|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Rights, nature vs. enviroment (10/9/2013 9:17:55 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: eulero83
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: eulero83
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Simple explanation.
If can people do it for themselves it is a right.
If the government has to do it for them it is a privilege.
Government can enhance but if control is not in the hands of the individual it is not a right.
First thing I still don't understand why there are people confusing the word law with the one governament, expecially when they come from a country that has a common law system.
Answering your question is vote a privilege or a right? Can an individual actually vote if there is no organization collecting that vote and caring for it?
Has an individual a right to property even if he can't defend it by himself?
even the most primitive societies have had forms of democracies with no governmental system
I have defended my property repeatedly with no help from government government enhances these things but does not provide them anything given by government can be taken by govrnment
Ok I know you are a badass with a gun and willing to use it, but I was not talking about you, I was talking about someone unable to defend himself, like a blind man living alone, has him the right to not be victim of thefts?
The governament is subject to laws, like costitution, so no! Not anything provided by the governament can be taken by the governament.
Let's take your blind man example. Until the police arrive, there is no government to secure his right to his property. If one does not have the right to one's own property, there is no authority for the blind man to even attempt to stop the thief. Then again, if there is no private property right, it's not even theft. The "thief" would have just as much authority to dictate what happens to that property as the blind man.
There is nothing to secure. The US was founded on the principle that all rights and authorities emanate from the individuals governed.
Federalist #39quote:
THE last paper having concluded the observations which were meant to introduce a candid survey of the plan of government reported by the convention, we now proceed to the execution of that part of our undertaking.
The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible.
What, then, are the distinctive characters of the republican form? Were an answer to this question to be sought, not by recurring to principles, but in the application of the term by political writers, to the constitution of different States, no satisfactory one would ever be found. Holland, in which no particle of the supreme authority is derived from the people, has passed almost universally under the denomination of a republic. The same title has been bestowed on Venice, where absolute power over the great body of the people is exercised, in the most absolute manner, by a small body of hereditary nobles. Poland, which is a mixture of aristocracy and of monarchy in their worst forms, has been dignified with the same appellation. The government of England, which has one republican branch only, combined with an hereditary aristocracy and monarchy, has, with equal impropriety, been frequently placed on the list of republics. These examples, which are nearly as dissimilar to each other as to a genuine republic, show the extreme inaccuracy with which the term has been used in political disquisitions.
If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. It is sufficient for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified; otherwise every government in the United States, as well as every other popular government that has been or can be well organized or well executed, would be degraded from the republican character. According to the constitution of every State in the Union, some or other of the officers of government are appointed indirectly only by the people. According to most of them, the chief magistrate himself is so appointed. And according to one, this mode of appointment is extended to one of the co-ordinate branches of the legislature. According to all the constitutions, also, the tenure of the highest offices is extended to a definite period, and in many instances, both within the legislative and executive departments, to a period of years. According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behavior.
...
The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is national, not federal. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is federal, not national. The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many federal as national features.
Government gets all it's power and authority from the people, either directly, or indirectly (through the States, which derive their power and authority from the people).
|
|
|
|
