About time
-
You have no inalienable rights over there, do you? Just the ones the government gives you or takes away at its whim.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
Of course we have inalienable rights. We have the right to be taken for granted by our "elected leaders". We have the right to be shafted by our "elected leaders". We have the right to loudly tutt because the services in our country would shame a tin-pot dictatorship.
I'm not a stalker, I just know things. Oh by the way, you're out of milk.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
-
Of course we have inalienable rights. We have the right to be taken for granted by our "elected leaders". We have the right to be shafted by our "elected leaders". We have the right to loudly tutt because the services in our country would shame a tin-pot dictatorship.
I'm not a stalker, I just know things. Oh by the way, you're out of milk.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
Oh good. It's nice to know that the west is going to hell in a handbasket as a whole. ;) But in theory (as opposed to the universal practice) there is nothing forbidding the ruling party from taking away or granting of any rate that strikes their fancy?
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
Of course we have inalienable rights. We have the right to be taken for granted by our "elected leaders". We have the right to be shafted by our "elected leaders". We have the right to loudly tutt because the services in our country would shame a tin-pot dictatorship.
I'm not a stalker, I just know things. Oh by the way, you're out of milk.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
Some politicians could use a good shafting...
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
Oh good. It's nice to know that the west is going to hell in a handbasket as a whole. ;) But in theory (as opposed to the universal practice) there is nothing forbidding the ruling party from taking away or granting of any rate that strikes their fancy?
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
There are checks and balances in our parliamentary system. Sadly, however, the checks go unchecked and the balances are unbalanced. Every now and again the topic of having a written constitution comes up here in the UK but it would never fly because there are so many minority interest groups that such a document would be watered down beyond belief.
I'm not a stalker, I just know things. Oh by the way, you're out of milk.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
-
Some politicians could use a good shafting...
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
According to the tabloids, several already have.
I'm not a stalker, I just know things. Oh by the way, you're out of milk.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
-
Oh good. It's nice to know that the west is going to hell in a handbasket as a whole. ;) But in theory (as opposed to the universal practice) there is nothing forbidding the ruling party from taking away or granting of any rate that strikes their fancy?
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
There is no such thing as a "perfect" governmental system. At the end of the day, all systems of government are designed by human beings. Human beings are incapable of truly designing anything without personal biases getting in the way. Asa result there will never be a truly well oiled government system as long as this is the case.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
According to the tabloids, several already have.
I'm not a stalker, I just know things. Oh by the way, you're out of milk.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
But they're using our hard earned tax dollars to get it...
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
There is no such thing as a "perfect" governmental system. At the end of the day, all systems of government are designed by human beings. Human beings are incapable of truly designing anything without personal biases getting in the way. Asa result there will never be a truly well oiled government system as long as this is the case.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
Marcus Kramer wrote:
At the end of the day, all systems of government are designed by human beings.
Of course, but that doesn't mean that some systems are not inherently better than others, or that we should not try to imagine and then create the best system we can.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
You have no inalienable rights over there, do you? Just the ones the government gives you or takes away at its whim.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
We have the exact same number of inalienable rights as you do, or a Chinese person or a Zulu, that's what makes them inalienable. The quantity of these is debatable, I'd say around 0. This is as opposed to legal rights, which of course differ from country to country.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
We have the exact same number of inalienable rights as you do, or a Chinese person or a Zulu, that's what makes them inalienable. The quantity of these is debatable, I'd say around 0. This is as opposed to legal rights, which of course differ from country to country.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]Must be worth a few fives....
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
We have the exact same number of inalienable rights as you do, or a Chinese person or a Zulu, that's what makes them inalienable. The quantity of these is debatable, I'd say around 0. This is as opposed to legal rights, which of course differ from country to country.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]Keith Barrow wrote:
We have the exact same number of inalienable rights as you do,
I forgot I would be dealing with people who had no knowledge of the subject, just opinions. OK, for the illiterate, I was referring to a phrase in one of the founding documents of the United States wherein it is stated that the rights to liberty and life are inherent in the condition of being human and that these rights can not be affected by the law of any country. These rights are further defined in our Constitution, which is a short enough document that you can run off and read it rather than my explaining it. Suffice to say that by being recognized (not granted) in the document which creates the United States, they form a bulwark against a the state attempting to control its citizens. This was, of course, in direct reaction to the idea that the government can do any bloody thing it wants to attitude that Britain and the rest of Europe inherited from its age of kings.
Keith Barrow wrote:
I'd say around 0
I'm not surprised. I'm sure that is what you were taught in school.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
Keith Barrow wrote:
We have the exact same number of inalienable rights as you do,
I forgot I would be dealing with people who had no knowledge of the subject, just opinions. OK, for the illiterate, I was referring to a phrase in one of the founding documents of the United States wherein it is stated that the rights to liberty and life are inherent in the condition of being human and that these rights can not be affected by the law of any country. These rights are further defined in our Constitution, which is a short enough document that you can run off and read it rather than my explaining it. Suffice to say that by being recognized (not granted) in the document which creates the United States, they form a bulwark against a the state attempting to control its citizens. This was, of course, in direct reaction to the idea that the government can do any bloody thing it wants to attitude that Britain and the rest of Europe inherited from its age of kings.
