Nice post! I've always liked Locke's concept of "Natural Rights", which ina way is similar to your concept of "God given" rights.
Our society has had a disturbing tendency to voluntarily surrender natural/God given rights to the collective (i.e. government) for the purposes of obtaining the illusion of security. People are far too concerned about stopping other people from doing things that they don't like. They don't want their neighbors to take recreational drugs or engage in certain types of sex acts, etc. They don't want other people to own guns.
This whole voluntary subjugation of natural rights only makes people less secure, yet somehow people can't see it and feel safer as more rules are piled upon us. It's really quite appalling.
My reply here TF. It is long, perhaps overly so. But as always you raise interesting points. 
Can't resist!!
"People are far too concerned about stopping other people from doing things that they don't like. They don't want their neighbors to take recreational drugs or engage in certain types of sex acts, etc. They don't want other people to own guns."
In the same way as they try to prevent people from being able to choose to have a fetus aborted. Or the many other things that governments either regulate or ignore...
In the same way as governments remove the right of people to drive motor vehicles while under the influence of alchohol or drugs. Why should a sober driver such as myself have the right not to be killed by a drunk?
The list is endless,...
The difference, probligo, is in what government is created to do:
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, --
We can go in circles on particular issues, but the government is not there to impose one opinion over another, but to secure the unalienable rights of all. A government justly pursues murderers, drunk drivers and others who endanger the life, liberty and property of others. But the government does not justly set up laws to dictate particular codes of behavior or belief that have no bearing on the life, liberty and property of others, such as trans-fat free zones, etc.
LDF, What would you expect from a "locke-smith"? lol
Probligo, I'm not sure you see the difference between a Servant, one who does the bidding of his master, and a freee citizen, one who is the master. That may sound over simplified; but each of your opinions skips over the internal spark, that need to be ruler of your universe, even if that universe is very small.
Dana, I think you pointed out to Probligo better than I did how the basics are set up and why his logic is flawed.
"...the government is not there to impose one opinion over another, but to secure the unalienable rights of all."
Try telling that to those who would oppose a law allowing the right for a woman to choose to have an abortion. How long has that screaming match been going in the US?
Try telling that to those who would oppose a law removing a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. How long has that screaming match been going in the US?
The truth is that a law prohibiting smoking in a public place is a good thing, as far as I am concerned. Yes, it s!its on the face of the rights of every smoker. I think it is a good law. Smokers do not. The validity of that law is a matter of opinion. So it is a "bad" law? At least I can now taste my food instead of cigarettes when I eat in a restaurant.
The truth is that a law imposing speed restrictions on motor vehicles is a good thing as far as I am concerned. There are as many who think it is a bad law, that they know better than the government on what is a "safe speed", and that the police would be doing better things than issuing speeding offence notices and collecting fines. One can argue that the validity of that law is a matter of opinion. So it is a "bad" law?
The truth is that in "securing the inalienable rights of all" there will always be some who see resulting laws as infringing upon their individual rights. I do not see that as inconsistent with what Dana has been saying.
TF sees law requiring him to do certain things (trivial I strongly agree) in order to maintain his business operation. Why were those laws imposed, and for the protection of whom? Had there perhaps been widespread instances of locksmiths using their business to gain easy access to the properties of clients?
Probligo,
I'll address these items one at a time as they pertain to the government's charge to secure God's inalienable rights for all.
Those who scream the smallest amount are those whose lives are destroyed, those little ones who have just as much right to life as those claiming women's rights. I do not wish to get into a debate over abortion because I have some rather nasty thoughts about people who condone whole sale murder in the name of convenience.
I do not support the “nanny state” mentality which presumes to tell any business that their patrons may not smoke. I quit smoking in the 70’s and don’t like to be around smoke; however, I have the ability to decide which business to spend my money in and which to avoid. If smoking were illegal I would have to readjust my opinion; but smoking is not illegal, in fact, there are so many taxes on cigarettes and tobacco products that the “nanny state” would find it difficult to get by if it were made illegal.
The issuance of traffic tickets for speeding is a cash cow and has little if anything to do with the safety of the public. Most speed limits are set arbitrarily and have nothing to do with road conditions or safety. Here in Houston we have a toll way that goes around the city which was designed to easily accommodate speeds upwards of 90mph so they set the speed limit at 70mph for a while. The ecological whacko community was upset that gasoline was being wasted at 70mph so they reduced the speed limit to 55mph. I have to ask your sense of right and wrong, did a fellow who got a speeding ticket for going 65 mph in the newly designated zone of 55; did he flagrantly disregard the safety of all his fellow citizens or did he simply follow common sense and drive faster?
Securing Inalienable Rights; give me a break.
The abortion argument only makes sense if all agree on whether or not the unborn is "human" or a "person" or whatever. At the instant of birth, few argue that the child should be allowed to be killed for the same reasons that were ok shortly before.
If you hold that the unborn is a person, than s/he deserves the protection of the state. If you don't than I guess it is up to the mother.
Traffic laws are rightly set up by local governments...I don't understand your deal there.
