Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
The claim that rights are God given carries with it the implication that they exist without the need for any other entity. A right without the prospect of enforcement of it is meaningless.
The notion of god-given rights would imply a God has been evidenced, but we know that God has not supplied proof-of-life. The obvious question is this: What are we taking for granted when we say "God-given" (rights)?
Why does it matter if our rights come from god, rather than the government?
ChatGPT said:
It matters whether our rights come from God or the government because it changes the foundation, permanence, and vulnerability of those rights. Here's why that distinction is significant:
1. Rights from God = Inalienable and Universal
If rights come from God (or nature, as in “natural rights”), they are:
Inherent to every human being simply by virtue of being human.
Unalienable, meaning they cannot be taken away, even by a majority vote or a tyrant.
Universal, applying to all people, regardless of government, culture, or time.
This is the foundation of documents like the U.S. Declaration of Independence, which states:
“...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...”
The implication is: government exists to protect these rights, not to grant them.
2. Rights from Government = Conditional and Revocable
If rights come from the government, then:
They are granted by laws or constitutions, and therefore can be modified, restricted, or revoked.
Your freedom depends on the will of the state, not on an external or moral standard.
Rights can become privileges, which only exist at the pleasure of those in power.
Historically, regimes that believe rights are granted by the state (e.g., authoritarian or totalitarian governments) have used that logic to suppress dissent, persecute minorities, or deny basic freedoms.
Moral Legitimacy vs. Legal Authority
A government that violates “God-given” or natural rights is seen as morally illegitimate, even if it has legal power.
This gives people a just basis for resistance or revolution (as argued by the American colonists, abolitionists, and civil rights leaders).
If rights come only from the state, there's no higher standard to judge or challenge injustice.
4. Practical Implications
Even if you're secular, the idea that rights are not granted by human institutions provides a check on government power. It creates a philosophical foundation for limited government and individual liberty.
In Summary:
God-given/natural rights = universal, permanent, beyond the reach of rulers.
Government-given rights = changeable, fragile, subject to power.
So the question isn’t just theological—it’s about whether your rights are truly yours, or on loan from the state.
So if the Government declares gay people have no right to exist (or substitute the taking away of any other right that you value), you have no moral/logical basis to oppose it. The government gives, the government takes. It's power to do so makes it right under your viewpoint.
Are migrants able to enjoy their God given rights at the moment in America? If they have rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness why doesnt Trump (and Moses Johnson) leave them alone?
Because there are laws and regulations describing how they may become citizens. They have no right to simply cross the border and take up residence here and receive government benefits
The correlation between the people who claim this and consistently argue for authoritarianism on this site is pretty much perfect.
as ChatGPT said above, Historically, regimes that believe rights are granted by the state (e.g., authoritarian or totalitarian governments) have used that logic to suppress dissent, persecute minorities, or deny basic freedoms
concept of rights that exist without a government is flimsy,
That's literally why we form governments, to make it easier to protect those rights. When a government doesn't protect those rights, it's not legitimate and no duty is owed by its citizens towards it and revolution is justified. That's the point of the declaration of independence.
s the fate of migrants can attest.
Illegal aliens are, by definition, not citizens and we did not form our government to protect the rights of foreigners. All our government owes foreigners is to treat them as our laws dictate. They should look to fix their own governments if their rights aren't being protected by their own governments.
The fact is without government the concept of rights has no meaning. Right wingers use "god given rights" for an excuse to own AR-15's, and storm the Capitol on Jan 6.
As a profess believer in the Christian God, I still take exception to the illusion of "god-given' rights without the proof of God. Here's why: The use of God as rhetoric lends itself to God being used to ESTABLISH something ("rights") in society, when, as we often discuss on NT there is not verifiable or 'ready' proof that God even (does) exist. It is putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.
Thus, it follows that since the mentioning of 'god-given rights' our rights have been established, and kept in place, by our countrymen and women. And the only reason they can be 'challenged,' corrected, and modified is by the actions of countrymen and women exercising various versions of power.
Though the words, "god-given rights' may be aspirational and gives voice to hope, the phrase is high-sounding rhetoric empty of substance until men, women, boys, and girls act.
If rights come from God (or nature, as in “natural rights”), they are:
Inherent to every human being simply by virtue of being human.
Unalienable, meaning they cannot be taken away, even by a majority vote or a tyrant.
Universal, applying to all people, regardless of government, culture, or time.
This is the foundation of documents like the U.S. Declaration of Independence, which states:
“...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...”
The implication is: government exists to protect these rights, not to grant them.
2. Rights from Government = Conditional and Revocable
If rights come from the government, then:
They are granted by laws or constitutions, and therefore can be modified, restricted, or revoked.
Your freedom depends on the will of the state, not on an external or moral standard.
Rights can become privileges, which only exist at the pleasure of those in power.
We have all been privileged to read the failing history of the U.S.A. which made an entire class of humanity its slave and children of slave. Where was the "endowment" of inalienability when the very people making the constitution denied their fellow humanity equality?
