Way to go Gov Daniels! Parking Lot 2.0 Signed

[Roadie]

Everyone keeps bring up the comparison of "well at my house...". Hmm, really?

Is personal property, and business property, really a valid comparison? The properties are different entities legally, taxed differently, zoned differently, the business hires people to work there, giving them permission to be on the property..

Discuss..

 

[Bummer]

Everyone keeps bring up the comparison of "well at my house...". Hmm, really?

Is personal property, and business property, really a valid comparison? The properties are different entities legally, taxed differently, zoned differently, the business hires people to work there, giving them permission to be on the property..

Discuss..

I'm glad I read to the end. This is an issue that I've been wondering about since the previous discussion.

Almost all businesses are incorporated in some manner, are they not? This is done to isolate the "ower" from liability. When a business is incorporated its property is no longer the property of the "owner", but the property of the business. This would seem to mean that it is very different from normal personal property.

People have natural rights and legal rights. Businesses are not people, so they don't have natural rights, only legal rights. Legal rights are not absolute and can be modified at the will of the entity that grants them - government.

Dross speaks of control over his yard. No problem. That falls under his natural right to property, or estate. If Dross has a business that is incorporated, the parking lot is no longer his property, but the property of the business. Dross has taken a legal action to protect himself from liability and as a side effect can no longer claim a natural right to property over the parking lot. The only claims available on company property would be those specifically spelled out by law. This law merely limits those legal rights.

So, gentlemen, how have I gone wrong in this train of thought?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm glad I read to the end. This is an issue that I've been wondering about since the previous discussion.

Almost all businesses are incorporated in some manner, are they not? This is done to isolate the "ower" from liability. When a business is incorporated its property is no longer the property of the "owner", but the property of the business. This would seem to mean that it is very different from normal personal property.

People have natural rights and legal rights. Businesses are not people, so they don't have natural rights, only legal rights. Legal rights are not absolute and can be modified at the will of the entity that grants them - government.

Dross speaks of control over his yard. No problem. That falls under his natural right to property, or estate. If Dross has a business that is incorporated, the parking lot is no longer his property, but the property of the business. Dross has taken a legal action to protect himself from liability and as a side effect can no longer claim a natural right to property over the parking lot. The only claims available on company property would be those specifically spelled out by law. This law merely limits those legal rights.

So, gentlemen, how have I gone wrong in this train of thought?

Excellent points! If I owned a business and chose to incorporate it, but say for example the officers of the corp. consist of my wife and me, and we choose to ban the wearing of religious symbols on our business grounds, we are the owners and officers of the corp. and as one, we've said that this is policy. If we see a religious symbol, you are fired.
We're a corporate entity, but a private corporate entity nonetheless... And as we said "religious" symbols, not specifically Christian or Jewish or Muslim or whatever, it's not discriminatory. Do you have a right to the practice of your religion? Sure... But the 1A specifies Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, but is silent on private enterprise, as it should be. If you know my policy when you take the job, you agree to it. If you continue working for me after finding out about it, you have agreed to it. If not, you're encouraged to find a job more suited to you. If enough people do that, I will either have to change my policy or go out of business.

Businesses also are considered "persons" in many respects as well, but a slight correction: though it calls them "rights" gov't can only grant powers or authority, not rights.

Only government can infringe on your rights, that's why the Constitution enjoins government against doing so.

Thanks for the great questions!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bummer]

Excellent points! If I owned a business and chose to incorporate it, but say for example the officers of the corp. consist of my wife and me, and we choose to ban the wearing of religious symbols on our business grounds, we are the owners and officers of the corp. and as one, we've said that this is policy. If we see a religious symbol, you are fired.
We're a corporate entity, but a private corporate entity nonetheless... And as we said "religious" symbols, not specifically Christian or Jewish or Muslim or whatever, it's not discriminatory. Do you have a right to the practice of your religion? Sure... But the 1A specifies Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, but is silent on private enterprise, as it should be. If you know my policy when you take the job, you agree to it. If you continue working for me after finding out about it, you have agreed to it. If not, you're encouraged to find a job more suited to you. If enough people do that, I will either have to change my policy or go out of business.

