What is the Most Important Inalienable Right?
Submitted by sleepdog on Fri, 02/13/2009 - 10:11Found this link on LRC:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123440593696275773.html
Makes me think... the right to buy, sell and save wealth in a form of my own choosing is as inalienable a right as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that this inalienable right enables all other inalienable rights listed above.
The Federal Reserve Act, which enables Government spending run amock at home and abroad, is in direct opposition to this inalienable right, since the management of our "official currency" is run as a government sponsored monopoly. Through inflation, this inalienable right is thus severely alienated. Thus, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is also severely alienated.
This is why it is so important to smash the currency monopoly and allow for competing currencies. At least anyone else who was paid to do such a grossly negligent job of managing something would be fired immediately.
But in this case I believe "gross negligence" is the point, because this makes the Fed bankers, politicians and parasites wealthy.
all are equally important.
all are equally important.
Life liberty and property
You own your body.
You may do anything as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others
you own the fruit of your labor.
See this video (8min) called the Philosophy of Liberty
If you dont own your body you are a slave,
If you cannot do what you want as long as you do not harm another , you are a slave.
If you do not have an absolute right to property, that means someone else can take it from you. Take the food from your very mouth.
In order to protect the rights to life liberty and property you have the right to defend yourself against murder, theft, or imprisonment.
The second amendment is just one expression of your absolute right to self defense.
The constitution is supposed to stop the fed gov (evil empire) from taking away your rights.
No matter what the supreme court says they cannot take these away from you.
They can of course use illegal force to kill you, steal from you, or throw you in a cage.
THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS!!!
If I have this right, then I can come to the negotiating table as an equal and secure my other rights. Otherwise, I have NO rights but what I have been allowed by those with guns.
The Right to Bear Arms
That's my opinion. We need it to defend all our other rights. Without guns we're sitting ducks.
UNALIENABLE not inalienable...get it right.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/82744#comment-900860
2Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
Not to fret about wording. According to dictionaries,
the two words means exactly the same thing!
http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/unalienable.htm
not true...
one can be sold, the other cannot ever be sold.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/82744#comment-900860
2Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
First thing we agree on... ;)
.................
Talk to someone new every day. You'll be surprised what you learn.
..................
"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic..." —Alan Moore
heh...
; ) we always have to start somewhere.
2Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
Natural Rights and Natural Law
We really do need to define our terms better.
What does the phrase "property rights" really mean?
If you mean what a man or woman would need to survive and reproduce successfully, then I would say that you have an excellent case for calling possession of this property "inalienable".
If you would like to extend this "right" to a man sitting atop a mountain of wealth a million times that amount; I think that very few would call this "inalienable".
As I pointed out below, any wealth (NOT "income") beyond what an individual could reasonably protect on his own, is part of the social contract.
For an excellent exposition of the sociobiological basis of natural rights see the link in my signature.
******************************
Natural Law and Natural Rights
http://jim.com/rights.html
******************************
******************************
Keep the Iowa Caucuses "First in the Nation"!
I'm stickin' with Adams.
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet' and `Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."
-- John Adams (A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787)
Property rights as a lease, (ie) the NAFTA Highway?
With the grading of the mountaintops and the filling in of rivers, the swath of land 25 miles wide from border to border will in essence be a sole country within itself.
Sort of like the Panama Canal dividing the continental US in half and owned by Chinese.
In short, built by spain, utilized by China, and the leases and mineral rights thru bribes and land grants to treasonous bureacrats along the route. (secrecy)
Virtually a foreign country, with Blackwater type military freely grazing, and the money remains off shore.
Does this mean the USA will have a foreign country, 25 miles wide from Mexico to Canada borders, with a 75 year lease . . . .
And are they "immune" from the Constitution?
And never forget, “Humans, despite our artistic pretensions, our sophistication and many accomplishments, owe the fact of our existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.”
property
that protects them all.
Freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech.
Ventura 2012
Unalienable Rights vs Inalienable Rights-there is a difference
http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm
UNALIENABLE.
The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.
Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition
"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:
You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.
INALIENABLE rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.
