1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. MISC.SURVIVALISM

  • "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

    From !Jones@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 29 20:44:11 2023
    XPost: rec.crafts.metalworking, talk.politics.guns, alt.politics
    XPost: alt.rush-limbaugh

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

    From this statement, I derive the term *universal*... or, IOW, obvious
    to anyone, anywhere, anyplace.

    "... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
    Creator with [...] Rights"

    Here, the clear implication is that rights are intrinsic to the human experience and that any human right for one is a human right for all
    human beings on the planet. The question pending is: "Are there any
    other properties of these Rights?" (I'm glad you asked!)

    "Men are [...] endowed by their Creator with [...] unalienable
    Rights..."

    If you were to look that word up, you will find a long discussion of "unalienable" versus "inalienable" because, apparently, there was a
    version issue in the DOI, and you will see it both ways in different
    original texts. In the definition of the words, however, "indelible"
    appears frequently as a synonym.

    "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

    Human rights pre-date the government; since human rights were not
    granted by a government, it is not possible for them to be removed by
    a government. If you say a freedom *may* be removed, you're admitting
    it is not a human right.

    Now, perhaps *you* disagree with the enumeration of the properties of
    a "right" (it really isn't a definition) as "intrinsic", "indelible",
    and "universal"; however, it would be flatly inaccurate to argue that
    *nobody* agrees because, obviously, the founders did.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Klaus Schadenfreude@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Sun Apr 30 05:43:14 2023
    XPost: rec.crafts.metalworking, talk.politics.guns, alt.politics
    XPost: alt.rush-limbaugh

    On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 20:44:11 -0500, !Jones <[email protected]> wrote:

    If you say a freedom *may* be removed, you're admitting
    it is not a human right.

    Um, no, you moronic troll.

    But that's not surprising, given your inability to understand due
    process.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scout@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 1 07:39:06 2023
    XPost: rec.crafts.metalworking, talk.politics.guns, alt.politics
    XPost: alt.rush-limbaugh

    "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.l�[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 20:44:11 -0500, !Jones <[email protected]> wrote:

    If you say a freedom *may* be removed, you're admitting
    it is not a human right.

    Um, no, you moronic troll.

    But that's not surprising, given your inability to understand due
    process.

    Yep, what Baxter doesn't seem to understand is that even a court can not
    remove their rights.. the MOST they can do is infringe upon such rights more
    or less... as punishment for their crimes. That is how people are punished..
    by restricting their rights.

    Which makes one wonder why Baxter would want to punish people who have done
    no wrong.....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From !Jones@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Mon May 1 15:15:17 2023
    XPost: rec.crafts.metalworking, talk.politics.guns, alt.politics
    XPost: alt.rush-limbaugh

    On Mon, 1 May 2023 07:39:06 -0500, in talk.politics.guns "Scout" <[email protected]> wrote:



    "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.l�[email protected]> wrote in >message news:[email protected]...
    On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 20:44:11 -0500, !Jones <[email protected]> wrote:

    If you say a freedom *may* be removed, you're admitting
    it is not a human right.

    Yep, what Baxter doesn't seem to understand is that even a court can not >remove their rights.. the MOST they can do is infringe upon such rights more >or less... as punishment for their crimes. That is how people are punished.. >by restricting their rights.

    Which makes one wonder why Baxter would want to punish people who have done >no wrong.....

    I dunno who "Baxter" is, but *my* point was that, since a government
    did not create a human right, the government cannot administratively
    remove it. The question, then, is: "does a person have a human right
    *not* to be jailed?" This is a problem. To solve it, we turned to
    the idea of the jury, which was created by law, then placed outside of
    the government's control... as good of a solution as humans can get, I
    suppose.

    I'm *very* stingy as to what I'm willing to call a "human right" IMO,
    the UN goes *way* overboard with it. Many of what you're calling
    "rights", I call "freedoms". You have the freedom to do anything that
    does not violate a law; however, these change with the weather.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scout@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Mon May 1 16:11:04 2023
    XPost: rec.crafts.metalworking, talk.politics.guns, alt.politics
    XPost: alt.rush-limbaugh

    "!Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    On Mon, 1 May 2023 07:39:06 -0500, in talk.politics.guns "Scout" <[email protected]> wrote:



    "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.l�[email protected]> wrote in >>message news:[email protected]...
    On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 20:44:11 -0500, !Jones <[email protected]> wrote:

    If you say a freedom *may* be removed, you're admitting
    it is not a human right.

    Yep, what Baxter doesn't seem to understand is that even a court can not >>remove their rights.. the MOST they can do is infringe upon such rights >>more
    or less... as punishment for their crimes. That is how people are >>punished..
    by restricting their rights.

    Which makes one wonder why Baxter would want to punish people who have
    done
    no wrong.....

    I dunno who "Baxter" is, but *my* point was that, since a government
    did not create a human right, the government cannot administratively
    remove it. The question, then, is: "does a person have a human right
    *not* to be jailed?"

    Yes

    This is a problem.

    No, it's not, but I'm sure you're going to try to turn it into one.

    To solve it, we turned to
    the idea of the jury,

    Which has nothing to do with whether you have a right not to be jailed.

    What you fail to consider is such a right CAN be violated. Properly as punishment for a recognized crime. Improperly as a form of enslavement.

    Which of course is why we have the 5th Amendment.. otherwise your liberty
    could never be violated by imprisoning you.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)