Forum Post: The Social Contract of our Inalienable Rights
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 18, 2011, 11:27 a.m. EST by cubedemon
(185)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
If the man is keeping us down and there is no way to leave the man then based upon conditions that exist today is the social contract of our inalienable rights viable to hold up?
I do believe the conservatives are correct in what our founding fathers said.
Our society has become so complicated that in my opinion this social contract is unenforcable. If this is true is it true that some rights are more inalienable than others and some would have to be infringed.
If all of this is true then why can't there be something even greater than these rights? What if there is a greater law?
Should people's lives be allowed to be violated for other people's property rights?
Is life more precious and more valuable than anyone's property?
Does our social contract at times violate this valuable precious commodity of people's lives? Is this possible?
If yes then could there be greater ethical principles to follow?
If yes then should a person or a group of people be allowed to amass so much property that it starts impacting the ability of others to live their lives?
Based upon my questions and my conscience I can't accept that life is not fair and there will be those who will live in squalor while the 1 percenters control most of the world. When I put myself in their shoes, I don't think I would want to be their. I would be miserable and wishing for my death.
Based upon this why wouldn't it be time to start violating some people's property's rights in order to protect our most precious commodity of all? Life itself. Do you all agree the social contract of our inalienable rights is broken. Is it not time to put forth a covenant of Universal Ethics in which human life is the most precious jewel of all? Even our very holy Bible has said to Choose Life. Which do you guys choose? Do you choose the preciousness of human life or do you choose some people's property rights?
So, is this a trick question? Are there any other options. I can't remember anyone ever stating inalinable rights as Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happieness, and Property Rights. We formed a democrtic republic to preserve the rights of the majority from being imposed upon by a despot, and at the same time protect individual rights from being comprimised by the majority. If we take property rights from an individual to benefit the majority, where does it end. Eminent domain already allows for this, but the individual must be compensated for the violation property rights. The reasoning for this must be shown nessasary through law not on the whim of the Mob.
Should one person be allowed to earn and own the whole surface of the earth? What about a group of people? All rights are inalienable but what if some are more inalienable than others? For example, if a person is dying and can't afford their medicine? What is the correct thing to do? Steal the medicine and give it to that person and violate property rights or do we honor the property rights.
[Removed]