Keith Barrow wrote:
I'd say around 0
I'm not surprised. I'm sure that is what you were taught in school.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
Oakman wrote:
'm not surprised. I'm sure that is what you were taught in school.
At least I was taught at school.
Oakman wrote:
I forgot I would be dealing with people who had no knowledge of the subject, just opinions.
Sweet irony, if you are going to use precise philosophical terms I suggest you use them correctly [^]. The writers of the declaration understood this terminology better than you seem to, and clarify the position: "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." From this it is clear that the writers believed that such unalienable (as opposed to legal rights) came from god (as the only authority capable of granting such rights) and then went on define how they proposed to support such rights legally. Inalienable rights are "natural" rights, as opposed to legal ones, and if they exist at all, they are unchanging and apply at all times to all people. You seem to be confused on this last point.
Oakman wrote:
You have no inalienable rights over there, do you? Just the ones the government gives you or takes away at its whim.
Those would be legal rights that the government takes away at whim, no government can alter the other sort. Of course unalienable rights are just so much hot air, where is the right to life upheld where the death sentence pronounced, or a soldier kills someone, or a virus for that matter?
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
Oakman wrote:
'm not surprised. I'm sure that is what you were taught in school.
At least I was taught at school.
Oakman wrote:
I forgot I would be dealing with people who had no knowledge of the subject, just opinions.
Sweet irony, if you are going to use precise philosophical terms I suggest you use them correctly [^]. The writers of the declaration understood this terminology better than you seem to, and clarify the position: "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." From this it is clear that the writers believed that such unalienable (as opposed to legal rights) came from god (as the only authority capable of granting such rights) and then went on define how they proposed to support such rights legally. Inalienable rights are "natural" rights, as opposed to legal ones, and if they exist at all, they are unchanging and apply at all times to all people. You seem to be confused on this last point.
Oakman wrote:
You have no inalienable rights over there, do you? Just the ones the government gives you or takes away at its whim.
Those would be legal rights that the government takes away at whim, no government can alter the other sort. Of course unalienable rights are just so much hot air, where is the right to life upheld where the death sentence pronounced, or a soldier kills someone, or a virus for that matter?
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]Keith Barrow wrote:
At least I was taught at school.
Not much about foregoing childish taunts, apparently.
Keith Barrow wrote:
Inalienable rights are "natural" rights, as opposed to legal ones, and if they exist at all, they are unchanging and apply at all times to all people. You seem to be confused on this last point.
No, I am afraid you are. My point was that T. Jefferson, J. Adams and B. Franklin never pretended that a government could not violate those rights at will, in the manner that your government seems to have done by imprisoning its citizens without trial, but that it must be constrained by any means necessary from doing so without just cause. Your simplistic interpretation would imply that they believed that no man could be imprisoned for any reason. :rolleyes:
Keith Barrow wrote:
Of course unalienable rights are just so much hot air, where is the right to life upheld where the death sentence pronounced, or a soldier kills someone, or a virus for that matter?
As I said: simplistic. :zzz:
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
Keith Barrow wrote:
At least I was taught at school.
Not much about foregoing childish taunts, apparently.
Keith Barrow wrote:
Inalienable rights are "natural" rights, as opposed to legal ones, and if they exist at all, they are unchanging and apply at all times to all people. You seem to be confused on this last point.
No, I am afraid you are. My point was that T. Jefferson, J. Adams and B. Franklin never pretended that a government could not violate those rights at will, in the manner that your government seems to have done by imprisoning its citizens without trial, but that it must be constrained by any means necessary from doing so without just cause. Your simplistic interpretation would imply that they believed that no man could be imprisoned for any reason. :rolleyes:
Keith Barrow wrote:
Of course unalienable rights are just so much hot air, where is the right to life upheld where the death sentence pronounced, or a soldier kills someone, or a virus for that matter?
As I said: simplistic. :zzz:
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
Oakman wrote:
Not much about foregoing childish taunts, apparently.
No, and unabashedly so.
Oakman wrote:
No, I am afraid you are
Totally ignoring the quote from your OP, where you clearly implied that we had no unalienable rights here, but that you do there. :sigh:
Oakman wrote:
As I said: simplistic
Ahh yes, backed into a corner and unable to offer any real counter argument or answer, just a poor attempt at an ad hominem attack.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]modified on Sunday, January 2, 2011 3:05 PM
-
You have no inalienable rights over there, do you? Just the ones the government gives you or takes away at its whim.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
Oakman wrote:
Not much about foregoing childish taunts, apparently.
No, and unabashedly so.
Oakman wrote:
No, I am afraid you are
Totally ignoring the quote from your OP, where you clearly implied that we had no unalienable rights here, but that you do there. :sigh:
Oakman wrote:
As I said: simplistic
Ahh yes, backed into a corner and unable to offer any real counter argument or answer, just a poor attempt at an ad hominem attack.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]modified on Sunday, January 2, 2011 3:05 PM
Keith Barrow wrote:
and unabashedly so.