Only government can infringe on your rights, that's why the Constitution enjoins government against doing so.

Thanks for the great questions!

Blessings,
Bill

I absolutely agree to your point as stated. However, your right to set company policy is not a natural right, but a legal one. Further, the government has not passed a law regulating your policies regarding religion/religious symbols in your establishment beyond any discrimination laws that may apply. In the case of gun possession in the parking lot, they have, though they still support the employer's right to not allow them in the workplace itself.

I would also add that individuals can, and are not enjoined from, infringing another individual's right to free speech as in Dross' example of speechifying in his front yard. "Get off my lawn" is the valid exercise of his property rights, which trumps the individual's right to free speech in that place.

I believe you'll find that while government itself has no rights, only authority, it can grant legal rights. The right to vote, for example. I do, however, agree that government does not grant, but only supports or infringes natural rights.

 

[Hotdoger]

By accepting my application for employment my rights did not leave when i entered the parking lot Thanks and Don"t tread on me!

As I have found out on INGO, property owner rights and parental actions on said property override any rights you have and should preclude state involvement.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I absolutely agree to your point as stated. However, your right to set company policy is not a natural right, but a legal one. Further, the government has not passed a law regulating your policies regarding religion/religious symbols in your establishment beyond any discrimination laws that may apply. In the case of gun possession in the parking lot, they have, though they still support the employer's right to not allow them in the workplace itself.

I would also add that individuals can, and are not enjoined from, infringing another individual's right to free speech as in Dross' example of speechifying in his front yard. "Get off my lawn" is the valid exercise of his property rights, which trumps the individual's right to free speech in that place.

I believe you'll find that while government itself has no rights, only authority, it can grant legal rights. The right to vote, for example. I do, however, agree that government does not grant, but only supports or infringes natural rights.

My point was that as the property owner (or in the case of a corporate, the human authorized to speak for the corporate owner,) I have the legal right to make whatever policies I wish on the property for which I speak. Government has no say in what policies I set (though as a society, we have allowed government to specify that certain people cannot be denied entry/service on the basis of certain criteria.)

I am of the opinion that government has overstepped in doing so. If I choose to ban the wearing of religious symbols, how has a governmental entity the power to tell me I cannot do so?

If the Constitution is a list of restrictions and limitations on government, specifically the federal government, and in that document the government is forbidden to infringe upon the right of free speech and more broadly forbidden (that is, at the state level also) from infringing upon the RKBA, there is another right that has not yet been discussed here: The Fifth Amendment right to not be denied life, liberty, or property without due process of law, meaning a trial and conviction. Of what crime have all business property owners in Indiana been convicted that they can lawfully be denied the right to control their property?

As to your latter point, government cannot grant any rights at all. They call them "rights", yes, but rights they are not, only privileges and authority. The "right to vote" is an excellent example:

Recall that rights are granted not by government but by our Creator, as per the Declaration of Independence. Given that voting is a form of choosing one's form of government, and further given that we are"endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights" and that "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...", I think you'll agree with me that if all men are created equal and that rights are granted to all men by virtue of creation, the fact that according to the law, only Americans may vote in American elections, voting is not a right at all but rather a privilege of citizenship.


To repeat what I said previously, I very much like the effect of the parking lot bill. I support and exercise that right. I just don't stop at ONLY supporting the RKBA but rather all individual rights As such, I don't like the method by which the effect I like is achieved. The end does not, IMHO, justify the means.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Phil502]

It's equally ridiculous for a business to say you can't have a gun in your car as it is to say you can't have dirt on your floormats. Unfortunately some businesses use their dislike for guns to prevent you from having a legal firearm in your car. The law addresses this, IMO. The firearm must be out of view so business owners rights/preferences are still addressed and respected.

