Are there "rights"? (1 Viewer)

[Jewell]

Are there "rights"?Are they natural or God-given?

GEORGE CARLIN:"Boy everyone in this country is running around yammering about their ####### rights. "I have a right, you have no right, we have a right."Folks I hate to spoil your fun, but... there's no such thing as rights. They're imaginary. We made 'em up. Like the boogie man. Like Three Little Pigs, Pinocio, Mother Goose, #### like that. Rights are an idea. They're just imaginary. They're a cute idea. Cute. But that's all. Cute...and fictional. But if you think you do have rights, let me ask you this, "where do they come from?" People say, "They come from God. They're God given rights." Awww ####, here we go again...here we go again.The God excuse, the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument, "It came from God." Anything we can't describe must have come from God. Personally folks, I believe that if your rights came from God, he would've given you the right for some food every day, and he would've given you the right to a roof over your head. GOD would've been looking out for ya. You know that.He wouldn't have been worried making sure you have a gun so you can get drunk on Sunday night and kill your girlfriend's parents.But let's say it's true. Let's say that God gave us these rights. Why would he give us a certain number of rights?The Bill of Rights of this country has 10 stipulations. OK...10 rights. And apparently God was doing sloppy work that week, because we've had to ammend the bill of rights an additional 17 times. So God forgot a couple of things, like...SLAVERY. Just ####in' slipped his mind.But let's say...let's say God gave us the original 10. He gave the british 13. The british Bill of Rights has 13 stipulations. The Germans have 29, the Belgians have 25, the Sweedish have only 6, and some people in the world have no rights at all. What kind of a ####in' ### #### god given deal is that!?...NO RIGHTS AT ALL!? Why would God give different people in different countries a different numbers of different rights? Boredom? Amusement? Bad arithmetic? Do we find out at long last after all this time that God is weak in math skills? Doesn't sound like divine planning to me. Sounds more like human planning . Sounds more like one group trying to control another group. In other words...business as usual in America.Now, if you think you do have rights, I have one last assignment for ya. Next time you're at the computer get on the Internet, go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, i want to type in, "Japanese-Americans 1942" and you'll find out all about your precious ####### rights. Alright. You know about it.In 1942 there were 110,000 Japanese-American citizens, in good standing, law abiding people, who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That's all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers, no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had was...right this way! Into the internment camps.Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most...their government took them away. and rights aren't rights if someone can take em away. They're priveledges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of TEMPORARY priviledges; and if you read the news, even badly, you know the list get's shorter, and shorter, and shorter.Yeup, sooner or later the people in this country are going to realize the government doesn't give a #### about them. the government doesn't care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety. it simply doesn't give a #### about you. It's interested in it's own power. That's the only thing...keeping it, and expanding wherever possible.Personally when it comes to rights, I think one of two things is true: either we have unlimited rights, or we have no rights at all."

 

[wikkidpissah]

Rights are scales of temperature on the thermometer of human perfectability. Up to a point, the more we have, the more warm & comfortable we are. When the number reaches a sweat point, however, we must dissipate their intensity by grouping associated parts into systems made responsible for self-tempering.

 

[Rush Limbaugh Fan]

"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."Without natural law/rights, the United States has no basis for existing.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TSiJ2Gp058

 

[mon]

People keep telling me I have a right to an attorney.

 

[Fennis]

This is a public service announcement... with guitars!

 

[StrikeS2k]

I look at it this way. I have the right to live my life how I see fit, as do you. As long as our "rights" don't intersect we have no problems. It's the areas where they intersect that we need to set some "rules" as to how we deal with that intersection. And it's become more difficult over the centuries since our constitution was created to define that intersection. Our founding fathers didn't have to deal with things like global climate change where someone's factory three thousand miles away may have an impact on my life. So it's more complicated now, and unfortunately a lot of people use the fact that things are more complicated as justification for unreasonable rules (laws).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

To my mind, a "right" is a convenient grammatical shorthand: a noun standing in for an adjective. Saying we have a right to X simply means that anyone who would forcibly deprive us of X is bad. A right to free speech is just another way to say that censors are bad; a right to a fair trial is just another way to say that lynch mobs are bad; and so forth.To say that there are natural or God-given rights (as opposed to merely government-granted rights) is to say that what is good or bad is not necessarily up to us to choose.