Furthermore, slavery was not inherent in the colonies. . . it was 'put upon' those colonies by men writing with the strokes of a pen them into permanent servitude! Humanity was not afforded those men who were treated as 'beasts' of burden and worse so. Their unalienable rights as humans became conditional and revocable. Worse, since their are still leaders with 'strokes of a pen' around. . . unalienable rights can be struck away at some future day. All men have to do is allow their IGNORANCE to consume and overwhelm their sense of justice (for all).
The American government was not living up to the ideals set forth in the declaration and protecting those rights. That provided the moral and legal justification for ending slavery.
if you believe the government creates rights, slavery is perfectly justifiable. Whatever the government says is a right, is a right. If the American government passed an amendment legalizing slavery tomorrow, those who object to natural rights would have no legal or logical basis to object.
if you believe the government creates rights, slavery is perfectly justifiable. Whatever the government says is a right, is a right. If the American government passed an amendment legalizing slavery tomorrow, those who object to natural rights would have no legal or logical basis to object.
Dumb slaves. They had the right to be free for 200 years and never realized it.
DeSantis : "You buy a home, you buy land... and then, you've been taxed many times [on that]... is it your property, or NOT? Just for being on your property, you've got to write a check to the government every year?"
Again, migrants are not citizens and have no right to American land. It's why we formed a government and set borders in the first place, to protect against invaders. It's literally the first duty of any government.
dont know but i know there is a legislative path to create laws that would lower or nullify them , they are attempting just that in my state . dont know what i think of that really .
Their idea is simply to transfer the tax burdens currently covered by property owners onto others. Try to create a city, county or school district budget without property taxes.
Without a government to secure those rights, there is no such thing as property rights. Which is one of the reasons libertarianism is nothing more than a utopia.
If you build a nice cabin in the middle of nowhere, and you dont have a piece of paper issued by the government that says that is your house and land, a band of cut throats can come and tell you they own that land and property now and they are giving you an hour to vacate.
A sheriff and a bunch of police could come and get your land back for you, if you have that piece of paper.
Yes. This is all basic stuff. Read a survey of Locke.
Let me make this very simple.
People form governments to protect property rights. If a government helps protect those rights, it is just and requires loyalty. If it doesn't protect your property, it is not a just government and no one owes allegiance to it. If, as you believe, someone only owns property upon the whim of government, your neighbor could buy your property from the government for 1% of its value and you'd have no reason to complain because you have no right to your property.
JBB, not all places tax the same way or for the same reasons .
Here we have property taxes , vehicle registrations , sales tax and bond taxes . this state has no income taxes .
property tax here goes into the general county budget , vehicle regs pay for school districts , sales taxes get evenly split with schools and county and sometimes city or town bonds are left to the county or municipality that originate them, here municipalities can add a 1% or whatever tax to sales that stays in the community , they also have the ability to add modest hotel/ motel taxes , thats not even counting the state fuel taxes earmarked for roads and maint . .
When you write things like that, it makes me sure you either haven't read Locke or understood him.
ess you can prove you own land, you dont own it, in the real world.
Again, you aren't making a point here. We created a government that created a system designed to protect property rights by registering them. You are imagining some contradiction that doesn't exist.
It's really not that hard John, our government was formed to protect those rights not grant them. If there was no government then it falls to the individual to try and protect their rights but they don't disappear.
Rights, as does nearly everything we think of as "given", stem from societal agreement.
It was a fairly new concept to remove the granting of rights from one authority (A king, etc.) and place them with a "Creator". Here in the US we tried it on, decided that was the paradigm we were going to follow, and here we are. So, society grants rights, "We the People," not a specific God (as Johnson was inferring), not a King, not a President. I should think this would be... self evident?
SO you have no rights as a human. If "society" decides to kill all people named Thomas, you'd have no basis to object. After all, you have no right to exist other than that granted by society.
Once again, you remove from context what I write, carry it off to somewhere else, infer something that I did not say, and say about that thing inferred, "Look! How can you say this?!"
Society, the agreement of "We the People," are where our rights are codified. The idea of rights and who they apply to has evolved over time, hopefully as we became and become more aware of those whom we were denying those rights to. As the current administration is showing us through its abuse of certain peoples rights, those rights can be taken away at whim. Rights, as seen by the Speaker's comments, assumedly derive from a Christian "God" and only from that.
This is all whooey because there is no evidence of a creator, or a God, god,or gods. But whatever floats your boat.
You do not make a 'case' for unalienable rights existing through establishment of an intangible God. There are unalienable rights or there are not existing. A god can not be 'in-charge' of rights "god-given" where there is no provable evidence of God.
It is time we stop using language INAPPROPRIATELY to grant and deny what is real.
That said (above), I profess to being Christian, because I follow a belief system that 'personal.'