 

[dross]

Well I was done until your undeserved arrogance seems to try and paint a picture that is wrong. I am reasonable but I am not uncomfortable. I actually am quite confident in my position and feel like its wasting my time trying to convince YOU your wrong.
NOW I'm done.

Now you've completely gone off the map. My arrogance is SO deserved. Way, way deserved. Totally deserved.

 

[public servant]

Now you've completely gone off the map. My arrogance is SO deserved. Way, way deserved. Totally deserved.

You're a legend in your own mind.

Always have to get the last word in don't you?

 

[dross]

You're a legend in your own mind.

At the end of the day, who else's really matters?

Always have to get the last word in don't you?

Always have to state the obvious, don't you?

 

[gtrlspl]

Exempted businesses/facilities includes "Penal Facilities. I just looked up the definition of "Penal Facility...

35-41-1-21:
"Penal Facility" means state prison, correctional facility, county jail, penitentary, house of correction, or any other facility for confinement of persons under sentence, or awaiting trial or sentence, for offenses. The term includes correctional facility constructed under IC 4-13.5


I work at Logansport State Hospital, and they are claiming to be locked in under Penal Facility part. Does that sound correct? Keep in mind we have a primary focus on Forensics (finding folks competent, and are next door to a Juvenile Corrections facility.

I just dont wanna have any guns pulled.


-MColford

Maybe they are included, but it would not under penal institution, unless you guys share a parking lot with the juvenile facility.

 

[MTC]

My arrogance is SO deserved. Way, way deserved. Totally deserved.

...and to push it to new heights (say, around 14,000 ft.) - great sense of humor from the Man on the Silver Mountain, author, editor and publisher of The Red Pill Review, the Dross Dispatch, the Rocky Mountain Oyster (currently available for free, but may in the future be by subscription only).

 

[Bummer]

My point was that as the property owner (or in the case of a corporate, the human authorized to speak for the corporate owner,) I have the legal right to make whatever policies I wish on the property for which I speak. Government has no say in what policies I set (though as a society, we have allowed government to specify that certain people cannot be denied entry/service on the basis of certain criteria.)

I am of the opinion that government has overstepped in doing so. If I choose to ban the wearing of religious symbols, how has a governmental entity the power to tell me I cannot do so?

I did not develop the concept of separate Natural Rights and Legal Rights. Still, if you find that terminology troubling, I'll parenthetically call the latter privileges to help clarify.

When one incorporates one freely yields Property Rights by giving them to the incorporated entity. The corporation is the owner of the property, not the owner of the corporation. The owner of the corporation trades those Natural Rights for isolation from liability. The corporation is not a natural born person, and as such can not have Natural Rights. When one passes one's Natural Right to property to the non-human entity "corporation" that right becomes a Legal Right (or privilege) held by the corporation. Referenced in the manner of the Declaration of Independence, the Creator of the corporation is the Government through a legal process the owner engages in. Since Government is the Creator of Corporation, Government can and may dictate the rights held by Corporation.

I may give you the right to speak on my behalf, but in so doing you do not take ownership of my Rights. In like manner the person who speaks for the corporate entity can not actually take on, and by so doing convert to Natural Rights, any Legal Rights (or privileges) the corporate entity may hold. The speaker merely expresses the will or desire of the corporate entity.

The owner is not required to incorporate any more than he would be required to sell the property, yet he may do so by choice. Incorporation is done freely and for benefit (profit, so to speak). The individual takes that step to gain protection. If the owner chooses not to incorporate, the owner still maintains full Natural Rights over the entire business, including the property. The owner would have full personal liability, but the law in question would be a violation of his Natural Right to Property. I personally believe that the law in question should omit or exclude businesses that have not incorporated. Failure to do so is a violation of the owner's Natural Right to Property.

