law of gravity, and no theory is ever verified or proven. A theory is just a useful explanation.

Laws can be demonstrated. By definition. The law of gravity exists because when I pick up and drop an apple it falls. Every single time, predictably, reliably, and without exception. Regardless of my beliefs.

Your law of self cannot be demonstrated. It's probably a very nice belief system. But unlike gravity your law of self does not exist outside of the minds of people who choose to use that system. Should every person or book that shares your belief evaporate, your law of self would no longer exist.




​

 

The "self" is a physical entity just like the apple and we can document what happens with the "self" in society just like we can demonstrate what happens to an apple when we drop it.

Theories are verified all of the time because the theory generates a model, the model predicts results, and the results are verified by emperical evidence. If you don't understand the scientific method then you should study it.

This has taken us far from the subject of the thread which is the protections of our inalienable rights, which are definable, that is the foundation for the government of the United States protected by the US Constitution. Whether you choose to believe in the inalienable rights of the person is irrelevant because it's those rights that provide the reason for our government. In short if you choose not to believe in the inalienable rights of the person then you oppose the US government as it's primary purpose for existing is to protect those rights.

 

You can drop an apple and demonstrate the existence of a force. Dropping your self doesn't demonstrate a right ever existed.

Results (observations) can be verified (shown to be true). You can not demonstrate that a theory is true, you can only show it's consistent with observations and predictions (so far).

Your belief that rights of self are a consequence of some natural law has nothing to do with our constitution. Our constitution was established because it's people chose to establish it, there goals included protecting some freedoms (natural rights) and providing some entitlements (legal rights).

Our reason for maintaining this government is also a choice of it's citizens. And whether I agree with all the choices of our founders or any of the choices you advocate ... well that is not the same as my being against the partnership that is the United States. We allow for dissenting opinions here, it's one of the natural rights you're advocating we protect.




​

 

The fact of the matter is if we added such an amendment, like the others it would be ignored, trampled upon, when the need of the oligarchs or the ruling elites required it.

Just look at what happened to the other rights and laid out in the constitution. The founders had said these rights came from god, not man, in hope that being so, man would not make himself god and change those rights. They have been let down of course. But it was their hope.

It is probably much easier to take those god given rights away when you don't believe in the god that gave them.

 

If socialism is just getting the resources needed for a society to thrive in an egalitarian manner, that doesn't contradict god given rights.

What seems to have happened, if you believe in the Christian god, is that he created the earth, filled it with all of the resources that man would need, to thrive, to prosper, and then left it up to man to come up with the system so that man could have access to these resources. Not just a few men, but all men. For he created them all, not just the few.

Christ looked down on the rich, said it would be hard for them to get into heaven, for they had a surplus of those resources, could never use them for their own survival, but looked down upon the poor who could literally die due to a lack of resources.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that god was very socialistic in nature. He told the rich to divest themselves of their hoarded wealth and to follow him.

As all of those people were awaiting Pentacost, what did god inspire those men in that group to do, when so many poor were going hungry, doing without the necessities for life? God basically told them to divest themselves of their hoarded wealth, give the proceeds to an apostle, to be given to each according to his need. That is scripture, which of course no pastor ever preaches a sermon on LOL. Wonder why? LOL.

God obviously doesn't like capitalism, for it creates a few exceedingly rich people, and quite a few poor. It rewards self centeredness and selfishness, it turns society into a dog eat dog society, in which wealth is worhshipped, and the wealthy are held in such high esteem. Christ, which was god in the flesh sure didn't hold the rich in high esteem at all. He even said it was almost impossible for a rich man to enter into heaven. For obvious reasons.

If Christ does return, and if he rules for a thousand years here on earth, there will be no rich, and therefore no capitalism. Instead the earths resources will be distributed to all of the people here, equally, according to their need.

I don't think there will be any conservative capitalists in that kingdom here on earth. For they would not fit in.

 

Try dropping an apple on the International Space Station and see if it falls.

Theories are all based upon models where predictions can be made and then the theory verified. An apple will not fall on the International Space Station because different theoretical models exist that explain why there is no apparent gravity in outer space.

The US Constitution is based upon the following two sentences from the Declaration of Independence.

Those two lines establish the "social contract" between the government and the people of the United States.

 

Irrelevant as there is no emperical evidence of the Christian god or of any god(s) for that matter. We are "endowed" with inalienable (natural) rights regardless of whether the "creator" is natural phenomena or supernatural forces. "Religious opinion" has no place in the foundation of government in the United States nor in the laws of our nation.

 

If released from other forces, the apple falls. You might need a little help understanding what other forces may hold the apple, which direction is down, and help identifying the strongest gravity source -- but the law of gravity still applies to your space station. The apple will fall towards the strongest gravitation pull when released. If it didn't, the space station would not be in orbit.

The law of gravity is not a theory, it is a law. Laws do not depend on theories. A law is a pattern of observations that has no exception, by definition. Even on your space station.

Theories can not be verified (shown to be true). A theory is not the truth. It is an explanation (model) that is consistent enough with observations that we trust it to predict future behavior.

The declaration of independence and the US constitution are separate documents. The former ended a social contract, the latter established a new one.




​

 

There is no empirical evidence of these natural rights either. That we believe these freedoms are worth protecting is an opinion.





​

 

Theories cannot be proven but they can and are verified. There is a difference between verification (based upon emperical evidence) and proof.