Finally, slavery can be justifiable-to those mighty enough to make it an institution; equally, slavery can be abolished my the mighty that eradicate it. The two options are human factors that lend themselves to this discussion; and are not just mythical rhetoric repeated for effect.
No, I'm showing you the logic of your argument. I assume you are trying to make logical arguments, right? If you believe what you claim to believe, you can't rebut my argument.
agreement of "We the People," are where our rights are codified.
The Constitution simply creates a form of government. It is not a source of rights. It's a basic concept. Just look at the ninth amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
those rights can be taken away at whim
No. they can't. Stop making things up. It doesn't help you.
use there is no evidence of a creator, or a God, god,or gods
Doesn't matter. It's amazing how hung up people get by that word. Think of them as human rights if it allows you to think logically.
Rights granted by governments can be positive and negative, it would seem that people who think like you want to make government authority - authoritarian, despite freedoms, liberties, and dissent upheld by citizens and their power to vote for change.
Note: I 'get' the sentiment of wanting not to be under the control of the state, therefore, appeal to an idea of nature's control (or a deity). But, let me remind "you" - nature and deities have yet to make ultimate REPLY (inducements/enforcement) to any man-made 'rule'
SO you have no rights as a human. If "society" decides to kill all people named Thomas, you'd have no basis to object. After all, you have no right to exist other than that granted by society.
This was you argument in total.
The first statement, "SO you have no rights as a human," is a somewhat stilted representation of Society Encodes Rights. Nobody, no thing, anywhere, anytime has an inherent (in and of itself) right to do anything. It is just existing. It takes consciousness to even come-up with the concept of rights, let alone to ascribe those rights to certain things.
We made all of this up, and therefore it is subject to the whims of whomever we the people decide is going to make the rules.
People live in conditions because they are lead to believe they must in order to survive or thrive or whatever other reason may have been given to them. They are born into a certain cultural milieu and are raised accordingly. In the 1800's, people who lived in certain areas thought that it was just fine and dandy, even ordained by God, to hold certain others as property. People who were born, raised and lived in other areas were told that owning people was wrong. Now in the US we recognize (I hope) that slavery was wrong and against our concept of human rights. What changed? Society did.
The rest of your argument, "If "society" decides to kill all people named Thomas, you'd have no basis to object. After all, you have no right to exist other than that granted by society," is just plain twisted and silly.
My objection would still be there, no matter if it was not recognized by society as a right. You take the idea of a right and flip it onto it's head and make it kind of an anti or non-right, but the idea that rights are an outgrowth of society and that society codifies and enforces those rights remains as the only viable source of rights because rights are a construct of man. Why society would want to kill all people named Thomas, I could not say. That society could do something of the sort, I have no doubt.
You do raise in my mind disturbing parallels between rights and certain thinking on the LGBTQ and immigrant communities. Indeed, today we can see plainly that there are people who think that those communities have lesser rights than others in our society. Just change the wording in your hypothetical a little :
"If society decides that all immigrants must be deported without due process, they would have no basis to object, because society says so" is a statement that, quite unfortunately, a good portion of our society agrees with. DJT is onboard with removing the rights from anybody he wants to by the stroke of a sharpie. Is society going to let him? Are you going to watch him do that? You are a part of society.
This all goes back to the concept of institutions and whether they are going to save us. People, society, the citizens of the US, ARE the institutions of the US. That is the whole point of the CotUS.
Actually, rights are granted by government. In a dictatorship people have no rights. Why? Because their government won't allow them. Do you believe rights exist where they are disallowed or repressed? That they exist in a vaccum, even if you are not allowed to exercise them?
Universal human rights is a worthy concept, but without a government guaranteeing/allowing people to exercise their rights, what rights exist?
Here's the logic. If you live in a society where the government represses you, you don't have rights. You may wish to have rights or believe in the worthy concept of universal human rights, but if you are unable or disallowed from exercising those rights, how can you claim those rights exist in that society? To take an extreme example, did Jews have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of a happy life under the Nazi regime? The answer is no.
s. Nobody, no thing, anywhere, anytime has an inherent (in and of itself) right to do anything
You absolutely have an inherent right to exist. It's not an arbitrary thing that the state can simply grant or take away on a whim. It's sad how many progressives deny the existence of human rights because of their obsession with government power.
e made all of this up, an
Again, who cares?
That society could do something of the sort, I have no doubt.
And here's the distinction. The "Government gives us all" believers have no basis to object to it. It's the government and it decides for you. In contrast, for those who believe people named Thomas have a right to exist, an attempt to kill all Thomases brands the government as tyrannical, as it has broken its compact and it no longer owed the duty of allegiance. Understanding that humans have rights merely as humans justifies rebellion against a government that doesn't honor natural rights You advocate for the meek acceptance of tyranny because the government is always right.
Simpletons seem to think that the existence of tyranny or examples of horrible acts by the government against their own citizens somehow disproves the concept of natural rights. They obviously haven't read anything on the subject. The point of recognizing that humans have rights independent of government is not that such recognition magically stops a government from doing horrible things, it's that it demarks a bright line that once crossed makes a government illegitimate. It's the breaking of the social contract that binds a people to the government and justifies rebellion.
