Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by Anders Hoveland, Feb 1, 2015.
So he thinks entities which don't exist can be changed. That's just sad.
Land is worthless unless it has a utility for man to exploit? What a weird notion of our planet and it's bounty. What price would you put on Yosemite? Does the Grand Canyon have value if no one ever visits it? perhaps if the only measure of value is monetary but to me, nature has an intrinsic value that can never be quantified. Man may temporarily use land for his gain but nature itself is timeless, beyond the scope of a human being.
Merely pointing out that supposed "greater proponents of individual rights"....are perfectly happy to become proponents of a totalitarian police state if it concerns their pet agenda.
- - - Updated - - -
Not the phony 95% of those who call themselves "libertarians" but still vote for Republicans who want to ban abortion, keep the Drug War going, oppose gay rights, and like to start un-necessary wars.
Libertarians don't have much of a choice often so one would vote for those that say they are for smaller government over those that want it bigger and bigger and more authoritarian.
Here it is folks. Ask yourself why this was added to the BOR and then ask yourself if the BOR is a complete list of rights or just a down payment on what could become a more exhaustive list as time passes.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
i think a wonderful understanding of this is on yahoo.
The 9th Amendment is simply a statement that other rights aside from those listed may exist, and just because they are not listed doesn't mean they can be violated.
If you fully grasp the intent of this amendment then you have a good chance of understanding the debate about natural rights. There is no complete list of natural rights, it is merely a way of describing the rights of mankind as it pertains to man's desire to live in peace, harmony, goodwill and within a system of justice that protects these rights. The list of potential rights is endless. When people say that the constitution does give you the right to do this or that, they are arguing from a legal point of view not a philosophical point of view. It may be that in 100 years, new rights will be demanded by the people as a result of new technology or discoveries forcing us to protect ourselves from harm or persecution. We do not know. What we do know is that the progression of mankind towards a more perfect state is the goal and that the constitution creates a framework for protecting us as these new insights reveal themselves to us. I wish it were easier to amend the constitution but that could open the door to majority rule which could impose restrictions upon rights just as well as it could enhance rights. While I do not deify our founders I do admire the incredible talents they had and their foresight. They were definitely products of the enlightenment period and we are lucky to have had these men found our nation. What a collection of minds....
Its easy to say nature is priceless when you have food, clothes, electricity, transportation, and a warm bed, all provided by our industrial society. Our society can set aside such places as Yosemite because our technological ability boosts productivity to the point we don't need so much land to sustain ourselves.
If nature is so intrinsically valuable to the point its worth is immeasurable, then go buy an acre of forest and live off of it.
First of all, value is a modern construct, mankind has been around for hundreds of thousands of years without money or property deeds. Secondly, if the only measure of land you accept is whether or not you can live off it, you might have missed the rise of cities.
Yes, but various tribes still fought over territorial area.
It was generally recognised that a tribe "owned" the animals they had raised, and the shelters they had built.
Conservatives believe in all sorts of rights - for conservatives.
Except conservatives do not believe in the individual's right to have an abortion, or the individual's right to marry the same sex, or the individual's right to do non-traditional things in a plethora of other examples. So your analysis is not quite right.
Conservatives believe the individual has more rights in the economic sphere than the social sphere, and progressives believe the opposites. Libertarians, on the other hand, believe individual's should have extensive rights in both spheres.
The term "libertarian" has it's roots in the socialist movement, where it was used to refer to the anarchist faction in the first international. Even today it's not unusual to hear someone refer to themselves as a libertarian socialist or a libertarian Marxist.
The term was co-opted by the right later in the US, but in Europe it still largely retains it's original meaning.
No, "value" has been around since the dawn of man, the idea that raw nature has infinite value has only been around for a few decades. In ancient times, with or without money, land with a cave was more valuable than flat land which left people exposed to predators and the elements. Its only recently that some people have come to value pristine land as so important its value was unquantifiable, and then only because those people have the luxury of a high standard of living.
The actual value of land is in its utility, the value is only measured with money. Land by a river will always be more valuable than land in the waterless desert because land and a river have more potential (utility) than land in the desert.
Wow. Seriously? Shades of The Handmaid's Tale.
Is there a point to that?
You confused 'conservative' with 'Establishment GOP'.
Separate names with a comma.