Occupy Wallstreet

[Typhoid]

I'm only going to comment on this specific quote because I literally just finished smoking a joint - no intention of derailing, or arguing etc.

That said, in American there are inalienable rights; rights that cannot be removed even through a democratic process (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness)

That's a whole other can of worms, though.

George Carlin put it best: man doesn't have rights by birth, you have privileges.

I don't think the "pursuit of happiness" is a right. Anything that is conditional is not a right. Rights are things like Free Speech, Free Religion, Free Sexuality. Those are rights.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I'm only going to comment on this specific quote because I literally just finished smoking a joint - no intention of derailing, or arguing etc.



That's a whole other can of worms, though.

George Carlin put it best: man doesn't have rights by birth, you have privileges.

I don't think the "pursuit of happiness" is a right. Anything that is conditional is not a right. Rights are things like Free Speech, Free Religion, Free Sexuality. Those are rights.

If the only rights man has are given to him by other men, then men can take them away without repudiation. Unalienable (misspelling corrected) rights (based on natural law) are the only rights we really have, because man cannot give them or justly take them away. Understanding this concept is a lot easier if you believe in a creator.

Also, how is pursuit of happiness conditional? It guarantees you the right to pursue your own joy, and reflexively prohibits you (or the government) from inhibiting anyone else from that pursuit (eliminating acts against others as a route to happiness). Now there are a lot of ways to interpret our unalienable rights, but that was intentional.

Also, these rights are identified in the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution, so they remain more a natural law than a human law.

[Typhoid]

I constantly feel the need to make it clear I'm not maliciously arguing - just keeping a conversation going. You know, just for the record and all.

Also, how is pursuit of happiness conditional? It guarantees you the right to pursue your own joy, and reflexively prohibits you (or the government) from inhibiting anyone else from that pursuit (eliminating acts against others as a route to happiness). Now there are a lot of ways to interpret our inalienable rights, but that was intentional.

You cannot pursue happiness, unless it is in the confines of the law. That is not Freedom. That's a guideline.

You can however love who you want, believe what you want, and say what you want. On our continent, or at least Canada and the US - those are the only true "Birth Rights" we have. But even then, those "Birth Rights" were given to us by normal men, who decided it was a good idea.

You don't have the birth right to be happy. You have the birth right to be whomever you want to be, and attempt to find what makes you happy within the confines of the law.

If the only rights man has are given to him by other men, then men can take them away without repudiation.

(That's essentially why I quoted George Carlin and said "man does not have rights, he has privileges".)

Our North American rights (The Free Speech/Religion/Love) mean absolutely nothing to some leaders in other parts of the world.

And hell, even in the US I don't think you're legally allowed to be gay and get married in most places. Score a point for Freedom. Freedom to marry who you want as long as a group of likeminded people approve the person you're marrying.

The Freedom to publicly worship whoever you want, unless it's Satan, or Mohammad.
The Freedom to publicly say what you want, unless it's racist or sexist.

I'm not saying Canada is better than the US in this case. It's all the same boat. I'm just not a fan of the whole "Freedom this, Freedom that."
We're only as free as the leaders we elect, and their committee of friends allow us to be.

Edit: And I'm aware I sort of contradicted myself with the "I believe these are the only true birth rights we have" and ending with "We don't have Freedom". I was stating what I believe we SHOULD have as birth rights (and do) - I just felt like ending with the realism that we don't have Freeom. We only have Freedom because the rest of the world is so fucking oppressed compared to us(North America). That doesn't mean we're Free. It just means we're less oppressed.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I constantly feel the need to make it clear I'm not maliciously arguing - just keeping a conversation going. You know, just for the record and all.

And I'm conversating.

You cannot pursue happiness, unless it is in the confines of the law. That is not Freedom. That's a guideline.

You can however love who you want, believe what you want, and say what you want. On our continent, or at least Canada and the US - those are the only true "Birth Rights" we have. But even then, those "Birth Rights" were given to us by normal men, who decided it was a good idea.

You don't have the birth right to be happy. You have the birth right to be whomever you want to be, and attempt to find what makes you happy within the confines of the law.

I don't think we disagree on this. I never said you had the right to be happy. You have the right to pursue happiness. There are no guarantees.

As for laws, you are talking about human laws. I am talking about natural laws; those that should be maintained outside of government fought to the death to maintain. See: Thomas Equinas

Edit: And I'm aware I sort of contradicted myself with the "I believe these are the only true birth rights we have" and ending with "We don't have Freedom". I was stating what I believe we SHOULD have as birth rights (and do) - I just felt like ending with the realism that we don't have Freedom. We only have Freedom because the rest of the world is so fucking oppressed compared to us(North America). That doesn't mean we're Free. It just means we're less oppressed.

I thought we agreed more than we disagreed. I would also make the difference between Freedom and Liberty. Total freedom is anarchy. IMO, Liberty is Freedom limited to protect others' rights to pursue happiness.

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
Oliver Wendell Holmes