Smoking laws? Make smoking illegal, but why so many regulations on something that is otherwise legal? The funny thing is, I never had to walk through so much smoke as I did once the smoking ban was passed. Now everyone smokes out front of the building and I am forced to walk through it when I barely ever saw smokers before.
For me personally, I don't have as many problems with what state and local governments do. If I understand our founding correctly, the states could be set up as tiny tyrannies for all the Constitution cared. Some of that changed with later amendments, but Massachusetts knows better what is good for Massachusetts than Washington does.
Dana,
On the abortion issue I can only go by me feelings and what I get from the scriptures. "...when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb" Luke 1:41 In the Book of Mormon there is another even more powerful reference.
"Lift up your head and be of good cheer; for behold, the time is at hand, and on this night shall the sign be given, and on the morrow come I into the world, to show unto the world that I will fulfil all that which I have caused to be spoken by the mouth of my holy prophets." 3 Nep 1:13
These tend to support my thoughts that the individual spirit already resides in the tabernacle of flesh while in the womb.
As far as the traffic laws go, you have to remember that on the one side you have the safety of the community and on the other is the greed factor of collecting revenue. It is my opinion that somewhere along the way certain created violations, those which have been arbitrarily set such as speed zones, have been ruled by the greed aspect rather than anything close to safety of the public.
Of all the states in the union, Massachusetts might be the worst example of knowing what’s best for its citizens. lol
"I’m of a firm belief that there is a huge difference between God given rights and powers granted to government by the governed. That one sentence may summarize what America is in comparison to all the other countries in the world"
Well, once it was so... but as you've pointed out, it ain't necessarily so any more. *sigh*
probligo likes to hit the abortion issue pretty hard, eh? "Woman's rights to abort" but no word of support for the helpless, innocent baby. Typical of that mindset. Why not support a woman's right to kill her 2-day old child? It's still as much a threat to her lifestyle, mental and physical helth and wellbeing, etc. (And if you don't believe that, you've not lived through the first couple of years of a baby's life.) "Choice" for the woman, but no choice for the baby. What happened to the woman's choice to have sex in the first place? Responsibility? Not so much.
Rights, if they mean anything mean rights for the least, the most helpless to defend themselves as well as for the powerful, and if a government is supposedly set up to defend the rights of ALL, then it should rightfully defend the rights of those least able to defend themselves at least as much as those who are able to assert their rights.
Arguments for abortion are arguments for for moral laziness, greed, irresponsibility and cowardice made by people who either turn a blind eye to the multiple vices they espouse or are themselves morally lazy, greedy, irresponsible or cowardly.
As to restrictions on liberties, on rights--it is the nature of governments to tend toward greater control of individuals. But what we have today is the tendency of our government toward greater control in trivial matters and greater laxity in serious matters.
Martha Stewart was accused of "insider trading" but was not charged with or convicted of that "crime". Because the government investigators determined they didn't have a case (that is, she did not commit the crime, such as it was). So, she was charged with lying to the investigators in the course of their investigation (not testimony, not under oath, in discussions with investigators--no recordings, just their recall and notes). In order to obtain a conviction for this "crime" they elicited testimony from someone that contradicted what they said she had told them. After the trial, the feds indicted their own witness for perjury in his testimony.
Martha still went to jail.
Scotter Libby is sentenced to jail for recalling how and from whom he heard about Valerie Plame differently to how some other people heard about it or say he did. Now, keep in mind: the whole investigation did finally discover how she was "outed" but NO ONE was charged with a crime for having done so, because no crime was committed in the outing of Plame.
So, both Martha and Scooter: convicted of a picayune difference of recall in matters NOT CRIMINAL.
But in more important matters (maintaining the
I tossed the abortion grenade into this not because I want to debate that at all but to make a point.
If those who oppose abortion get there way and the unborn have rights as is promoted then what happens to the right of the pregnant mother? Are they subjugated to those rights of the unborn child?
Conversely, if the mother has the right to choose to have an abortion, then what happens to the rights of the unborn?
The point being made should be obvious but it seems it is not.
If speed limits, or DUI limits, are removed, then the rights of others to use the roads in safety are placed at jeopardy. If you impose speed limits or alchohol limits then there is debate about the rights of those who believe they are able to drive at speed or p*ss*d.
Where or when ever you promote the rights of one group over another you almost inevitably suppress the rights of others.
Seems that point is more obscure than I ever dreamed.
I'm rewarded by the continued discussion, one which keeps these ideas on the top of our minds. I could argue until the cows come home, use perfect logic and place my thoughts down in an orderly fashion and it would not matter to those who have discarded, ignored or never understood the eternal nature of the human spirit.
Life is what we make of it; let us choose wisely as we attempt to discover the finer points of living in close proximity to each other. Governments have Powers and are supposed to reflect the desires of the collective; however, and more importantly, the individuals who comprise the collective are give Rights from God. It is the individual who must be held accountable before God for a lifetime of either obedience or rebellion and the use of those Rights. We are fortunate to live in a country where there can be a discussion regarding the limiting of government’s powers, even when we see that government ever encroaching upon individual Rights in the name of “what’s best for the collective”.
Commenting by HaloScan