Simpletons seem to think rights magically exist where rights are repressed and there is the absence of any ability to exercise those rights, as if what we know as human rights are kept in a magic box by some supernatural force just waiting to emerge. Right wing sophistry then leads them to argue that "progressives deny the existence of human rights" although nothing could be further from the truth. Liberals/progressives have historically been the greatest champions of human rights whereas conservatives/reactionaries have generally treated human rights with contempt and disdain and work to this day to undermine and deny human rights.
The concept of natural rights is a worthy ideal. It is exceedingly strange that conservatives/reactionaries, with their antipathy toward the exercise of rights and freedoms by anyone other than their own narrow affinity group, would pretend to adopt natural rights as a cause.
They might well have believed in them in the abstract, and most certainly wished to exercise them, but they also knew that given the circumstances those rights did not exist for them at that time. You might argue that they still had those rights, but in reality, if you can't exercise your rights how can you argue they exist as anything other than an ideal? But I think maybe we are talking about two different things. Proponents of the worthy utopian concept of natural rights contend they exist even in the lack of any ability to exercise them. A more realistic take is that if your rights are repressed and you are unable to exercise them, they can't be said to be present.
You crack me up. So the person just, "Poof" has rights? I suppose they keep them in the same place as their soul. What utter bulshit.
We have, collectively and over time, created this thing that we call civilization. We made it up as we went along. We made up languages. We made up cultures. We made up philosophy. Hell, civilization itself is a concept that we made up. That does not make civilization any less real. It does not make it more real, either.
Who cares that we made it all up? Everyone should, and they should also realize that they have a vital role to play in protecting those rights, because we made them up for very good reason: to calm down the inner asshole in us all and to protect members of society so they could all work more or less together to make life better. Sometimes we don't do too well at constraining that inner asshole.
Human rights come from societal agreement. Period. They are codified, or not, in the laws of the various nations of the world. They don't come from government, persee, but they do come from society agreeing that they exist. Two hundred years ago concepts about rights were different because societies viewed the various people in those societies differently. Over time, we have come to not be as accepting of slavery, of trafficking in human beings. Bravo! Maybe someday we will realize as a society that "all people" means "all people", and we can stop this incessant blaming of others for problems made up and exaggerated by politicians attempting to gain traction. Boy! Wouldn't that be nice! We even treat women with almost the same respect as men. Gotta work on that one! Still!
Rights, along with morals, are concepts, thought up by humans, and overall a good thing. Respect for the rights of others still needs some work, but we are slowly getting there.
I'm sick of these people who write ("god-given rights') about a God that they do not even profess to, defend, or challenge others in understanding. It's just WIERD. There are people here who profess nor confess any god or religious book. And they wish to inform and educate those whom do profess and confess knowledge of their 'god/s.'
You have yet to answer a basic and simple question: Where do these nature rights ("god-given rights) come? Nature. . . will kill us as efficiently with its many 'wonders' right where we stand. God. . . yet to be proven to exist to grant anything tangible.
I would agree that we have human rights, because we ought to respect our species. That is, we ought to not default to being barbarians and beastly. Even animals respect the 'packs' in which they travel or they are expelled and must roam alone.
I think it is high rhetoric to attribute our human rights to an illusion (that they are god-given) of a God in Charge, when we never have ever seen that God. And I say this as a Christian believer, who does not wish to live by high-minded rhetoric, nevertheless.
Finally, I understand what the founders were doing by removing themselves from their king and 'overriding' his vested authority in the Church of England at the same time) through appealing to 'god'—a higher power.
But now that we are away from that period and time, it is time to drop the illusion and acknowledge we have no authority on Earth that is actively engaging us, but ourselves. At least, up to and for now.
The rights US Citizens have are because our armed ancestors took them from King Charles with their guns and the reason we still have rights is because of the Second Amendment
That is quite an oversimplification you made there. While true the revolution was technically a violent revolution against the government of King George III, it was for the most part a civil war between the American revolutionaries and those Americans still loyal to the British. A revolution spawned by Enlightenment ideals of equality, liberty and personal freedom.
I know this is going to upset some people but there is no such thing as "god given" rights.
Mmmkay, where do you believe your rights come from JR?
Try enforcing your "god given" rights without a government.
So you think the only rights you're afforded are the ones government says you can have? Is that what you mean?...
That's not what the document that founded our country says.
The claim that rights are God given carries with it the implication that they exist without the need for any other entity. A right without the prospect of enforcement of it is meaningless.
Here are the Founders exact words......
The notion of god-given rights would imply a God has been evidenced, but we know that God has not supplied proof-of-life. The obvious question is this: What are we taking for granted when we say "God-given" (rights)?
The silence is deafening, apparently.
I was curious to see what Chatgpt would say:
Why does it matter if our rights come from god, rather than the government?