 

[DrJ]

If there were no rights, it would take a lot more lefts to get where you want to go.

 

[FUBAR]

The only natural right we have is the right to make choices for ourselves. Every choice has ramifications. The intelligent person understands the ramifications and evaluates before making a choice. For example, you may choose to go on a bender, drink the local bar dry, then drive home. The potential impact/ramifications are you could kill yourself, kill someone else, injure someone, get in an accident, spend the night in jail, etc. As a society, we should endeavor to make the ramifications of undesirable decisions so significant that people will usually make choices acceptable to our society. Our founders decided that certain personal decisions were desirable to our society and called them "rights". Freedom of speech is no more a "natural right" than the right to free internet or sex with the person of your choice.

 

[jon_mx]

Why does the Left hate the Bill of Rights?

 

[Two Deep]

The only natural right we have is the right to make choices for ourselves. Every choice has ramifications. The intelligent person understands the ramifications and evaluates before making a choice. For example, you may choose to go on a bender, drink the local bar dry, then drive home. The potential impact/ramifications are you could kill yourself, kill someone else, injure someone, get in an accident, spend the night in jail, etc. As a society, we should endeavor to make the ramifications of undesirable decisions so significant that people will usually make choices acceptable to our society. Our founders decided that certain personal decisions were desirable to our society and called them "rights". Freedom of speech is no more a "natural right" than the right to free internet or sex with the person of your choice.

This. You have the right to do whatever you want until somebody in authority tells you- you can't.

 

[Jewell]

The only natural right we have is the right to make choices for ourselves. Every choice has ramifications. The intelligent person understands the ramifications and evaluates before making a choice. For example, you may choose to go on a bender, drink the local bar dry, then drive home. The potential impact/ramifications are you could kill yourself, kill someone else, injure someone, get in an accident, spend the night in jail, etc. As a society, we should endeavor to make the ramifications of undesirable decisions so significant that people will usually make choices acceptable to our society. Our founders decided that certain personal decisions were desirable to our society and called them "rights". Freedom of speech is no more a "natural right" than the right to free internet or sex with the person of your choice.

This. You have the right to do whatever you want until somebody in authority tells you- you can't.

If someone in authority can take away the right is it really a right or just a privilege created and taken away by the state?

 

[ChainsawU]

Civil Liberties

 

[Christo]

A "right" is merely an ideal that society is willing to protect.

 

[DrJ]

Lawyers and wannabe lawyers - congregate here.

 

[Christo]

And the dooshes will soon follow.

 

[Fennis]

And the dooshes will soon follow.

 

[DiStefano]

Absent God, there are no rights. What there is, is a consensus, which can change over time. We call some of that consensus "rights", but there are vast areas of the world which have differing views of that consensus, and what their rights are.

 

[Christo]

Absent God, there are no rights. What there is, is a consensus, which can change over time. We call some of that consensus "rights", but there are vast areas of the world which have differing views of that consensus, and what their rights are.

 

[pittstownkiller]

A "right" is merely an ideal that society is willing to protect.

Absent God, there are no rights. What there is, is a consensus, which can change over time. We call some of that consensus "rights", but there are vast areas of the world which have differing views of that consensus, and what their rights are.

 

[Brony]

#### waffles

 

[Christo]

A "right" is merely an ideal that society is willing to protect.

Absent God, there are no rights. What there is, is a consensus, which can change over time. We call some of that consensus "rights", but there are vast areas of the world which have differing views of that consensus, and what their rights are.

You skipped his first sentence.

 

[DrJ]

Absent God, there are no rights. What there is, is a consensus, which can change over time. We call some of that consensus "rights", but there are vast areas of the world which have differing views of that consensus, and what their rights are.

No consensus is necessary. Might makes right. If I'm capable of kicking the crap out of you and your consensus, I'm within my right to do so.