You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
...please change the title of your post. our rights are UNALIENABLE not INALIENABLE.
thanks.
2Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
I am going to agree with
I am going to agree with JeffD here: Right of the People to alter or to abolish it (government). On par with that right is the right to your property.
Property rights are granted by the state.
The only right is the right to freely associate/be left alone. Because that right comes at no one else's expense.
On the other hand, property rights require government protection. No, you don't have the right to force me to protect you as you drive your brand new BMW through a slum. No, you can't force me to protect your right to clear cut a forest, sell the lumber to China and post "no trespassing" signs for hikers. Defend it yourself! If you can.
property rights are not granted by the state
That would make them privilages. That would mean property did not exist outside government. We have natural rights to property and to defend property. Government being instituted to help protect them, which is an oxymoron.
If you pay somebody to be a legal gaurdian of your property (by that, I mean, to protect your property) than somebody can pay them to take your property and give it to them.
Government is a gun for hire. That is democracy. It is human nature to plunder others for gain, history more than proves this.
A group of people band together for protection from another group of villans and in doing so, form a government for their mutual benefit.
Time goes by and the people have disagreements as to what governments should do and what rights they should have etc., and they form parties that are similar to the original conflict(two groups having conflict), but this time its amongst the people of that nation.
They battle in the political and legal realm, plundering each other, possibly bringing the political conflict to arms (civil war), the winning side gaining the power and implementing their policies and plundering the losing side.
Even with multiple parties, they may not change direction to any noticable degree, perhaps due to fear or greed (human nature, everyone has a price. when you have a monopolized bank on your side capable of printing however much money you wish, its not going to be too hard to pay someone off).
Thus leading to a state of tyrrany for at least one group of people, if not most.
Here we are!
freedom: my anti-gov
Property rights are not
Property rights are not granted by the State, they are granted by the grantor of the property and it is up to the grantee to protect and defend those rights. The problem with property rights today is that the people don't own the property that they think they do in the sense that they believe they do (i.e.-allodial title).
So?
So, if someone comes to your house, shoots you and all of your family in the head, they have a right to your property?
Is this what you're proposing? I want to be certain before we engage in further arguments.
Eric Hoffer
http://gplus.to/jamesrmoore
I didn't say or even suggest
I didn't say or even suggest that. In fact, how did you even arrive at that assumption?
Examples
Property rights are not granted by the State, they are granted by the grantor of the property and it is up to the grantee to protect and defend those rights.
This is an example of what happens if you CANNOT defend those rights.
When property rights are not recognized by the state, protected by the state, and justice is not enforced by the state, you have mob and gang rule by force.
Who is the original grantor of property? Whoever sees it first? Whoever plants the first flag? Right by conquest?
Property is that which you can defend. In a moral society, the mechanism to defend what is yours is worked through the state by an overwhelming majority of force being on the side of the state.
Eric Hoffer
http://gplus.to/jamesrmoore
The only cost of citizenship
should be sharing the vote with new citizens. And you should never be too liberal with this gift.
The freedom of expression
Free expression; the preservation; publication and excersice of it... Yeah baby yeeahh!
The Constitution Of The Universe
Love the debates going on here.
Anyway, personally, all I need is the "Constitution of the Universe" (below, cut and pasted) and a ten thousand man robot army with laser cannons to defend me, and I'm all set. That's for the future. In the meantime, I'll help everyone else defend what we've got (whatever it is that we've got left?)
The Constitution of the Universe (Link Here)
Preamble
*The purpose of conscious life is to live creatively, happily, eternally.
*The function of government is to provide the conditions that let individuals fulfill that purpose. The Constitution of the Universe guarantees those conditions by forbidding the use of initiatory force, fraud, or coercion by any person or group against any individual.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 1
No person, group of persons, or government shall initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.
Article 2
Force is morally-and-legally justified only for protection from those who violate Article 1.
Article 3
No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2.
------------------------------------------------------------
Premises
1. Values exist only relative to life.
2. Whatever benefits a living organism is a value to that organism.
3. Whatever harms a living organism is a disvalue to that organism.
4. The value against which all values are measured is conscious life.
5. Morals apply only to conscious individuals.
* Immoral actions arise (1) from individuals who harm others through force, fraud, or coercion and (2) from individuals who usurp, degrade, or destroy values created or earned by others.
