jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (94 posts)

Where do our freedoms come from?

  1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
    weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago

    "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 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."

    Enough said.  Snark about freedoms coming from our creator reveals a complete disrespect for both freedom and the rights of man.

    1. Liam Hannan profile image60
      Liam Hannanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I don't see how. The assumption about "the creator" could mean (as it did then) "God" (and even then only the "God" of Protestant Christian Theology is inherently problematic when it comes to freedom) but it could equally mean "arising from the state of man's being" - a statement about our inherent constitution as opposed to a religious belief. If you look at the recent trends in thought on freedom it is usually framed as an inherent part of our natural make up, whether it is located in the capacity for self definition or the ability to make choices it is seen as arising from the process of our creation, and as the process by which we create.

      1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
        weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Whether you belive in God or not, matters none.   The point of our rights being inherent to us as human beings remains exactly the same.   They do not come from statements in books, or legislation or promises of politicians, nor demands for someone else's property or services.

        1. Doug Hughes profile image61
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          PAY ATTENTION - WE HAVE COME TO THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE!

          It's not an issue whether the rights of man have a divine origin.  It's not even about any of the rights listed here "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ".  Amazingly, it's not about any of rights in the Bill of Rights.

          Nope, the teabaggers have pulled a whizzer by inventing a new right. It's the right not to pay taxes you disagree with. No, you won't find that right in the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution. When you back a wingnut into a corner about the 'tyranny', it always and finally comes down to the craven greed of a miser who objects to paying the toll for living in a country he pretends to love.

          1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
            weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            More lies from Doug.   

            Please don't come post blatant falsehoods here, Doug.    You know you're wrong and that it's untrue,  so stop insulting yourself by being shown such a slave to your partisanship you'll lie endlessly to advance it. 

            I have already stated repeatedly what the T EA Party is about,  and your fictional nonsense is not needed.

            1. Doug Hughes profile image61
              Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              OK - help me out here. I seem to recall that T E A is an acronym for Taxed Enough Already. And the teabagger posts are frequently irrational rants against all federal taxes. So on what basis am I wrong?

        2. Liam Hannan profile image60
          Liam Hannanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I don't want to sound all European on you - but d'uh!

          Only in America would the idea that rights derive from a bit of paper arise... the rest of the world uses bits of paper to formalise the rights we feel ought to exist, and the legal/political systems to structure these rights within a societal context.

          As for the claim that rights do not arise from the demand for service; I'm afraid you're mistaken. A child has a right to life, this requires a level of service from the mother and father as an inherent part of that right. (Otherwise you come to a place where, being unable to fend for themselves, children forfeit the right to life. It's not an illogical place to be but if you are there you might want to have a check of the old moral compass).

          Some rights do entail an inherent level of service, for example the right to freedom of conscience requires a level of service insofar as education is required to understand these things, lack of tyranny (or governmental self restraint) is required to exercise it, and tolerance is required from others in order to practise it.

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Not to mention, the people who wrote it owned slaves, had no concern for the rights of the Indians, and thought of women as property!!
            It's false on the face of it.

            John Holden is right. Back then, it was all land-holding white men have all these inalienable rights...today, they mean: all Republibaggers!
            No one else need apply.

    2. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I don't argue with any of that apart from to point out that it says "all men" not "all republicans".

      I'm glad that you agree that it is wrong to deprive anybody of their freedom and expect to see this reflected in your subsequent posts.

      1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
        weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I am ALWAYS an advocate for freedom.    If you haven't caught on by now, you're truly in la-la land.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You always advocate freedom for the right, the left can just shut up!

          1. lady_love158 profile image61
            lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Because the left advocates for oppression!

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Does it really!
              Could have fooled me!
              I see much more oppression coming from the right, no abortion, no unions, no minimum wage, for three. Can you produce a similar three for the left?

              1. lady_love158 profile image61
                lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                OMG! I can produce an endless list! Everything the left is for oppresses somebody!

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  No, three will do, can't keep you from your searching for scandal too long.

                  1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
                    weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    With Democrats in power, scandal is thrust upon us like a tsunami of evil.

                  2. lady_love158 profile image61
                    lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Welfare
                    Healthcare
                    Medicare
                    Social security
                    CFL light bulbs
                    Low flush toilets
                    Net neutrality
                    Student loans
                    Banking regulation
                    Minimum wage
                    Forced unions

              2. weholdthesetruths profile image59
                weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Abortion, unions, and minimum wage ARE NOT MATTERS OF FREEDOM.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Ah, so we are now redefining freedom are we!
                  They are freedoms in my book.