 

[DiStefano]

Absent God, there are no rights. What there is, is a consensus, which can change over time. We call some of that consensus "rights", but there are vast areas of the world which have differing views of that consensus, and what their rights are.

No consensus is necessary. Might makes right. If I'm capable of kicking the crap out of you and your consensus, I'm within my right to do so.

That is true. But there is usually a zeitgeist which does give force to that kicking.

 

[DrJ]

Absent God, there are no rights. What there is, is a consensus, which can change over time. We call some of that consensus "rights", but there are vast areas of the world which have differing views of that consensus, and what their rights are.

No consensus is necessary. Might makes right. If I'm capable of kicking the crap out of you and your consensus, I'm within my right to do so.

That is true. But there is usually a zeitgeist which does give force to that kicking.

You implement that when you're done kicking ###. Like our Prussian education system.

 

[Rush Limbaugh Fan]

Absent God, there are no rights. What there is, is a consensus, which can change over time. We call some of that consensus "rights", but there are vast areas of the world which have differing views of that consensus, and what their rights are.

You don't need a god for natural rights.

 

[Jewell]

Our founders decided that certain personal decisions were desirable to our society and called them "rights". Freedom of speech is no more a "natural right" than the right to free internet or sex with the person of your choice.

So if today's American politicians were to decide that free speech is no longer desirable in today's world and they wished for the United States to become more like Canada or Europe with regard to speech, Americans' speech could be limited without a "right" being infringed?

Supreme Court upholds Canada’s hate speech laws in case involving anti-gay crusader

February 27, 2013

Canada’s human rights hate speech laws are a constitutionally valid limit on freedom of expression, the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled in a landmark judgment.

The judgment in the case of William Whatcott of Saskatchewan reaffirms the Canadian approach to hate speech, that it can be limited by law to address the problem of hate speech, unlike the American approach, in which speech cannot be limited except in the most extreme circumstances.

In upholding a definition of hatred first crafted by the Supreme Court in 1991, the current justices ruled that the hate speech section of Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Code addresses a pressing and substantial issue, and is proportional to its objective of “tackling causes of discriminatory activity to reduce the harmful effects and social costs of discrimination.”

The court struck out some strange language in the law, which bans speech that “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” identifiable groups — language that the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission said was already ignored in practice.

But it upheld the controversial legal concept of speech that is “likely to expose” certain groups to hatred.

The Saskatchewan law, which is similar to others in Alberta, B.C., the Northwest Territories and federally, “appropriately balances the fundamental values underlying freedom of expression with competing Charter rights and other values essential to a free and democratic society, in this case a commitment to equality and respect for group identity and the inherent dignity owed to all human beings,” wrote Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein for the court.

“Framing speech as arising in a moral context or within a public policy debate does not cleanse it of its harmful effect,” the judges decided.

FULL ARTICLE

 

[FUBAR]

Our founders decided that certain personal decisions were desirable to our society and called them "rights". Freedom of speech is no more a "natural right" than the right to free internet or sex with the person of your choice.

So if today's American politicians were to decide that free speech is no longer desirable in today's world and they wished for the United States to become more like Canada or Europe with regard to speech, Americans' speech could be limited without a "right" being infringed?

Supreme Court upholds Canada’s hate speech laws in case involving anti-gay crusader

February 27, 2013

Canada’s human rights hate speech laws are a constitutionally valid limit on freedom of expression, the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled in a landmark judgment.

The judgment in the case of William Whatcott of Saskatchewan reaffirms the Canadian approach to hate speech, that it can be limited by law to address the problem of hate speech, unlike the American approach, in which speech cannot be limited except in the most extreme circumstances.

In upholding a definition of hatred first crafted by the Supreme Court in 1991, the current justices ruled that the hate speech section of Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Code addresses a pressing and substantial issue, and is proportional to its objective of “tackling causes of discriminatory activity to reduce the harmful effects and social costs of discrimination.”

The court struck out some strange language in the law, which bans speech that “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” identifiable groups — language that the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission said was already ignored in practice.