If the Constitution is a list of restrictions and limitations on government, specifically the federal government, and in that document the government is forbidden to infringe upon the right of free speech and more broadly forbidden (that is, at the state level also) from infringing upon the RKBA, there is another right that has not yet been discussed here: The Fifth Amendment right to not be denied life, liberty, or property without due process of law, meaning a trial and conviction. Of what crime have all business property owners in Indiana been convicted that they can lawfully be denied the right to control their property?

As to your latter point, government cannot grant any rights at all. They call them "rights", yes, but rights they are not, only privileges and authority. The "right to vote" is an excellent example:

Recall that rights are granted not by government but by our Creator, as per the Declaration of Independence. Given that voting is a form of choosing one's form of government, and further given that we are"endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights" and that "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...", I think you'll agree with me that if all men are created equal and that rights are granted to all men by virtue of creation, the fact that according to the law, only Americans may vote in American elections, voting is not a right at all but rather a privilege of citizenship.

The Declaration of Independence refers to Natural Rights. The Constitution, more specifically the Bill Of Rights, refers to a combination of Natural, Derived Natural, and Legal Rights. The Right To Keep And Bear Arms, for example, is a Derived Natural Right in that it comes from he individual's Natural Right To Life. None of the prior philosophers referenced the Right To Keep And Bear Arms, but without it one is powerless to protect one's Right To Life (hence derived). None of the prior philosophers referenced several other of the Rights acknowledged in the Bill of Rights. These would seem to be Legal Rights (or privileges). Legal Rights (or privileges) are a construct of government, and may therefore be modified by government. The Right To Due Process would seem to be a Legal Right (or privilege) and not a Natural Right, since it presupposes an entity created by man (Government) that must be protected against. i.e. The Government acknowledges a duty to treat the citizen fairly. Many other Legal Rights (or privileges) are granted (or acknowledged) by act of law.

The corporation need not be convicted of a crime to have its Legal Right (or privilege) to Property altered (or infringed). The owner of the Natural Right effectively sold that property to the corporation and can no longer claim a Natural Right. As I have attempted to explain, Government as creator has authority to set the terms of the corporation's Legal Right (or privilege) to Property.

Again, I didn't make this stuff up. I'm just trying to work through it to understand the distinctions. For my own purposes I can not ignore these distinctions, since they are a part of the philosophies I am attempting to understand.

To repeat what I said previously, I very much like the effect of the parking lot bill. I support and exercise that right. I just don't stop at ONLY supporting the RKBA but rather all individual rights As such, I don't like the method by which the effect I like is achieved. The end does not, IMHO, justify the means.



Blessings,
Bill

I understand that you are not speaking against the bill. I am merely trying to express why, in the face of certain arguments, the Government has the authority to make this law, and protestations of the violation of Natural Rights held by the owner, where the owner has incorporated, are specious. As such, you need not be distressed by the means toward the end. If the distinction between Natural and Legal Rights (or privileges) is understood, the means is seen to be completely valid. Of course, I welcome discussion, since it helps me formulate an understanding.

 

[rockhopper46038]

To repeat what I said previously, I very much like the effect of the parking lot bill. I support and exercise that right. I just don't stop at ONLY supporting the RKBA but rather all individual rights As such, I don't like the method by which the effect I like is achieved. The end does not, IMHO, justify the means.



Blessings,
Bill

That sums it up for me pretty well, too.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I did not develop the concept of separate Natural Rights and Legal Rights. Still, if you find that terminology troubling, I'll parenthetically call the latter privileges to help clarify.

When one incorporates one freely yields Property Rights by giving them to the incorporated entity. The corporation is the owner of the property, not the owner of the corporation. The owner of the corporation trades those Natural Rights for isolation from liability. The corporation is not a natural born person, and as such can not have Natural Rights. When one passes one's Natural Right to property to the non-human entity "corporation" that right becomes a Legal Right (or privilege) held by the corporation. Referenced in the manner of the Declaration of Independence, the Creator of the corporation is the Government through a legal process the owner engages in. Since Government is the Creator of Corporation, Government can and may dictate the rights held by Corporation.