                  1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
                    weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    You still remain clueless.

    3. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Freedom coming from a "Creator" doesn't necessarily mean a god or anything.

      We're all made from earth.

      In reality, rights are just naturally infused in us when we're born.

    4. drdspervez profile image51
      drdspervezposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It's a free world and we are free to do the right thing.   smile


           DR.DURRESHAHWAR PERVEZ

  2. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    Free mind.

  3. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 6 years ago

    Freedom comes from inside, there is no other place for it smile

  4. Doug Hughes profile image61
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    There's a good story about the fellow who took over a private park in the city. It had been abandoned for years, and it took a solid year of toil to restore the gardens. A local pastor observed the restoration and in pompous piety told the gardener what a splendid job he thought the Lord and the gardener were doing.

    The gardener's response, "Thank you very much,  but you should have seen it when the Lord had the place all to Himself."

    Think what you will about the origins of the rights of man. It's no skin off my nose if you want to think they came from Sharia Law. But those rights were articulated by man, they are defined by man, They are maintained by those elected & appointed to write & interpret the law.

    1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
      weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You are incorrect. 

      Man's rights are inherent to himself.   The only role government has is to NOT interfere with them.   It does not define them, enumerate them, or create them.   The only thing we have to do is stop government from taking them.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        But isn't government also involved in protecting rights?
        You know like the right to life, the right to own property, the right to freedom of expression?

        1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
          weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The ONLY legitimate purpose of governance is to prevent our rights from being taken.    You have the freedom to express anything.   The only way you can lose that, is if government takes it.   Life.  You already have it.   Are you concerned that someone may try to take it?

          1. Greek One profile image77
            Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The 'pursuit of happiness' is a vague term that one can argue can be hindered by the structure of any given economic system

          2. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            No, I'm not concerned that somebody may try and take my life.
            I might be though without knowing that government takes a pretty hard line on those who might like to take my life.

            1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
              weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              There are courts to slap them on the wrist in the UK for murdering.   Isn't that enough?

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Well, if you think life in prison is a slap on the wrist. . .

                1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
                  weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Considering you have no freedom in the UK anyway, it seems like little more than going on holiday with bad decorating.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Don't we have freedom in the UK!
                    First I knew about that, I'd say more people have more freedom in the UK than in the US.

          3. Greek One profile image77
            Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            One might be also concerned that a healthcare system has been created where where one can keep living is based upon how much money they have for medical treatments.

            Or should the phrase be changed to "Life (if you can afford it), liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

            1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
              weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You have no right to the services, the labors, the wealth, or possessions of anyone.    That includes the doctor, medicine, etc.    What you don't own is NOT yours and you have NO right to it.

              1. Greek One profile image77
                Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I have a right to life... how can you create a system that will in effect deprive me of it based on how much money I have?

                What about capital punishment.. I am correct assuming you are in favor of the state taking life away in some instances?

                1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
                  weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Nobody is depriving you of your right to live.   Your right to live is your right to live by your best efforts.    If someone's invention can extend it, your rights are not denied if they do not give it to you.

                  1. Greek One profile image77
                    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Tell a poor dying person that no one is depriving them of their right to live right after some insurance company has cut them off from the medical treatment they need.

                2. weholdthesetruths profile image59
                  weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, I do believe that under certain circumstances, individuals, by their choice of crimes against others, give up their rights, and that they can be rescinded, not by the government, but only by a unanimous jury of their peers.

                  1. Greek One profile image77
                    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    What?!?!?!

                    Your consistency of approach was admirable (although mostly disagreeable) up to here.

                    I must admit that it is surprisingly painful to see a champion of the inalienable, God-given rights of man, especially the right to life, willingly give up to the state the right to take away one of a person's most important possessions.

                    Evidently a people in a free and democratic society do not have the right, through their elected representatives, to establish programs to help one another.... but they can create a big bad government which can set up a court system and laws which will take away the God-given right to life.

                    Wow

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Government CAN'T ensure rights. It can only take them.

          Government is, by definition, the negation of liberty.

      2. Doug Hughes profile image61
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You are not in touch with reality.

        When the Supreme Court makes a determination that a homophobic loonie church can protest at military funerals they ARE defining freedom of speech. (The decision was correct.)

        1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
          weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The court can be right, and the court can be wrong.   The Constitution only changes as it is amended.   Neither its meaning, its intent, nor it limitation on government has ever changed aside from the amendments. 

          The Supreme Court DOES NOT define what it means, it does.

          1. Greek One profile image77
            Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You realize that is just your wish and not the reality, right?

            The court interprets the law, and in doing so defines it.