But it upheld the controversial legal concept of speech that is “likely to expose” certain groups to hatred.

The Saskatchewan law, which is similar to others in Alberta, B.C., the Northwest Territories and federally, “appropriately balances the fundamental values underlying freedom of expression with competing Charter rights and other values essential to a free and democratic society, in this case a commitment to equality and respect for group identity and the inherent dignity owed to all human beings,” wrote Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein for the court.

“Framing speech as arising in a moral context or within a public policy debate does not cleanse it of its harmful effect,” the judges decided.

FULL ARTICLE

Yes. Except that for us it might require an amendment to our constitution.

 

[Christo]

Our founders decided that certain personal decisions were desirable to our society and called them "rights". Freedom of speech is no more a "natural right" than the right to free internet or sex with the person of your choice.

So if today's American politicians were to decide that free speech is no longer desirable in today's world and they wished for the United States to become more like Canada or Europe with regard to speech, Americans' speech could be limited without a "right" being infringed?

Yep

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

 

[Shrugs]

There are no natural rights and obviously no rights given by a fictitious god. Rights come from the collective of a society. Absent or outside society, you have no rights. And rights change depending on the society. If you'd like an example, go to one of those indigenous tribes still untouched by the outside world that exist in South America or Africa, tell them of your rights and see if they honor them.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

A lot of people seem to be addressing only legal rights. I think it's evident from the OP (which mentions God-given and natural rights) that it is asking about moral rights.

 

[timschochet]

I have the right to tax you in order to help fund my pleasures.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If you'd like an example, go to one of those indigenous tribes still untouched by the outside world that exist in South America or Africa, tell them of your rights and see if they honor them.

So there's no such thing as a rights violation in your view, because if a right is violated it must not have been a right in the first place?

 

[Rush Limbaugh Fan]

Our founders decided that certain personal decisions were desirable to our society and called them "rights". Freedom of speech is no more a "natural right" than the right to free internet or sex with the person of your choice.

So if today's American politicians were to decide that free speech is no longer desirable in today's world and they wished for the United States to become more like Canada or Europe with regard to speech, Americans' speech could be limited without a "right" being infringed?

Supreme Court upholds Canada’s hate speech laws in case involving anti-gay crusader

February 27, 2013

Canada’s human rights hate speech laws are a constitutionally valid limit on freedom of expression, the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled in a landmark judgment.

The judgment in the case of William Whatcott of Saskatchewan reaffirms the Canadian approach to hate speech, that it can be limited by law to address the problem of hate speech, unlike the American approach, in which speech cannot be limited except in the most extreme circumstances.

In upholding a definition of hatred first crafted by the Supreme Court in 1991, the current justices ruled that the hate speech section of Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Code addresses a pressing and substantial issue, and is proportional to its objective of “tackling causes of discriminatory activity to reduce the harmful effects and social costs of discrimination.”

The court struck out some strange language in the law, which bans speech that “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” identifiable groups — language that the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission said was already ignored in practice.

But it upheld the controversial legal concept of speech that is “likely to expose” certain groups to hatred.

The Saskatchewan law, which is similar to others in Alberta, B.C., the Northwest Territories and federally, “appropriately balances the fundamental values underlying freedom of expression with competing Charter rights and other values essential to a free and democratic society, in this case a commitment to equality and respect for group identity and the inherent dignity owed to all human beings,” wrote Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein for the court.

“Framing speech as arising in a moral context or within a public policy debate does not cleanse it of its harmful effect,” the judges decided.

FULL ARTICLE

Yes. Except that for us it might require an amendment to our constitution.

Nope.

 

[Shrugs]

If you'd like an example, go to one of those indigenous tribes still untouched by the outside world that exist in South America or Africa, tell them of your rights and see if they honor them.

So there's no such thing as a rights violation in your view, because if a right is violated it must not have been a right in the first place?

If a society establishes rights and then they are violated, then a right has been violated within that society.

 

[Jewell]

There are no natural rights and obviously no rights given by a fictitious god. Rights come from the collective of a society. Absent or outside society, you have no rights. And rights change depending on the society.