I may give you the right to speak on my behalf, but in so doing you do not take ownership of my Rights. In like manner the person who speaks for the corporate entity can not actually take on, and by so doing convert to Natural Rights, any Legal Rights (or privileges) the corporate entity may hold. The speaker merely expresses the will or desire of the corporate entity.

The owner is not required to incorporate any more than he would be required to sell the property, yet he may do so by choice. Incorporation is done freely and for benefit (profit, so to speak). The individual takes that step to gain protection. If the owner chooses not to incorporate, the owner still maintains full Natural Rights over the entire business, including the property. The owner would have full personal liability, but the law in question would be a violation of his Natural Right to Property. I personally believe that the law in question should omit or exclude businesses that have not incorporated. Failure to do so is a violation of the owner's Natural Right to Property.



The Declaration of Independence refers to Natural Rights. The Constitution, more specifically the Bill Of Rights, refers to a combination of Natural, Derived Natural, and Legal Rights. The Right To Keep And Bear Arms, for example, is a Derived Natural Right in that it comes from he individual's Natural Right To Life. None of the prior philosophers referenced the Right To Keep And Bear Arms, but without it one is powerless to protect one's Right To Life (hence derived). None of the prior philosophers referenced several other of the Rights acknowledged in the Bill of Rights. These would seem to be Legal Rights (or privileges). Legal Rights (or privileges) are a construct of government, and may therefore be modified by government. The Right To Due Process would seem to be a Legal Right (or privilege) and not a Natural Right, since it presupposes an entity created by man (Government) that must be protected against. i.e. The Government acknowledges a duty to treat the citizen fairly. Many other Legal Rights (or privileges) are granted (or acknowledged) by act of law.

The corporation need not be convicted of a crime to have its Legal Right (or privilege) to Property altered (or infringed). The owner of the Natural Right effectively sold that property to the corporation and can no longer claim a Natural Right. As I have attempted to explain, Government as creator has authority to set the terms of the corporation's Legal Right (or privilege) to Property.

Again, I didn't make this stuff up. I'm just trying to work through it to understand the distinctions. For my own purposes I can not ignore these distinctions, since they are a part of the philosophies I am attempting to understand.



I understand that you are not speaking against the bill. I am merely trying to express why, in the face of certain arguments, the Government has the authority to make this law, and protestations of the violation of Natural Rights held by the owner, where the owner has incorporated, are specious. As such, you need not be distressed by the means toward the end. If the distinction between Natural and Legal Rights (or privileges) is understood, the means is seen to be completely valid. Of course, I welcome discussion, since it helps me formulate an understanding.

Certainly a thorough explanation, and for that, I thank you. It's not that I find the terminology troubling so much as I find it fallacious. It's been my understanding that rights come from our Creator, but that the granting of rights is solely His to do. Conversely, people have rights but cannot transfer them. (Given a circumstance of a family member about to be executed, I cannot volunteer to take his/her place.) I'm aware you didn't invent the concepts, I merely claim that the terminology, while common, is incorrect.

On to the more salient points, you addressed that the law not excluding non-incorporated businesses is a violation of the owners' natural rights. I maintain that the law violates those rights either way. Admittedly, the legal system doesn't see it that way and I'll grant that point. Personally, I think any private owner of a business should be able to regulate as he/she wishes, right up until the owner in question takes tax money to benefit his business.
Point of curiosity: You say the right of Due Process is a "legal right", and you also said that since government "creates those rights", then government can modify them. I hope it is not your contention, then, that we are only allowed due process of law, fair trials, Habeas Corpus, counsel, etc. through the benevolence of our government and that those can be revoked at any time at the whim of that government? If that is the case, what protection is our Constitution at all as a limitation upon and/or prevention against that government becoming the oppressor the Constitution was supposed to preclude?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[rugertoter]

NOW, lets push for constitutional carry in indiana. that means NO LTCH required to carry your gun, for you who dont know. several states are doing the right thing, lets make sure Indiana does too. hold these politicians feet to the fire. they took an oath to uphold the constitution, so lets make them honor it. requiring an LTCH is unconstitutional.

also I would like to see a law passed that allows me to manufacture and posses silencers, sbr's, machine guns, short barreled shotguns, "destructive devices", etc, if I so wish to do so, WITHOUT having to bow down to the feds and pay a unconstitutional tax to the king and his thugs. STATES RIGHTS!

lets also repeal that stupid auto knife law!

