So are rights given to us by the constitution or are they human rights protected by the constitution?
"Rights" don't exist. Everything is a privilege instead of a right.
>>76650917
Triggered.
>>76650917
Wrong
Rights are fundamental and cannot be taken away. But your right to do something doesn't mean that using it will do anything. You have the right to self-defense despite what any goverment says, but if your tied to a chair that right isn't going to do much for you. If your country throws you in jail for it than that doesn't mean you don't have that right, it just means your country is shit and will not protect that right, and you need to move. Now.
A little from column A, a little from column B. No one's going to say the right for states to levy taxes is a human right.
>>76651449
>You have the right to self-defense despite what any goverment says
Who decided that this is some sort of supreme "right" that people have? You?
Who decides what is a "right" or not?
>>76651449
There is no cosmic law of nature that tells you what rights you do and don't have.
Your rights are given to you by other humans and so they can be just as easily taken away by other humans.
>>76651725
Nature/god is the only true giver of rights. Those rights are life(self-preservation), liberty (the ability to control your own actions and thoughts and speech), and the pursuit of happiness.
>>76652185
Cosmetic law? No. Our rights stem from basic animal behavior.
>>76651725
The a priori principal that exists as a fundamental among all people, universally and without exception.
>>76652417
>Cosmetic law
>Our rights stem from basic animal behavior.
If that were true then every culture on Earth would have the same human rights.
>>76650673
how can the constitution be real if our rights aren't real?
>>76653333
Every culture does. These rights are within you, not given to you by your "vulture" or "goverment"
Why is that so hard to understand?
Nice quads
>>76651449
>Rights are fundamental and cannot be taken away.
I think what we need to point out here for people who still don't get it is that this basically mean: we all human and human life as value
We should treat it with respect. When something turn our heart upside down we make it wrong and punishable, that's it. Now don't go all about ranting about bureaucratic laws and bullshit and how that relates, I'm talking about what made us stop being caveman to being organised and not fucking kill/rape each other between two mammoth hunting session. Something deep down made use care for each others and we've tried our best to words this into laws that will help us not fucking kill the fuck out of one another for the lulz and shit.
>>76653836
*culture
they are human rights enforced by our constitution
>>76650673
I desperately want a gif of the skeleton running around on it's hands going "HUE HUE HUE".
So should illegal immagrants have their rights protected
>>76653957
The second amendment in particular says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This implies we automatically have that right, and the constitution says the government can't take it away.
>>76654311
>Human Rights
Yes
>Rights of a citizen
No
>>76653255
>>76652280
>>76652417
>>76651449
Given that we're no more than hairless apes, same rules apply. There's no rights. We're just apes with complex social values. Survival in a social group, like a lion pride, or a pack of wolves, depends on social structure and respecting social structure. When there is an imbalance, and offense is caused, then the defector is dealt with. In a human society, the non-aggression principle will still allow for defectors, because people will use their "rights" to upset others, like the right to assembly gives hate groups or leftists a space of their own to fuck every one else, or the right to freedom of press, giving people the right to advertise decadence and immorality. We're altruistic social creatures; we rely on eachother.
And if you happen to be religious, then rights don't exist either. No man is free; God had no problems with slaves; and Abraham someone else's property. Entitlement is all over the bible.
>>76650917
>>76651449
But that's wrong, you morons.
Freedoms are absolute. A Right enshrines protection of a freedom in the laws by which a society governs itself. Rights do not exist independently of society.
>>76650673
I always thought that the rights were given to you by God, and simply enshrined in the Constitution.
>>76654311
Illegal persons are not covered by the constitution, because they are not citizens. Legal aliens are not citizens, either, but there is different protocol for dealing with them.
>>76654311
In a way yes.
For exemple, let's say you actually deport them and build a wall. I think, to some degree, you should at least participate in an effort to relocate them in a place they're not gonna end even more poor and beheaded by the cartel.
Of course, you DON'T have to do this from a legal stance (and also arguably, fuck mexicans) but it would be a decent thing to do. This was actually an american way of doing things you know. Stern but fair and compassionate. Like an old dad.
>>76654488
>What are natural rights
The constitution limits the power of the government, it doesn't grant us anything. I have the right to free speech because no one can stop me from talking
>>76650673
They're meant to limit government. Once you give the government the ability to 'give' humans rights you enter shit land.
>>76654479
>rights based on theology aren't real because bible
Not how philosophy works family try again
>>76650673
Rights are recognized as already existing as a condition for government legitimacy.
Privileges are granted by the government as circumstances and conduct allows, and can be revoked.
The two ways to end rights are to have unaccountable power (the boot stomping on a human face forever) or to declare everything a right (no freedom without bread). In China they justify limiting speech by prioritizing food above it, on the grounds that you cannot say anything if you starve to death (true), and the government provides food (a lie from the pit of hell).
>>76650673
The second one.