I agree with this.Take something like laws against murder, though. Every society that I know of has a prohibition against it. Is this because every society recognizes a natural right to life or is it because every society recognizes that there must be a prohibition against murder for a society to maintain order?

 

[Shrugs]

There are no natural rights and obviously no rights given by a fictitious god. Rights come from the collective of a society. Absent or outside society, you have no rights. And rights change depending on the society.

I agree with this.Take something like laws against murder, though. Every society that I know of has a prohibition against it. Is this because every society recognizes a natural right to life or is it because every society recognizes that there must be a prohibition against murder for a society to maintain order?

The latter. Representatives of government in every society I know of have killed people, so they must not recognize a natural right to life.

 

[StrikeS2k]

There are no natural rights and obviously no rights given by a fictitious god. Rights come from the collective of a society. Absent or outside society, you have no rights. And rights change depending on the society.

I agree with this.Take something like laws against murder, though. Every society that I know of has a prohibition against it. Is this because every society recognizes a natural right to life or is it because every society recognizes that there must be a prohibition against murder for a society to maintain order?

The definition of murder is an "illegal killing." So any killing that is allowed by law is, by definition, not murder. Not the greatest example there.

 

[Jewell]

There are no natural rights and obviously no rights given by a fictitious god. Rights come from the collective of a society. Absent or outside society, you have no rights. And rights change depending on the society.

I agree with this.Take something like laws against murder, though. Every society that I know of has a prohibition against it. Is this because every society recognizes a natural right to life or is it because every society recognizes that there must be a prohibition against murder for a society to maintain order?

The definition of murder is an "illegal killing." So any killing that is allowed by law is, by definition, not murder. Not the greatest example there.

Nearly all societies that prohibit killing another person allow you to kill another person if it's in self-defense and you legitimately fear death or serious bodily harm. That doesn't change the idea that a person, minus another person acting lawfully in self-defense or the state enacting punishment, has a right to live without unlawfully being killed by another member of society. The question then is whether that right to live is natural or man-created for the society to function. Once again, I agree with Shrugs.

 

[DrJ]

If you'd like an example, go to one of those indigenous tribes still untouched by the outside world that exist in South America or Africa, tell them of your rights and see if they honor them.

So there's no such thing as a rights violation in your view, because if a right is violated it must not have been a right in the first place?

I think this ties into the "he who is in a position to impose his will" aspect of right. If my gun is bigger than that tribe, they'll honor my rights. If theirs is bigger, I guess I get the rights they give me.Moral rights is definitely a different topic - but that's not clearly codified in any way and tends to sway with the times. We kicked some Indian ### and took they land, but that was considered straight for the most part. Later we could have kicked some Mexican ### and taken their land and decided that was immoral. But no one would have really stopped us had we went any other route. Nowadays our "society" is more global in nature so people would get a little upset if we kicked some Mexican ### and took their land. Who knows what'll happen when resources get scarce though. In the end it all comes down to who is in a position to impose their will and who's potentially in a position to stick out their neck and stop it.

 

[StrikeS2k]

If you'd like an example, go to one of those indigenous tribes still untouched by the outside world that exist in South America or Africa, tell them of your rights and see if they honor them.

So there's no such thing as a rights violation in your view, because if a right is violated it must not have been a right in the first place?

I think this ties into the "he who is in a position to impose his will" aspect of right. Moral rights is definitely a different topic - but that's not clearly codified in any way and tends to sway with the times. We kicked some Indian ### and took they land, but that was considered straight for the most part. Later we could have kicked some Mexican ### and taken their land and decided that was immoral. But no one would have really stopped us had we went any other route. Nowadays our "society" is more global in nature so people would get a little upset if we kicked some Mexican ### and took their land. Who knows what'll happen when resources get scarce though. In the end it all comes down to who is in a position to impose their will and who's potentially in a position to stick out their neck and stop it.

I thought we actually did this.....