Oh man, I'm with ya there, but don't hold your breath on that one. I don't think the state wants to give up all that revenue they get on the permit system.

 

[HICKMAN]

Dross, you don't really think you own your property, do you?

These new laws screwed guys like me who worked at one of the companies on some federal list.

Before the law, I was just violating company policy, after, I was breaking the law.

What did we really gain here again by passing yet another un-needed law?

 

[ATM]

Before the law, I was just violating company policy, after, I was breaking the law.

No, you're not suddenly breaking any law. You'd still just be violating company policy.

The law only prohibits companies from making or enforcing these policies.
Your company may be excepted from this policy prohibition, but that doesn't make their policy law or you a criminal for violating it.

You're simply no better or worse off at that company than you were before the law.

 

[Bummer]

Certainly a thorough explanation, and for that, I thank you. It's not that I find the terminology troubling so much as I find it fallacious.

In that the terminology is not mine (and I understand that you are aware of this), you'd be best served to take that up with the philosophers and political scientists who originated it. I find it entirely solid in its basis. Subtle, perhaps, but solid none the less. In fact, I believe the distinction between Natural and Legal Rights is fairly clear.

It's been my understanding that rights come from our Creator, but that the granting of rights is solely His to do. Conversely, people have rights but cannot transfer them. (Given a circumstance of a family member about to be executed, I cannot volunteer to take his/her place.) I'm aware you didn't invent the concepts, I merely claim that the terminology, while common, is incorrect.

The issue of Creator has suffered no small amount of debate. Do people who do not subscribe to the Judeo/Christian belief structure have no Natural Rights? Do only Christians have a Right to Llife, or does that Right come with birth itself no matter the religious beliefs, or lack thereof of the individual? The man who wrote the words you've quoted was a Deist. Do only Deists have rights? What about the multiple Deity religions, have they no Right to Life? Do all religions worship the same Deity? Mohammad claimed that Allah was Yahweh. Is there a Deity at all? How do you purport to prove this? Faith is a wonderful thing, but most people have it, only in different things. Are all those things correct or only yours? May Christians take the lives of non-Christians as the Muslims are instructed? All of which takes us back to the question of whether an individual with no religious faith has the Right to Life.

I consider it quite clear that the Right to Life predates religion. We obtain that right by being born. That's why the term Natural Rights is used rather than God Given Rights. Granted, some use the latter term, but most now use the former because of the prior points. Natural Rights are not granted by Religion.

As to the transfer of Rights, does the individual maintain a right to property that the individual has sold? Clearly some rights can be transferred. Unless you wish to argue that once an individual purchases property that individual has rights over it even though it is freely sold, or that the individual can not sell something once purchased. If the former is the case how can anyone buy anything in the first place since the prior owner will still have Rights over it, which is inherently contradictory to the Right to Property.

On to the more salient points, you addressed that the law not excluding non-incorporated businesses is a violation of the owners' natural rights. I maintain that the law violates those rights either way. Admittedly, the legal system doesn't see it that way and I'll grant that point. Personally, I think any private owner of a business should be able to regulate as he/she wishes, right up until the owner in question takes tax money to benefit his business.

I don't find tax money to be relevant to the issue. Much as many would like it, taking Welfare does not cause the individual to yield their Right to Life. All an owner need do to retain his Natural Right to Property over his business is not incorporate. In that manner the property remains his. People incorporate to separate themselves from liability. They sell the business to itself in exchange for personal safety. Perhaps this is a trap set by Government, but it's a trap stepped into quite willingly.

