Summations Only

The right to self defense is unalienable, and it is the right that supersedes the right of liberty for those who violate the rights of others. The basis is the emotion of fear when your life is threatened. It is an emotion that you do not want to feel. Therefore, you should not cause that emotion in others. People in the jungle do not fear for their lives? They do not care when their belongings are stolen from them? They do not care if they are imprisoned? It is only when humans interact with each other that we need to contemplate how we ought to treat each other. What is wrong with that? I didn't say that determining what natural rights are or are not is an easy task, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. At the same time, there are some very simple rights that are easy to figure out. Genocide--that is a violation of human rights. Imprisonment without habeas corpus--there are different schools of thought on this one, but most believe it to be a violation (such as Amnesty International).No one is saying that morality and natural rights is an easy topic to discuss. What I hope people understand is that it is an IMPORTANT topic, not something to push aside as being pretend or fake.

That is a very interesting discussion to have, one that has puzzled philosophers for quite some time. Should we be allowed to lock people up purely to protect them from themselves?

All inalienable rights are inalienable, some are just more inalienable than others.Edited by Huntard, : Spellings

What do you mean, protect them from themselves? Using drugs doesn't mean there are negative side effects. And in any case, I think the answer should be no.

A bit off-topic, so I'll keep it brief, but Taq cited drug trafficking as the 'problem' activity and not drug use.
But yes, it is a bit of a circular argument: "illegal drug" trafficking is illegal because "illegal drug trafficking" has bad consequences.
Making the drug legal would break that chain.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Exactly, I was under the impression that conservatism was by the religious for the religious.

Isn't the point of conservatism to preserve religious ideas and morals in politics?

It might be today but that has only been the goal since the Christian Coalition's coup in the late '70s when they took over the Republican Party and elected perhaps the worst President in US history, Ronald Reagan.Remember that the fight to decriminalize abortion was led by the Southern Baptists,

So what are these doiing that will hasten that? If you would acknowledge the apocalyptical prophecies you'd get it in your thick skull that it's been fast emerging for the past 50 years.Is it they that brought the dispersed Jews back to restore their tiny powerul little nation, smack dad in the midst of armed hostile nations with hostile Russia to the north and the whole world opposing them, victorious over all wars these past 60 years? This after 19 centuries of global disersion, fulfilling the prophecies of Jesus and the OT prophets milleniums ago?Is it they that brought about the emerging global marks and numbers monetary system about to herd us all into their prophesied New World Order, encompasing all "tribes, toungs and nations?Is it they that brought about the fulfillment of the ancient prophecy of Jesus, who told his deciples that his (then) new little gospel would be preached globally before his 2nd advent to the planet to rule and to reign in Jerusalem, capital of the restored nation?Is it they who brought about Ezekiel's 2500 year ago prophecy that when Israel was restored the hostile decendents of Ishmael, Abraham's handmaid, integrated with the decendents of Esau, aka, the ones we know as the Palestinians, these hostile people would claim two nations, their own and Israel?Was it they that brought about the fulfilled prophecy that the tiny desolate land would blossom, exporting lush produce amid lazy waring non-productive Islamic hostile neighbor's land in a mess, now demanding the tiny planted, once desolate land which over all those centuries, producing nothing?Was it they who brought about the fulfillment of techy stuff like the gospel preached from the midst of heaven global via satelite (Rev 14:6 angel=messenger) to all nations, a city burned up in one hour (nuclear) etc?Was it they who brought about the prophecies of Zechariah and other prophets way before Christ that in the end times all nations would be drawn into the Middle East, emerging eventually in a Desert Storm kind of invasion, aka Armageddon, when prior to the 2nd advent of Jesus?Was it they that brought about prophecies implying rapid increase of knowledge and travel etc? (Example Daniel 12)Was it they who brought about Jehovah's Abrahamic covenant that the decendents of Isaac would be blessed, and that those who cursed them would be cursed?Was it they who brought about the OT, Jesus's and John's NT prophecies of latter day global disastrous climate change & wars, etc leaving "few men upon the earth" as the OT prophet Isaiah put it?Was it they who brought about the fulfilment of OT and NT prophecies of secularistic godless immorality and apostate deviant, murderous evil generation, defying Jehovah's principles giving glory to the creature (i.e. evolution) rather than the creator, children disobedient to parents, men and women leaving the "natural use of their bodies, men lusting after men and women after women (Apostle Paul) etc ?You get the picture. I could go on and on. My sincere apologies to Taz and Jar for mistakenly ascribing the message to which I responded to Jar. I have corrected by edit and will drop my jeer on jar's message. Edited by Buzsaw, : Add question markEdited by Buzsaw, : Indicated by color

First, you continue to misquote me.Second, where is the evidence that any Biblical Prophecy has been fulfilled?And yes, Christian Fundamentalists are the greatest threat, particularly US Christian Fundamentalists, that the world faces today; a greater threat than Global Warming or Islamic Terrorism.

Let it be told by I, hooah212002, holy soothsayer, bringer of doom and "he who hath the largest balls in all the land", that this post typed by holy non-prophet Saw of Buzzes shall henceforth go down in the annals of EvC lore henceforth referenced by Saw of Buzzes as "check my post history where I provided evidence". Let it also be told that all ye who asketh shall not seeketh, what thine evidence that is referenced for wo, it shall not be found, but only holy conjecture and babble.IT IS WRITTEN

Those are crap prophesies since none of them have happened.
Perhaps that alone could be considered proof that your god doesn't exist. Yes, you could.
But that has never made you right.

Absolutely true. But the constitution is not the government. The government is subject to the constitution. This isn't part of the argument that I want to take on, and to this point I haven't. I am saying that American citizens have rights that are not granted by the government. If the US government has quartered soldiers in your house during peacetime, then they have violated a right that was never granted to the government.The question of whether are not there are natural rights is quite an old one. Points can be made on either side. While I feel that there are some natural rights, which extend at least to having the power over one's own life and limb absent some amount of due process, I acknowledge that some people feel very strongly that there are no natural rights.But even if we deny that there are natural rights there is a very strong consensus among much of society regarding a base line set of rights that ought to be respected by every government. The above statement is historically inaccurate. The current US government was formed completely without the power to quarter soldiers in your house during peacetime. That limitation was quite deliberate and was based on experiences during the war with Britain. There was no devolving. There was instead a recognition by the Founding Fathers that they did not want their government to have such power.Further, under our system of government, people have rights. The governments does not. The government has enumerated powers and the right to quarter soldiers during peacetime is not among those powers.

You seem to continue to make my case. Reality shows that rights are granted through a consensus by a government within a State, society, culture.Your words seem to support exactly that.

In my previous message I laid out areas where I agreed with you, others where I disagreed, and yet others in which I was simply not arguing at all. Yes there are points on which you and I agree.However,In addition to whatever you are claiming is your position in your current message, you have also claimed that our rights were granted by the government, and you implied that the fact that the government could violate a right by force meant that you did not have that right.Nothing I've posted supports your position re: those points mentioned above. Citing my statement that American citizens have rights that are NOT granted by the government certainly does not support that position.As I have mentioned, the issue of whether there are or are not natural rights is an old argument that I am not willing to recreate for the umpteenth time. The cases for both sides of the issue can be found in any number of places on the internet. If something I have posted agrees with one of your arguments regarding that topic, so be it. You are still wrong about the history behind the rights spelled out in the third amendment.