>>76654683
>burger reading comprehension
You have the right to free speech because the laws (constitutional articles) of society say that there can be no penalty for expression. If there was no such absolute protection, the concept would be up for debate by legislature as has happened in many continental European countries.
If there was no society, i.e. you were the only human on the face of the planet, there could be neither penalty nor reward imposed for saying whatever you wanted. Thus this is a degree of freedom.
>>76654479
When I was an atheist I comprehended the brilliance of the "God-given" part: it kicked the ball neatly out of play.
Without it, everything's negotiable, and Michael Bloomberg is one clever legalistic twist away from erasing the Constitution.
>>76655198
>British reading comprehension
You just wrote a wordier recap of what that guy wrote.
>>76655447
Natural rights do not exist.
>>76654311
They are criminals and foreigners, attacking our people, and have none.
>>76650673
Your rights are "god given" and deemed "inalienable". The Constitution is the document that protects those God given inalienable rights
>>76655523
"Natural rights" is just a way of conceptualizing "what stuff looks like given how things turned out," ie, your example of not being oppressed because nobody is there to oppress you. Because we have a society and a government, we need to fornalize rather than take for granted that which we already had.
>>76651449
>Rights are fundamental and cannot be taken away.
Where do you get rights from?
>>76655698
Where is the definitive list of "God-given" rights documented outside of your constitution? What defines whether a right is "God-given" or just arbitrary?
They are natural rights given to any free person by merely existing, at least that is the concept behind the bill of rights.
>>76655869
This is my point - rights are an arbitrary construct. It is the set of freedoms that a society has chosen to protect in its highest law which munge together the influences from society's past and present. The US constitution is a near-perfect example of rights enshrined specifically to guard against organised oppression.
The mere fact that constitutions - written down on paper - are arbitrary constructs disproves the existence of "god-given" rights.
>>76656511
>bill of rights
But that document of rights is made by man and will stop existing once it stops being enforced by a sufficient amount of people.
"Rights" are just memes that are getting taken a bit too seriously to warrant the term.
>>76656875
No it is not. Natural rights are possessed by any person, and restriction on those rights is an affront to man's natural state.
> what is natural law
>>76657246
What constitutes the definitive list of natural rights?
>>76657205
> I do not understand natural law and the underpinning philosophy
>>76650917
Nothing exists, it's all a spook.
>>76650673
They're protected by the constitution.
In america, there are laws which people must abide by and there are laws which the government itself must abide by. The constitution consists mainly of those laws that the government must abide by
>>76657384
Where do you get natural laws from?
>>76656279
The Constitution protects all of our God given rights. If its not there, it isnt a God given right to the individual that the Constitution applied to.
>>76656875
I don't know why I wasn't getting this before, but they're not arbitrary. I can't prove that now but they're all tied to very basic necessary functions. Defense is not arbitrary. Reason is not arbitrary. There are all kinds of things people cared about in the 18th century that were not rights.
>>76657365
Right to self defense
Right to ownership
Right to privacy
Speech, assembly
(Driving right now, can't really give you everything off the top of my head, will do later)
>>76650673
Goddamnit i hated those skelle-dog cocksuckers
>>76656511
The Bill of Rights and the US Constitution do not apply to everyone "existing" they apply to American citizens only.
There are dozens of case laws that clarify that. IE, foreign citizens are not protected by the US Constitution outside the US. It gets muddy if it applies to non-citizens inside the US
>>76650673
According to Jefferson, latter.
>>76653520
>>76653852
>>76654479
>>76654644
Go suck a dog leaf
>>76657799
Natural law is derived from nature, obviously. Google it, still driving, will explain soon.
>>76656875
Completely missing the point of natural rights. They are only the things that cannot be taken away, not given. Even if Germany you can still say the Holocaust didn't happen. You'll go to jail, sure, but you can say whatever you want because nothing can stop you.
>>76657365
It's amendable to recognize that we do not know everything right now. Somehow I do not see this as a problem, especially given the only alternative.
Mexico, China, Russia, France and the hellholes of Africa have perfect governments. Their governments are perfect in the sense of knowing everything and totally controlling the situation. Their idea is that government is a genie who grants wishes, and the difficulty comes from selecting phrasing the right wishes.
That's what I would call arbitrary.
Our idea is to knock the damn lamp over and explain to you kids that there never was any genie.
>>76658275
Eyy a cogent response.
I have faith in you lardasses yet.
They are god given and natural laws and universal truths which are only listed on a piece of paper.
>>76658227
This. The guy in In Search Of The Second Amendment explains it really well, as I recall his example is that controlling speech is presuming to control thought, but nobody can control thought. I can be furiously thinking away whatever it is you don't want me to know, and you can't even catch me. Such a situation forces people to lose respect fir government -- as we see in all the examples of perfect governments I mentioned -- which forces the perfect governments to embrace corruption and brutality just to exist.
>>76658223
Those are laws, not rights though.