Point of curiosity: You say the right of Due Process is a "legal right", and you also said that since government "creates those rights", then government can modify them. I hope it is not your contention, then, that we are only allowed due process of law, fair trials, Habeas Corpus, counsel, etc. through the benevolence of our government and that those can be revoked at any time at the whim of that government?

Sadly, yes. Due process, and all you mention, are derived from the US Constitution. No previous Rights related philosophy that I am aware of mentions any of them. I welcome any correction to this that I can investigate. I know that Hobbes and Locke primarily limited Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Estate (which we usually call Property).

At the risk of Godwining myself, Hitler ran a Government that didn't acknowledge many Rights we have in the US. His was a Government, none the less. Many governments give and take Legal Rights as they please.

Further, did the early Hunter/Gatherers not have a Natural Right to Life? I certainly maintain that they did. Indeed, it is from their need to protect that right that we derive our Right To Keep And Bear Arms. Did the most early humans have the Legal Rights you mention? Why? They effectively had no government to protect themselves from, therefore they didn't need them.

If that is the case, what protection is our Constitution at all as a limitation upon and/or prevention against that government becoming the oppressor the Constitution was supposed to preclude?

Blessings,
Bill

Has not our Government slipped fairly far away from its basis already? The Government infringes rights all the time. The Supreme Court, whose job it is to limit the reach of Government, refuses to do so. They were charged with creating a method to control their members' actions, yet when they state that no can mean yes when it suits the Government do they not function in bad behavior? Though I've seen them function in bad behavior I've not seen them being cast out in shame. Good behavior is, after all, the primary limitation to the lifetime term of a Justice. They feel no need to, so they do not abide by their oaths of office. As a result they have become just another political entity leaving the people without protection from the Law.

There is only that protection from Government that we demand. Once the people no longer demand accountability, that protection is no more.

Again, thank you for the discussion.

 

[Bill of Rights]

In that the terminology is not mine (and I understand that you are aware of this), you'd be best served to take that up with the philosophers and political scientists who originated it. I find it entirely solid in its basis. Subtle, perhaps, but solid none the less. In fact, I believe the distinction between Natural and Legal Rights is fairly clear.



The issue of Creator has suffered no small amount of debate. Do people who do not subscribe to the Judeo/Christian belief structure have no Natural Rights? Do only Christians have a Right to Llife, or does that Right come with birth itself no matter the religious beliefs, or lack thereof of the individual? The man who wrote the words you've quoted was a Deist. Do only Deists have rights? What about the multiple Deity religions, have they no Right to Life? Do all religions worship the same Deity? Mohammad claimed that Allah was Yahweh. Is there a Deity at all? How do you purport to prove this? Faith is a wonderful thing, but most people have it, only in different things. Are all those things correct or only yours? May Christians take the lives of non-Christians as the Muslims are instructed? All of which takes us back to the question of whether an individual with no religious faith has the Right to Life.

I consider it quite clear that the Right to Life predates religion. We obtain that right by being born. That's why the term Natural Rights is used rather than God Given Rights. Granted, some use the latter term, but most now use the former because of the prior points. Natural Rights are not granted by Religion.

As to the transfer of Rights, does the individual maintain a right to property that the individual has sold? Clearly some rights can be transferred. Unless you wish to argue that once an individual purchases property that individual has rights over it even though it is freely sold, or that the individual can not sell something once purchased. If the former is the case how can anyone buy anything in the first place since the prior owner will still have Rights over it, which is inherently contradictory to the Right to Property.



I don't find tax money to be relevant to the issue. Much as many would like it, taking Welfare does not cause the individual to yield their Right to Life. All an owner need do to retain his Natural Right to Property over his business is not incorporate. In that manner the property remains his. People incorporate to separate themselves from liability. They sell the business to itself in exchange for personal safety. Perhaps this is a trap set by Government, but it's a trap stepped into quite willingly.