 

[Politician Spock]

We lost our rights when corporations became too big to fail, and executives became too big to jail.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

There are no natural rights and obviously no rights given by a fictitious god. Rights come from the collective of a society. Absent or outside society, you have no rights. And rights change depending on the society.

I agree with this.Take something like laws against murder, though. Every society that I know of has a prohibition against it. Is this because every society recognizes a natural right to life or is it because every society recognizes that there must be a prohibition against murder for a society to maintain order?

The definition of murder is an "illegal killing." So any killing that is allowed by law is, by definition, not murder. Not the greatest example there.

Nearly all societies that prohibit killing another person allow you to kill another person if it's in self-defense and you legitimately fear death or serious bodily harm.

This would be the natural right to guard and defend one's life. (What "right to life" originally meant.)

That doesn't change the idea that a person, minus another person acting lawfully in self-defense or the state enacting punishment, has a right to live without unlawfully being killed by another member of society. The question then is whether that right to live is natural or man-created for the society to function. Once again, I agree with Shrugs.

This would be a natural law that compels you and I to defend someone else's natural "right to life". That our natural right to do as we please such as to kill each other for no good reason is trumped by the natural law to defend each other's natural rights.One can believe at least conceptually that there are natural rights and not natural laws. Even though early contract theorists argued for natural laws along side of natural rights, the existence of such laws would seem to eliminate the need for the social contract to begin with. Where the social contract is where we trade some (or all) of our rights for the protection offered by civilization. Where we trade at least some natural rights for civil rights, which almost always infringe on someone's natural right.Now many argue that their signature is not found on any social contract anywhere agreeing to anything. True enough, but natural rights are only relevant to those strong enough to exercise them anyway. The rest of us surrender at least some of them by giving into authority. Resentment of that weakness is what shows when one says defiantly "I know my rights!" Instead we should resent instead that so many are kept in fear that they keep willingly surrendering more and more of our rights for the illusion of protection. (For example those scary Chinese and Russian cyber terrorists means we need to hand off the internet to the government.)

 

[DrJ]

If you'd like an example, go to one of those indigenous tribes still untouched by the outside world that exist in South America or Africa, tell them of your rights and see if they honor them.

So there's no such thing as a rights violation in your view, because if a right is violated it must not have been a right in the first place?

I think this ties into the "he who is in a position to impose his will" aspect of right. Moral rights is definitely a different topic - but that's not clearly codified in any way and tends to sway with the times. We kicked some Indian ### and took they land, but that was considered straight for the most part. Later we could have kicked some Mexican ### and taken their land and decided that was immoral. But no one would have really stopped us had we went any other route. Nowadays our "society" is more global in nature so people would get a little upset if we kicked some Mexican ### and took their land. Who knows what'll happen when resources get scarce though. In the end it all comes down to who is in a position to impose their will and who's potentially in a position to stick out their neck and stop it.

I thought we actually did this.....

True, I worded that poorly, we could have taken all of their land instead of just a little of it.

 

[DrJ]

My view?From my life and life experience and observation, the only true "rights" you have are the ones you can readily enforce through means of violence or threats of violence at the given time and place. In my past, I tried different businesses and ventures, and I used to own some restaurants in San Francisco. That industry is hard enough as it is, straight across the board, but add into it local crews showing up to try to shake you down, it becomes an eye opener for most. For me? Not so much. I had previous experience dealing with crews and local gangs in other places I've lived and worked before. The only truism I have found around the world is that when you have something worth taking, no matter how hard or how little you worked for it, eventually someone else is going to try to come grab it from you. Whether it's from a pencil pushing gravy ear POS lawyer with soft chubby hands like a Christo or whether it's a bunch of Russians who are trying to make their bones in a new country trying to impress the old guard back home, it's all the same. It's a very simple principle. Jackals want the soft kill. They want the limping llama or the slow one or the old one. They don't want the Top Gun thrill seeking Maverick version of prey, where they will have to turn into Olympians to track and hunt down dinner. This is how animals operate. If you want to keep what's yours, you have to lend the complete impression that you don't limp. You don't bleed. You can't be negotiated with. And that on a matter of principle, you will burn out everything you value to make sure no one else can take it from you. But I understand most of you Wonderbread entitled soft serve desk drivers who think you've got all figured out because you've seen The Wire three times won't quite get that. You don't get someone has already bled for you, so you can imagine that you are actually safe behind your cops and lawyers and "system" Most of you want the "trappings" of what the world considers success without the will to spill blood to keep it. I'm an old man, old enough to remember a time when everyone wasn't surrounded by a bunch of #### bird lawyers and people kept it simple, they just stabbed each other in the throat. This is how you keep what's yours in life - You make sure people understand that you are willing to take and escalate any conflict to a point where they don't know where you will go with it, they only know they won't like it. And that the driving force behind the bloodshed is not money, not power, not land, not business, but an overriding obligation to your force of personal nature.