* Moral actions arise from individuals who honestly create and competitively produce values to benefit self, others, and humanity.
...unalienable Rights, that
...unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
....to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
------------------------------------------
"Force [is] the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism." --Thomas Jefferson
"A government of reason is better than one of force." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1820
The right to life...
Unfortunately this right has been oversimplified, trivialized, and hijacked by the anti-abortion political activists. (Even though I also oppose abortion, I feel that the whole abortion "debate" is a major distraction and a massive waste of time and political energy.)
The "right to life" is actually a fairly comprehensive right and, I would contend, includes what we would call "property rights", economic freedom, freedom of association, the right to bear arms, and others.
What does the "right to life" mean in the absence of the bare minimum of resources (land, tools, capital, etc.) to eke out a subsistence living?
However taxing the common man to pay for the police, armies, and court systems that protect and sustain the massive wealth of the Bill Gates' and Warren Buffet's of the world is not only absurd, it is also an affront to natural law and natural rights.
Yes, you have a right to earn what you need to survive. And no one has the right to deprive you of that.
But if you want to accumulate far more than that, it is YOUR responsibility to protect and defend that property.
Buy a gun? Sure.
Collect a bigger stash of loot? Buy a bigger gun.
But eventually (if you become wealthy enough) you will need the cooperation of your friends, neighbors, or hire a police force to defend your stuff.
And at that point your property "rights" are now negotiable.
Maybe if you have been a good friend and have been supportive of your peers; we might decide to help you, Quid Pro Quo.
But don't expect some poor shmuck who can barely make ends meet, pay for defending YOUR property rights; either through taxes or conscription into an army.
That's YOUR responsibility.
And, no, justifying that compulsion based on the fact that someday he just might have a pile of loot that he wants to defend is NOT enough.
Yes, I think that libertarians need to think a little deeper about what we mean by "property rights", and put them in their proper perspective.
******************************
Natural Law and Natural Rights
http://jim.com/rights.html
******************************
******************************
Keep the Iowa Caucuses "First in the Nation"!
It can't be reduced to one right.
Free people have:
* The right to keep and bear arms.
* The right to own private property.
* The right of free speech.
* The right to keep the fruits of their labors.
* The right to be secure in their persons, homes, papers, and effects against unreasonable search or seizure.
I would say these are the most important rights and one cannot be reduced without the collapse of all.
Note I said nothing about "the right to vote", the "right to sexual freedom", the "right to buy things", or any of the other rights liberals and neo-cons consider important. These are details.
And with a lawless rogue government like ours, they are unimportant, because a government that doesn't even obey its own laws is a dictatorship.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Self Ownership...
...is the only right.
Human rights are not a gift from a loving god, nor are they a privilege granted by a benevolent government. Human rights are an invention of human intelligence, and exist for those who recognize and respect them. They are assumed by default at birth and are preserved by adherence to certain principles. Children do not yet understand this, but can be taught. It is the responsibility of parents to provide a moral upbringing for their children. Some children are raised improperly or never grow up, and some are mistreated, but in the absence of overwhelming evidence of neglect or abuse, children are the responsibility of their parents.
Human rights are retained by those people who respect them. When someone commits theft, he shows a lack of respect for property, and victims (specific or generic as a "society") may justly require remuneration in the form of restitution or labor. When someone kidnaps or detains without just cause, he demonstrates a lack of respect for freedom, and the rest of us may justifiably deprive him of his freedom. When someone kills another maliciously or gratuitously, he makes clear that he has no respect for human life, and may very well forfeit his own.
A free society will never deprive a person of his rights, but a just law may indeed act in response when, by misbehavior, a person surrenders his rights. This principle is codified in our Constitution in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, each stating that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
ANY behavior which is not coercive or fraudulent in nature would be permitted in a free society.
The Freedom Formula: Au + Ag + Cu + Pb
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr
You Hit The Nail...
... on the head.