ChatGPT said:It matters whether our rights come from God or the government because it changes the foundation, permanence, and vulnerability of those rights. Here's why that distinction is significant:
1. Rights from God = Inalienable and Universal
If rights come from God (or nature, as in “natural rights”), they are:
This is the foundation of documents like the U.S. Declaration of Independence, which states:
“...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...”
The implication is: government exists to protect these rights, not to grant them.
2. Rights from Government = Conditional and Revocable
If rights come from the government, then:
Historically, regimes that believe rights are granted by the state (e.g., authoritarian or totalitarian governments) have used that logic to suppress dissent, persecute minorities, or deny basic freedoms.
Moral Legitimacy vs. Legal Authority
4. Practical Implications
Even if you're secular, the idea that rights are not granted by human institutions provides a check on government power. It creates a philosophical foundation for limited government and individual liberty.
In Summary:
So the question isn’t just theological—it’s about whether your rights are truly yours, or on loan from the state.
Pretty good summary.
No, it is irrelevant.
I can see why government given rights appeal to you so much.
So if the Government declares gay people have no right to exist (or substitute the taking away of any other right that you value), you have no moral/logical basis to oppose it. The government gives, the government takes. It's power to do so makes it right under your viewpoint.
On a desert island with a bunch of homophobes what right does that gay person have?
According to you, none.
Are migrants able to enjoy their God given rights at the moment in America? If they have rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness why doesnt Trump (and Moses Johnson) leave them alone?
Because there are laws and regulations describing how they may become citizens. They have no right to simply cross the border and take up residence here and receive government benefits
What moral/logical basis do you hold up for us to consider, please explain. What moral authority do you offer in this discussion?
If they have rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness why doesnt Trump (and Moses Johnson) leave them alone?
Not "God Given Rights" John. Read what Sean posted.
Your rights are on loan from the state, Just ask Donald Trump.
Your rights are on loan from the state
The correlation between the people who claim this and consistently argue for authoritarianism on this site is pretty much perfect.
as ChatGPT said above, Historically, regimes that believe rights are granted by the state (e.g., authoritarian or totalitarian governments) have used that logic to suppress dissent, persecute minorities, or deny basic freedoms
We all have god given rights, just within the confines of what the conservatives say they are.
The truth is that the concept of rights that exist without a government is flimsy, as the fate of migrants can attest.
I dont object to the grand belief that God gives us "rights", and philosophically it may very well be true. But its not the way the real world works.
That's literally why we form governments, to make it easier to protect those rights. When a government doesn't protect those rights, it's not legitimate and no duty is owed by its citizens towards it and revolution is justified. That's the point of the declaration of independence.
s the fate of migrants can attest.
Illegal aliens are, by definition, not citizens and we did not form our government to protect the rights of foreigners. All our government owes foreigners is to treat them as our laws dictate. They should look to fix their own governments if their rights aren't being protected by their own governments.
God giveth and God taketh away.
The fact is without government the concept of rights has no meaning. Right wingers use "god given rights" for an excuse to own AR-15's, and storm the Capitol on Jan 6.
Your commentary distorts and obfuscates, lets you hang a shiny thing on the tree and say, "This is so," and in the end it only reinforces my point.
As a profess believer in the Christian God, I still take exception to the illusion of "god-given' rights without the proof of God. Here's why: The use of God as rhetoric lends itself to God being used to ESTABLISH something ("rights") in society, when, as we often discuss on NT there is not verifiable or 'ready' proof that God even (does) exist. It is putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.
Thus, it follows that since the mentioning of 'god-given rights' our rights have been established, and kept in place, by our countrymen and women. And the only reason they can be 'challenged,' corrected, and modified is by the actions of countrymen and women exercising various versions of power.
Though the words, "god-given rights' may be aspirational and gives voice to hope, the phrase is high-sounding rhetoric empty of substance until men, women, boys, and girls act.
We have all been privileged to read the failing history of the U.S.A. which made an entire class of humanity its slave and children of slave. Where was the "endowment" of inalienability when the very people making the constitution denied their fellow humanity equality?
Furthermore, slavery was not inherent in the colonies. . . it was 'put upon' those colonies by men writing with the strokes of a pen them into permanent servitude! Humanity was not afforded those men who were treated as 'beasts' of burden and worse so. Their unalienable rights as humans became conditional and revocable. Worse, since their are still leaders with 'strokes of a pen' around. . . unalienable rights can be struck away at some future day. All men have to do is allow their IGNORANCE to consume and overwhelm their sense of justice (for all).
The American government was not living up to the ideals set forth in the declaration and protecting those rights. That provided the moral and legal justification for ending slavery.
if you believe the government creates rights, slavery is perfectly justifiable. Whatever the government says is a right, is a right. If the American government passed an amendment legalizing slavery tomorrow, those who object to natural rights would have no legal or logical basis to object.
Dumb slaves. They had the right to be free for 200 years and never realized it.