Exactly.

 

[mon]

My view?From my life and life experience and observation, the only true "rights" you have are the ones you can readily enforce through means of violence or threats of violence at the given time and place. In my past, I tried different businesses and ventures, and I used to own some restaurants in San Francisco. That industry is hard enough as it is, straight across the board, but add into it local crews showing up to try to shake you down, it becomes an eye opener for most. For me? Not so much. I had previous experience dealing with crews and local gangs in other places I've lived and worked before. The only truism I have found around the world is that when you have something worth taking, no matter how hard or how little you worked for it, eventually someone else is going to try to come grab it from you. Whether it's from a pencil pushing gravy ear POS lawyer with soft chubby hands like a Christo or whether it's a bunch of Russians who are trying to make their bones in a new country trying to impress the old guard back home, it's all the same. It's a very simple principle. Jackals want the soft kill. They want the limping llama or the slow one or the old one. They don't want the Top Gun thrill seeking Maverick version of prey, where they will have to turn into Olympians to track and hunt down dinner. This is how animals operate. If you want to keep what's yours, you have to lend the complete impression that you don't limp. You don't bleed. You can't be negotiated with. And that on a matter of principle, you will burn out everything you value to make sure no one else can take it from you. But I understand most of you Wonderbread entitled soft serve desk drivers who think you've got all figured out because you've seen The Wire three times won't quite get that. You don't get someone has already bled for you, so you can imagine that you are actually safe behind your cops and lawyers and "system" Most of you want the "trappings" of what the world considers success without the will to spill blood to keep it. I'm an old man, old enough to remember a time when everyone wasn't surrounded by a bunch of #### bird lawyers and people kept it simple, they just stabbed each other in the throat. This is how you keep what's yours in life - You make sure people understand that you are willing to take and escalate any conflict to a point where they don't know where you will go with it, they only know they won't like it. And that the driving force behind the bloodshed is not money, not power, not land, not business, but an overriding obligation to your force of personal nature.

Are you the old man from Gran Torino?

 

[DiStefano]

Hey people, there are no "natural rights". There aren't any in nature. The lion kills when he needs to eat. Certain species eat their young. If they don't it is because of instinct and behavior that is genetically set for the perpetuation of the individual or the species, not because of respect for the other.If they are not God given, then rights are a construct of society; those change over time. Our ancestors would have been horrified by abortion. We are horrified by their toleration of slavery.

 

[Rush Limbaugh Fan]

Hey people, there are no "natural rights". There aren't any in nature. The lion kills when he needs to eat. Certain species eat their young. If they don't it is because of instinct and behavior that is genetically set for the perpetuation of the individual or the species, not because of respect for the other.If they are not God given, then rights are a construct of society; those change over time. Our ancestors would have been horrified by abortion. We are horrified by their toleration of slavery.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

 

[Christo]

Hey people, there are no "natural rights". There aren't any in nature. The lion kills when he needs to eat. Certain species eat their young. If they don't it is because of instinct and behavior that is genetically set for the perpetuation of the individual or the species, not because of respect for the other.If they are not God given, then rights are a construct of society; those change over time. Our ancestors would have been horrified by abortion. We are horrified by their toleration of slavery.

 

[12punch]

If there were no rights, it would take a lot more lefts to get where you want to go.