Difference between revisions of "User:OvalleReilly729"
From Enter the ESC
(WHVNPQEEnqyotg) |
(HitvXnImkqCh) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | What is a right? Well, I've actually ponedred on this question. I can't necessarily give you a specific answer in the legal sense, but I think I have a good grasp of the essence of the concept that would work in a real life sense. The fact that it is not really well defined in terms of our pretend courts and pretend laws is a source of much grievance to the people, and weasel wording for the judiciary and legislatures. It deserves its due diligence.When I think of a right in the practical, real world sense I would have to define it as those actions and activities almost all of us engage in in order to function in the course of everyday life. That is, things like driving, working, eating, shopping- pretty much anything that does not infringe upon others rights and is in the pursuit of the ambiguous concepts of life love and happiness. It does not matter if this activity is minor, like getting a coffee at Dunkin Donuts. It is all encompassing, and means everything a person might do whatever their personal reasons. I believe that is why the Constitution was written so broadly and those retained by the people The ideas that rights can be burdened is ridiculous because it places restrictions where restrictions should never be. Everything the government can't do constitutionally speaking, it has done through the back-door- through conversion, coercion, lies and undefined contracts. I believe that is what our friend here is trying to challenge. | |
Latest revision as of 07:28, 28 April 2012
What is a right? Well, I've actually ponedred on this question. I can't necessarily give you a specific answer in the legal sense, but I think I have a good grasp of the essence of the concept that would work in a real life sense. The fact that it is not really well defined in terms of our pretend courts and pretend laws is a source of much grievance to the people, and weasel wording for the judiciary and legislatures. It deserves its due diligence.When I think of a right in the practical, real world sense I would have to define it as those actions and activities almost all of us engage in in order to function in the course of everyday life. That is, things like driving, working, eating, shopping- pretty much anything that does not infringe upon others rights and is in the pursuit of the ambiguous concepts of life love and happiness. It does not matter if this activity is minor, like getting a coffee at Dunkin Donuts. It is all encompassing, and means everything a person might do whatever their personal reasons. I believe that is why the Constitution was written so broadly and those retained by the people The ideas that rights can be burdened is ridiculous because it places restrictions where restrictions should never be. Everything the government can't do constitutionally speaking, it has done through the back-door- through conversion, coercion, lies and undefined contracts. I believe that is what our friend here is trying to challenge.