The Declaration of Independence did two things. Yes, it did break the social contract under the King of England based upon the Divine Right of Kings but it also established a new social contract based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person. The Inalienable Rights of the Person is the foundation for the creation of the US Constitution.

 

This merely reflects ignorance related to what emperical evidence is.

http://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html

"Tests" can and have been created to verify the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" and emperical evidence supports, and has never disproven, the existance of the Inalienable Rights of the Person. Unfortunately for those that don't understand emperical evidence and the scientific method they wouldn't understand emperical evidence if it whacked them upside the head.

Once again though this thread is exclusively about protection of our Inalienable Rights and is not about disputing the existance of Inalienable Rights. The US Constitution itself acknowledges that these Rights exist and protects them even when they're not enumerated (9th Amendment). If a person doesn't understand the Inalienable Rights of the Person then they really don't have a clue about what the Constitution is all about.

 

I suppose it depends on how you're defining verified. Webster defines it as establishing the truth of something. Theories are not truth or reality, they're just explanations of observations. Although one theory might more accurately model reality in one way, that doesn't make it more accurate in all ways. Dunno. I don't see how stamping a theory as 'verified' is a reasonable use of the word. *shrug*

It's a little disturbing how you capitalize these rights you believe in, the way others capitalize the Word of God. Makes me think we're shifting into a religious discussion. The declaration of independence didn't establish a social contract, it ended one. The contract between U.S. citizens is contained in our constitution and the laws that proceeded from it. We started with a clean slate, on purpose.




​

 

It's spelled empirical. In claiming greater knowledge of this term, you misspelled it four times in a row.

Empirical just means stuff we experienced (observed). I've asked you repeatedly to offer an observation or demonstration that shows these rights are anything but a belief. You haven't offered one yet. If this test exists, please share it.

A right is just a belief that you are owed or due something. Many beliefs cannot be separated (alienated) from a person. Rights exist. They exist because we believe in them, not the other way around.





​

 

Our supreme laws of the land recognize them, thus, enabling legal recourse and that form of socialism.

 

The models, based upon the theories, establish the means of discrediting or verifying the accuracy of the theory. By way of analogy use a car traveling at a consistant rate of 60 mph. We can state that a car that covers a mile in one minute averaged 60 mph but we cannot claim that the car traveled at 60 miles per hour over every foot of the mile distance. The measurement can be used as a means of verifying a car traveling at 60 mph but it doesn't establish that the car consistantely traveled at 60 miles per hour. For that we'd require more measurements or measurements of a different kind. Verification does not imply absolute proof. On the flip side if the car requires more than a minute to travel a mile we can absolutely state that the car didn't travel at 60 mph over every foot ot the mile distance. Einstein proposed the theory that the speed of light was a constant. We can measure the speed of light but does that establish that it's a constant speed relative to all other objects in the universe? So far all of the models used to measure the speed of light confirm that it travels at a constant speed related to all objects in the universe but that's just a verification and not the proof of a physical phenomena (e.g. like an apple falling from a tree).

I would suggest you study early American history. The Constitution is merely the statutory document that codifies the intent of the social contract and the Declaration of Independed both severed our previous social contract under the King of England and created a new social contract of America. The two lines I cite from the Declaration of Independence have absolutely nothing to do with breaking the social contract with the King of England (that's contained later in the document).

 

My apologies for my misspelling of the word empirical.

The "self" exists and that is an observation which is empirical evidence. We can "test" the criteria of "that which is inherent in the person (self), not dependent upon any other person, does not violate the rights of another person, and imposes no involuntary obligations upon another person" which is the foundation for "emperical" evidence.

For example I (my "self") can, sans any interference by others, walk from here to the store. I don't require any involuntary assistance from anyone, I'm not dependent upon any other person to do this, nor to I violate anyone else's rights if I do this. It is emperical evidence of the inalienable "Right of Liberty" because it meets all of the necessary criteria of the "test" for an inalienable right of the person (self).

 

You didn't test that criteria. You made up that criteria and then determined if a walk to the store was consistent with your made up criteria.

The tarot card nine of swords exists. We can test the criteria "if the card is placed third, drawn upright, and no cups are drawn." But placing that card third, drawn upright, with no cups drawn doesn't demonstrate ... well whatever you might believe that made up criteria means.

Empirical (which you've misspelled two more times) means observable. What do you suggest I observe to see whether this right is more than just what you happen to believe?





​

 

I did not "make up" the criteria for a "natural (inalienable) right of the person" but merely summarized what that criteria is.

Perhaps the greatest problem in discussing the natural (inalienable) rights of a person is that so many Americans don't know or understand the criteria that is used in identifying the natural (inalienable) rights of a person. It is not taught in any of our schools that I'm aware of and that is a travesty. We should literally require a student to spend a quarter or semester in a class exclusively dedicated to understanding what a "natural (inalienable) right of the person" is because the ignorance of Americans related to this subject is staggering. It's the very foundation or our government and yet very few Americans even understand what it is.

Perhaps the best example was the lack of understanding by not just the public but Congress and numerous scholars when it comes to addressing the Article 2 requirement of "natural born citizen" which refers to the "natural (inalienable) right of citizenship" of the person. When this clause was included in the US Constitution the authors knew exactly what it meant but today few seem to understand it at all. The ignorance amazes me but we only have ourselves to blame because we don't insist on addressing "natural (inalienable) rights" in our primary education institutions.