Their rights were denied them by the government. Why is that so hard to process?
Do you think Jews had their rights violated by the Nazi government? or was that okay too, because the government is always right?
So when migrants are removed from the land their god given rights are being violated, correct? That doesnt sound good.
Now here's a man who knows his god given rights
Again, migrants are not citizens and have no right to American land. It's why we formed a government and set borders in the first place, to protect against invaders. It's literally the first duty of any government.
He's 100% correct. How could you possibly object to that?
So their rights depend on the government. I already knew that.
There is a god given right to not pay property taxes ?
dont know but i know there is a legislative path to create laws that would lower or nullify them , they are attempting just that in my state . dont know what i think of that really .
Their idea is simply to transfer the tax burdens currently covered by property owners onto others. Try to create a city, county or school district budget without property taxes.
Great. You understand that foreign non citizens are not the same as American citizens. Never sure if leftists understand that.
Owning property is a fundamental right. Weren’t you taught that in school?
Try to create a city, county or school district budget without property taxes
It’s actually very easy. You take away property taxes and increase consumption or income taxes proportionally . It requires no loss of revenue.
Oh another god given right?
Without a government to secure those rights, there is no such thing as property rights. Which is one of the reasons libertarianism is nothing more than a utopia.
If you build a nice cabin in the middle of nowhere, and you dont have a piece of paper issued by the government that says that is your house and land, a band of cut throats can come and tell you they own that land and property now and they are giving you an hour to vacate.
A sheriff and a bunch of police could come and get your land back for you, if you have that piece of paper.
Yes. This is all basic stuff. Read a survey of Locke.
Let me make this very simple.
People form governments to protect property rights. If a government helps protect those rights, it is just and requires loyalty. If it doesn't protect your property, it is not a just government and no one owes allegiance to it. If, as you believe, someone only owns property upon the whim of government, your neighbor could buy your property from the government for 1% of its value and you'd have no reason to complain because you have no right to your property.
JBB, not all places tax the same way or for the same reasons .
Here we have property taxes , vehicle registrations , sales tax and bond taxes . this state has no income taxes .
property tax here goes into the general county budget , vehicle regs pay for school districts , sales taxes get evenly split with schools and county and sometimes city or town bonds are left to the county or municipality that originate them, here municipalities can add a 1% or whatever tax to sales that stays in the community , they also have the ability to add modest hotel/ motel taxes , thats not even counting the state fuel taxes earmarked for roads and maint . .
I know Locke's arguments.
Who died and made Locke God?
Unless you can prove you own land, you dont own it, in the real world.
When you write things like that, it makes me sure you either haven't read Locke or understood him.
ess you can prove you own land, you dont own it, in the real world.
Again, you aren't making a point here. We created a government that created a system designed to protect property rights by registering them. You are imagining some contradiction that doesn't exist.
Without a government to record and protect property you have no right to them.
If someone robbed you in a society without government, what would that robbery actually mean?
It's really not that hard John, our government was formed to protect those rights not grant them. If there was no government then it falls to the individual to try and protect their rights but they don't disappear.
Rights, as does nearly everything we think of as "given", stem from societal agreement.
It was a fairly new concept to remove the granting of rights from one authority (A king, etc.) and place them with a "Creator". Here in the US we tried it on, decided that was the paradigm we were going to follow, and here we are. So, society grants rights, "We the People," not a specific God (as Johnson was inferring), not a King, not a President. I should think this would be... self evident?
SO you have no rights as a human. If "society" decides to kill all people named Thomas, you'd have no basis to object. After all, you have no right to exist other than that granted by society.
IT really shouldn't be.
But the concept of rights existing without government giving them to you is a hard concept for authoritarians to grasp.
Without government bad guys could and would deprive you of your property, your freedom and ultimately your life...
You aren't getting it. Recognizing that human rights preexist government isn't an argument to get rid of government. At all.
Once again, you remove from context what I write, carry it off to somewhere else, infer something that I did not say, and say about that thing inferred, "Look! How can you say this?!"
Society, the agreement of "We the People," are where our rights are codified. The idea of rights and who they apply to has evolved over time, hopefully as we became and become more aware of those whom we were denying those rights to. As the current administration is showing us through its abuse of certain peoples rights, those rights can be taken away at whim. Rights, as seen by the Speaker's comments, assumedly derive from a Christian "God" and only from that.
This is all whooey because there is no evidence of a creator, or a God, god,or gods. But whatever floats your boat.
You do not make a 'case' for unalienable rights existing through establishment of an intangible God. There are unalienable rights or there are not existing. A god can not be 'in-charge' of rights "god-given" where there is no provable evidence of God.
It is time we stop using language INAPPROPRIATELY to grant and deny what is real.
That said (above), I profess to being Christian, because I follow a belief system that 'personal.'
Finally, slavery can be justifiable-to those mighty enough to make it an institution; equally, slavery can be abolished my the mighty that eradicate it. The two options are human factors that lend themselves to this discussion; and are not just mythical rhetoric repeated for effect.