Good to know. Are you toilet trained?
Keith Barrow wrote:
Totally ignoring the quote from your OP, where you clearly implied that we had no unalienable rights here, but that you do there
Sigh, as I tried to explain (I used simple words, or so I thought) I was using a short-hand reference that would have been understood by anyone (and was by Pete) grounded in the issue instead of simply holding uninformed opinions.
Keith Barrow wrote:
just a poor attempt at an ad hominem attack.
Something else you apparently weren't taught in school, I presume. I referred to your argument as simplistic, not you. i.e. ad rem, not ad hominem. :rolleyes:
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
Josh Gray wrote:
They also have the Patriot Act and a prison at Guantanamo you know. Happy trolling Jon.
Hey, Josh, I was asking a question. Expressed myself badly, possibly, but I made it clear, if you had read through the thread, that I wanted to know if there were any protections of basic rights in England or was everything up to what the government thought were the rights of its citizens this week. I know that Oz for instance does have a Supreme Court which is charged with protecting basic rights, but which has only its own opinions for guidance, no basic documentation, and I wondered about Britain. As to the Patriot Act, I think large parts of it are unconstitutional. I spoke out in detail against it when it was passed, and will do so again at the drop of a hat. But, I do have a Constitution upon which to base my arguments. The Patriot Act, to my mind is proof that we are forgetting the concept of inalienable rights, and becoming European in this regard. There are, to the best of my knowledge, no citizens of the United States held in Guantanamo - only people who lived in lands we had invaded who are suspected of being terrorists. They have no protection granted them by the Constitution, nor should they. Given the rather large percentage of those released who have resumed their terrorist roles, we probably should have shot them all in the field. So. I have answered you in detail. I shall be interested to see if you were doing anything more than trolling.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
-
Josh Gray wrote:
They also have the Patriot Act and a prison at Guantanamo you know. Happy trolling Jon.
Hey, Josh, I was asking a question. Expressed myself badly, possibly, but I made it clear, if you had read through the thread, that I wanted to know if there were any protections of basic rights in England or was everything up to what the government thought were the rights of its citizens this week. I know that Oz for instance does have a Supreme Court which is charged with protecting basic rights, but which has only its own opinions for guidance, no basic documentation, and I wondered about Britain. As to the Patriot Act, I think large parts of it are unconstitutional. I spoke out in detail against it when it was passed, and will do so again at the drop of a hat. But, I do have a Constitution upon which to base my arguments. The Patriot Act, to my mind is proof that we are forgetting the concept of inalienable rights, and becoming European in this regard. There are, to the best of my knowledge, no citizens of the United States held in Guantanamo - only people who lived in lands we had invaded who are suspected of being terrorists. They have no protection granted them by the Constitution, nor should they. Given the rather large percentage of those released who have resumed their terrorist roles, we probably should have shot them all in the field. So. I have answered you in detail. I shall be interested to see if you were doing anything more than trolling.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
Oakman wrote:
Expressed myself badly, possibly
I thought it was pretty obvious you were having a dig at the poms. Any human right is only as good as the power that protects it. Where's the power that protects your constitutional rights that were eroded by the Patriot Act? If your definition of inalienable rights are those given by God then I hope you're a praying man.
-
Keith Barrow wrote:
and unabashedly so.
Good to know. Are you toilet trained?
Keith Barrow wrote:
Totally ignoring the quote from your OP, where you clearly implied that we had no unalienable rights here, but that you do there
Sigh, as I tried to explain (I used simple words, or so I thought) I was using a short-hand reference that would have been understood by anyone (and was by Pete) grounded in the issue instead of simply holding uninformed opinions.
Keith Barrow wrote:
just a poor attempt at an ad hominem attack.
Something else you apparently weren't taught in school, I presume. I referred to your argument as simplistic, not you. i.e. ad rem, not ad hominem. :rolleyes:
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth. I have observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." ~ Benj Franklin
Oakman wrote:
Are you toilet trained?
Why, do want some instructions? For your argument to be ad-rem, I'd need to claim some kind of authority on these matters, I did no such thing, I'm not a trained philosopher and talk of unalienable rights falls under this category. All I did was point out that you somehow believe people in the UK have no inalienable rights, whereas they do in the US, an impossible position given the definition of inalienable rights. In several places you dismiss arguments as "uninformed opinion" or "simplistic", without stating why. Clearly this is an attack on me, albeit indirectly, as you are attacking my ability to argue rather than the arguments themselves. Good use of a straw man attack in your earlier post BTW.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
Oakman wrote:
Expressed myself badly, possibly
I thought it was pretty obvious you were having a dig at the poms. Any human right is only as good as the power that protects it. Where's the power that protects your constitutional rights that were eroded by the Patriot Act? If your definition of inalienable rights are those given by God then I hope you're a praying man.
Josh Gray wrote:
I thought it was pretty obvious you were having a dig at the poms.
At least that was obvious :-).
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]