            1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
              weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              No, it is not my wish.  It is reality.    The fantasy is people who think that SCOTUS can amend the constitution to find anything they want in it.

              1. Greek One profile image77
                Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Since they are so bond, then I gather you support every single verdict of the Supreme Court since its creation as being in line with you understanding of what the Constitution requires?

                1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
                  weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Of course not.   SCOTUS is wrong constantly.    Doesn't change the Constitution one iota.

                  1. Greek One profile image77
                    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    What it does is determine, through its interpretation of the Constitution, its effect upon the laws of the land...

                    it may not change what you or I think the Constitution means, but that in reality means squat

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          the USSC is not my god. They're a bunch of idiots who can't read.

    2. Eaglekiwi profile image73
      Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I certainly believe in God but I am rolling on the floor laughing (at your joke) lol


      I also agree with Misha, real freedom comes from within-

      And on the other side of that coin, I live in a land that shouts Freedom ,yet seem unhappy.

  5. Doug Hughes profile image61
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    John, at this point the winners stick their fingers in their ears and shout "La la la la I can't hear you."

    When the USA struck down some of FDR's New Deal programs, under a skewed interpretation of the 10th amendment,  they applaud that as proper. When a modern court upholds legislation under the Commerce clause or General Welfare, it's unconstitutional.

    This has it's counterpart in the drunken baseball fan who expects the umpire to call nothing but balls when the home team is at bat, and nothing but strikes when the home team is pitching.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      A SKEWED INTERPRETATION OF THE 10TH AMENDMENT?!

      READ THE DAMNED THING:

      "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

      How could ANYONE take that to mean that "Congress can pass any law they want to"?!?! You're a madman, Doug.

      1. Greek One profile image77
        Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You're in good company, Doug... the past 200 plus years of Supreme Court rulings are the results of madmen too

        1. Doug Hughes profile image61
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Poor Evan.  I make him so angry he swears he won't ever respond to anything I write. Then I mention the 10th amendment, and he bites every time.

          The thing is, he's not totally wrong - just 100 years out of date. In 1800, if you asked a gentleman from Richmond traveling abroad his nationality, he would tell you 'Virginian'. The residents of the 13 original states thought of them as nations. In the Civil War, 65 years later, the various armies were all STATE militias. It wasn't til WWI that a national identity overtook the state identities. By the end of WWII, the concept of state sovereignty was all but dead. Supreme Court decisions support my theory. But once upon a time, Evan was right. Today, even the most conservative Supreme Court justice would disagree with Evan's view of the 10th.

          1. Greek One profile image77
            Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            hence one of the reasons they call the Constitution a 'living document'

            1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
              weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              What utter baloney.   

              the only thing that proves, is that SCOTUS is wholesale corrupt and useless.

              1. Greek One profile image77
                Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                the one does not negate the other

                1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
                  weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  No, doug has to prove is idiocy... and he can't. 

                  First, it's written clear and straightforward.  NOTHING is "ambiguous".  Nothing.

                  If he has trouble understanding it, it's just his lack of intellect.

                  1. junko profile image79
                    junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I left you a message on AnnCee thread AWOL weholdthesetruths

                  2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
                    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm utterly flabbergasted that the same people who demand that we "keep on educating our youth" are the same people who read the Constitution, and then say "it doesn't matter what is written down, what's important is what 9 jerk-nuggets SAY it means".

                    It's utterly disgusting.

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not wrong at all.

            Read the damned document.

        2. weholdthesetruths profile image59
          weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          like saying black me were only part of a man, in terms of census... 

          Live and die by SCOTUS' follies?   NO thanks.   I take the clear, unambiguous word of the Constitution every time.

          1. Doug Hughes profile image61
            Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Unfortunately,  the Constitution is an ambiguous document. The Preamble lists as the first goal 'in order to form a more perfect union' while the 10TH amendment sets forth the opposite goal.

            1. weholdthesetruths profile image59
              weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              LOL, you're truly a putz.   

              Sorry, your intellect is not up to this conversation.

              1. Eaglekiwi profile image73
                Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Those comments dont seem very Constitutional!

            2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              There isn't anything ambiguous about it.

              And for any part you quote as being ambiguous, I'm sure that I could find even the most ardent supporters of a powerful national government arguing against whatever you say the document means.

              Hamilton, Adams, and Madison (all pro-powerful government) demanded that "general welfare" did not mean "congress can do anything".

              The document is NOT ambiguous, the 10th amendment makes it VERY clear.

  6. weseppers profile image59
    weseppersposted 6 years ago

    From God. That's my point of view.

 
working