If men were angels there would be no need for governments to protect our rights. Men are not angels...
No kidding. I'm sure you have a point, somewhere.
No, I'm showing you the logic of your argument. I assume you are trying to make logical arguments, right? If you believe what you claim to believe, you can't rebut my argument.
agreement of "We the People," are where our rights are codified.
The Constitution simply creates a form of government. It is not a source of rights. It's a basic concept. Just look at the ninth amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
those rights can be taken away at whim
No. they can't. Stop making things up. It doesn't help you.
use there is no evidence of a creator, or a God, god,or gods
Doesn't matter. It's amazing how hung up people get by that word. Think of them as human rights if it allows you to think logically.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
Or those that would be willingly ruled by authoritarianism...
Sure you don't. /s Let's move on.
Rights granted by governments can be positive and negative, it would seem that people who think like you want to make government authority - authoritarian, despite freedoms, liberties, and dissent upheld by citizens and their power to vote for change.
Note: I 'get' the sentiment of wanting not to be under the control of the state, therefore, appeal to an idea of nature's control (or a deity). But, let me remind "you" - nature and deities have yet to make ultimate REPLY (inducements/enforcement) to any man-made 'rule'
This was you argument in total.
The first statement, "SO you have no rights as a human," is a somewhat stilted representation of Society Encodes Rights. Nobody, no thing, anywhere, anytime has an inherent (in and of itself) right to do anything. It is just existing. It takes consciousness to even come-up with the concept of rights, let alone to ascribe those rights to certain things.
We made all of this up, and therefore it is subject to the whims of whomever we the people decide is going to make the rules.
People live in conditions because they are lead to believe they must in order to survive or thrive or whatever other reason may have been given to them. They are born into a certain cultural milieu and are raised accordingly. In the 1800's, people who lived in certain areas thought that it was just fine and dandy, even ordained by God, to hold certain others as property. People who were born, raised and lived in other areas were told that owning people was wrong. Now in the US we recognize (I hope) that slavery was wrong and against our concept of human rights. What changed? Society did.
The rest of your argument, "If "society" decides to kill all people named Thomas, you'd have no basis to object. After all, you have no right to exist other than that granted by society," is just plain twisted and silly.
My objection would still be there, no matter if it was not recognized by society as a right. You take the idea of a right and flip it onto it's head and make it kind of an anti or non-right, but the idea that rights are an outgrowth of society and that society codifies and enforces those rights remains as the only viable source of rights because rights are a construct of man. Why society would want to kill all people named Thomas, I could not say. That society could do something of the sort, I have no doubt.
You do raise in my mind disturbing parallels between rights and certain thinking on the LGBTQ and immigrant communities. Indeed, today we can see plainly that there are people who think that those communities have lesser rights than others in our society. Just change the wording in your hypothetical a little :
"If society decides that all immigrants must be deported without due process, they would have no basis to object, because society says so" is a statement that, quite unfortunately, a good portion of our society agrees with. DJT is onboard with removing the rights from anybody he wants to by the stroke of a sharpie. Is society going to let him? Are you going to watch him do that? You are a part of society.
This all goes back to the concept of institutions and whether they are going to save us. People, society, the citizens of the US, ARE the institutions of the US. That is the whole point of the CotUS.
Rights aren't granted by government. Perhaps you should start at the beginning of a thread...
Actually, rights are granted by government. In a dictatorship people have no rights. Why? Because their government won't allow them. Do you believe rights exist where they are disallowed or repressed? That they exist in a vaccum, even if you are not allowed to exercise them?
Universal human rights is a worthy concept, but without a government guaranteeing/allowing people to exercise their rights, what rights exist?
Absolutely, do you think that you and your family's rights to life, liberty or the pursuit of a happy life are dependent upon someone else's consent?
Here's the logic. If you live in a society where the government represses you, you don't have rights. You may wish to have rights or believe in the worthy concept of universal human rights, but if you are unable or disallowed from exercising those rights, how can you claim those rights exist in that society? To take an extreme example, did Jews have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of a happy life under the Nazi regime? The answer is no.
You absolutely have an inherent right to exist. It's not an arbitrary thing that the state can simply grant or take away on a whim. It's sad how many progressives deny the existence of human rights because of their obsession with government power.
e made all of this up, an
Again, who cares?
That society could do something of the sort, I have no doubt.
And here's the distinction. The "Government gives us all" believers have no basis to object to it. It's the government and it decides for you. In contrast, for those who believe people named Thomas have a right to exist, an attempt to kill all Thomases brands the government as tyrannical, as it has broken its compact and it no longer owed the duty of allegiance. Understanding that humans have rights merely as humans justifies rebellion against a government that doesn't honor natural rights You advocate for the meek acceptance of tyranny because the government is always right.