Sadly, yes. Due process, and all you mention, are derived from the US Constitution. No previous Rights related philosophy that I am aware of mentions any of them. I welcome any correction to this that I can investigate. I know that Hobbes and Locke primarily limited Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Estate (which we usually call Property).

At the risk of Godwining myself, Hitler ran a Government that didn't acknowledge many Rights we have in the US. His was a Government, none the less. Many governments give and take Legal Rights as they please.

Further, did the early Hunter/Gatherers not have a Natural Right to Life? I certainly maintain that they did. Indeed, it is from their need to protect that right that we derive our Right To Keep And Bear Arms. Did the most early humans have the Legal Rights you mention? Why? They effectively had no government to protect themselves from, therefore they didn't need them.



Has not our Government slipped fairly far away from its basis already? The Government infringes rights all the time. The Supreme Court, whose job it is to limit the reach of Government, refuses to do so. They were charged with creating a method to control their members' actions, yet when they state that no can mean yes when it suits the Government do they not function in bad behavior? Though I've seen them function in bad behavior I've not seen them being cast out in shame. Good behavior is, after all, the primary limitation to the lifetime term of a Justice. They feel no need to, so they do not abide by their oaths of office. As a result they have become just another political entity leaving the people without protection from the Law.

There is only that protection from Government that we demand. Once the people no longer demand accountability, that protection is no more.

Again, thank you for the discussion.

The issue of the Creator is not limited to the Judeo-Christian ethos. The belief in a Creator is almost universal; atheists are only excluded if the view is that the Creator is the/a Deity. The Name is immaterial; whether I use the term "manzana" or "apple", "naranja" or "orange", both terms still mean the same fruit, puns on the discussing of apples and oranges notwithstanding. Different religious traditions may have different beliefs as to the nature of deity; My understanding of deists is that they believe/d in the Judeo-Christian deity, though that deity is no longer directly involved in our lives, much as a watchmaker's presence is undoubted despite the fact that that watchmaker does not remain present to look after the workings of each watch he makes. Those who believe in multiple deities to my understanding still have a "ruler god", a Zeus or an Odin, for example, with their own beliefs as to the nature of creation. As to the people without a belief... I suppose it's a good thing that the Creator believes in them, yes?

The issue of the transfer of rights... You do not maintain the right to specific property in perpetuity, of course, though you most certainly do retain the right to property as a whole. That is, you may sell your home, but you still may own another home.

As to the question of tax money being a factor... When this was first discussed, a member who works at (I think) an Indianapolis hospital made note that his employer forbade weapons on property, but that the hospital in question was on land paid for with citizens' tax monies, (I think) paid no taxes itself (due to an abatement?), etc.; why would such a business have the power to refuse to the citizens who pay for their very existence the right to defend themselves? There is no property right inherent to that employer at all.

Rights are merely a creation of government and subject to its whims? No, I cannot accept that. It is our belief as Americans that our rights predate the Constitution, the Declaration, the battles at Concord and Lexington, and much farther back even than those. Granted, the 9th and 10th Amendments were, well... afterthoughts... in the Bill of Rights, but I'm of the opinion that they'd not have been added there if they were not deemed to be of equal importance. I'm not sure if them being discussed before vs. being recognized in the late 1700s is relevant to their existence... does the discovery of something indicate the date of its origin or only its discovery?

You addressed the question of the Third Reich not recognizing peoples' rights. We need not Godwin to get there, though... Look at the PRC even today. That said, though, the rights still exist though governments tend to deny people the ability to lawfully exercise those rights. You yourself acknowledged the RKBA; Do people not have that right solely because government interferes with it?

The crux of the problem is what you addressed at the end of your post. WE have allowed our government to exceed its mandate, to overreach its bounds. It's easy to leave governance to those hired to do the job; our Founders were far more involved in the process. That accountability of which you speak works both directions.

You are welcome, and thank you as well.

Blessings,
Bill