Simpletons seem to think that the existence of tyranny or examples of horrible acts by the government against their own citizens somehow disproves the concept of natural rights. They obviously haven't read anything on the subject. The point of recognizing that humans have rights independent of government is not that such recognition magically stops a government from doing horrible things, it's that it demarks a bright line that once crossed makes a government illegitimate. It's the breaking of the social contract that binds a people to the government and justifies rebellion.
So you think they didn't believe in those rights?
Simpletons seem to think rights magically exist where rights are repressed and there is the absence of any ability to exercise those rights, as if what we know as human rights are kept in a magic box by some supernatural force just waiting to emerge. Right wing sophistry then leads them to argue that "progressives deny the existence of human rights" although nothing could be further from the truth. Liberals/progressives have historically been the greatest champions of human rights whereas conservatives/reactionaries have generally treated human rights with contempt and disdain and work to this day to undermine and deny human rights.
The concept of natural rights is a worthy ideal. It is exceedingly strange that conservatives/reactionaries, with their antipathy toward the exercise of rights and freedoms by anyone other than their own narrow affinity group, would pretend to adopt natural rights as a cause.
They might well have believed in them in the abstract, and most certainly wished to exercise them, but they also knew that given the circumstances those rights did not exist for them at that time. You might argue that they still had those rights, but in reality, if you can't exercise your rights how can you argue they exist as anything other than an ideal? But I think maybe we are talking about two different things. Proponents of the worthy utopian concept of natural rights contend they exist even in the lack of any ability to exercise them. A more realistic take is that if your rights are repressed and you are unable to exercise them, they can't be said to be present.
Hahahah.
You crack me up. So the person just, "Poof" has rights? I suppose they keep them in the same place as their soul. What utter bulshit.
We have, collectively and over time, created this thing that we call civilization. We made it up as we went along. We made up languages. We made up cultures. We made up philosophy. Hell, civilization itself is a concept that we made up. That does not make civilization any less real. It does not make it more real, either.
Who cares that we made it all up? Everyone should, and they should also realize that they have a vital role to play in protecting those rights, because we made them up for very good reason: to calm down the inner asshole in us all and to protect members of society so they could all work more or less together to make life better. Sometimes we don't do too well at constraining that inner asshole.
Human rights come from societal agreement. Period. They are codified, or not, in the laws of the various nations of the world. They don't come from government, persee, but they do come from society agreeing that they exist. Two hundred years ago concepts about rights were different because societies viewed the various people in those societies differently. Over time, we have come to not be as accepting of slavery, of trafficking in human beings. Bravo! Maybe someday we will realize as a society that "all people" means "all people", and we can stop this incessant blaming of others for problems made up and exaggerated by politicians attempting to gain traction. Boy! Wouldn't that be nice! We even treat women with almost the same respect as men. Gotta work on that one! Still!
Rights, along with morals, are concepts, thought up by humans, and overall a good thing. Respect for the rights of others still needs some work, but we are slowly getting there.
I'm sick of these people who write ("god-given rights') about a God that they do not even profess to, defend, or challenge others in understanding. It's just WIERD. There are people here who profess nor confess any god or religious book. And they wish to inform and educate those whom do profess and confess knowledge of their 'god/s.'
That is not substantive enough. Perhaps you should explain what and how you mean that comment.
You have yet to answer a basic and simple question: Where do these nature rights ("god-given rights) come? Nature. . . will kill us as efficiently with its many 'wonders' right where we stand. God. . . yet to be proven to exist to grant anything tangible.
Emphatically.
I would agree that we have human rights, because we ought to respect our species. That is, we ought to not default to being barbarians and beastly. Even animals respect the 'packs' in which they travel or they are expelled and must roam alone.
I think it is high rhetoric to attribute our human rights to an illusion (that they are god-given) of a God in Charge, when we never have ever seen that God. And I say this as a Christian believer, who does not wish to live by high-minded rhetoric, nevertheless.
Finally, I understand what the founders were doing by removing themselves from their king and 'overriding' his vested authority in the Church of England at the same time) through appealing to 'god'—a higher power.
But now that we are away from that period and time, it is time to drop the illusion and acknowledge we have no authority on Earth that is actively engaging us, but ourselves. At least, up to and for now.
Emphatically.
CREATOR
God is not mentioned in the Constitution.
Sure there is, If Trump says so
Funny they didn't think so when Obama was elected twice.
I don't think you understand the argument.
I actually think it is time that we look at our aspirational platitudes in earnest.
The (biblical) God is not a him/his/man. Time to dispel.
I prefer unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters myself...
The rights US Citizens have are because our armed ancestors took them from King Charles with their guns and the reason we still have rights is because of the Second Amendment
That is quite an oversimplification you made there. While true the revolution was technically a violent revolution against the government of King George III, it was for the most part a civil war between the American revolutionaries and those Americans still loyal to the British. A revolution spawned by Enlightenment ideals of equality, liberty and personal freedom.
Simple truth, not overly complicated
Yes, "Simple". The truth is complicated...