Right of Locomotion Ordinarly used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways

proffsl wrote:
> John S wrote:
> > Proffsl wrote:
> > >
> > > Did I mention any "superior being"? No, I did not. I only mentioned
> > > "Creation". I assume you exist, therefore you were born, or Created.
> > > It is your Creation which brought about your Existence. It is Your
> > > Creation which also endows you with Rights, for you to recognize
> > > and respect. Nothing superior or super natural about this.
> >
> > The act of being born and living does not by itself result in any
> > rights. You do not have the right to anything at that point.
>
> In all honesty, Ignorance is no excuse. Just because you were Ignorant
> of my existence before we met here doesn't mean I didn't exist. And,
> just because you appear to be Ignorant of our Inherent Rights doesn't
> mean they don't exist.
>
>
> > What are these rights you keep babbling about that exist
> > independent of any social structure.
>
> Frankly, I was hoping for debate concerning our Right of Locomotion
> instead of a debate concerning the very existence of Inherent Rights.
> But, that's okay. The recognition of Inherent Rights pre-date even our
> own government's recognition of them (I am assuming you are from the
> US). It's not like I'm proposing something here that wasn't proposed
> more than 700 years ago. Our own Constitution recognized them over 200
> years ago. The Magna Carta recognized them as early as 1297.
>
> Although, I will admit that virtually all these writings on our
> Inherent Rights are somewhat muddled by their employment of a "God".
> The problem here being that the existence of a "God" can be neither
> proved nor disproved. These Inherent Rights do indeed exist, but their
> method of proof was faulty. It's as if an Innocent man were to pose no
> further proof of their Innocence, even though it exists, than to say:
> "God Knows I'm Innocent." They attempted to prove the provable using
> un-provable evidence
>
> Yes, I say these Inherent Rights ARE provable. Instead of using
> un-provable evidence, such as a "God" which Creates, I exchange that
> with "Creation" (NOT "Creator", which is just another "God"), allowing
> the reader to envision any or no Creator at all of their own choosing.
> Our Individual Existence is proof positive of our Individual Creation.
> While a Creator might be reasonably denied, Creation itself can not be
> reasonably denied. Our Creation is the basis upon which my Primary
> Evidence is built.
>
> What would you consider the primary aspect endowed by their Creation
> upon Sentient, or Self Aware beings? What is a word derived from
> "Sentient"? That word is: "Consent", which means something like: "Of
> Sentient origin". And, that primary aspect endowed upon Sentient
> Beings by their Creation is their Power of Consent.
>
> Consent is the Inherent power of a Sentient being to voluntarily give
> assent or approval to something done or proposed, and is from which all
> sentient behavior originates. The giving of Consent to something is to
> claim that with such Consent, that thing is Rightful, and that without
> such Consent, that thing is wrong. By recognizing and exercising our
> Power of Consent, we recognize and witness to the very existence of
> Right and wrong.
>
> Creation endows Sentient Beings with the Power of Consent, which endows
> us with the existence of Right and wrong. Combine these together, and
> you get Rightful Consent and Wrongful Consent. If I give my friend
> Consent to enter My House, that would be Rightful Consent. If I give
> my friend Consent to enter Your House, that would, of course, be
> Wrongful Consent.
>
> So now, we know that both Rightful and Wrongful Consent exist, endowed
> upon us by our Creation as Sentient Beings, and now it is upon us, as
> Sentient Beings, to recognize between Rightful Consent and Wrongful
> Consent. Rightful Consent is a Right among our Rights. So in our
> attempts to correctly recognize our Inherent Rights, we produce our
> Enumerated Rights.
>
> Keep in mind there is a difference between our Inherent Rights and our
> Enumerated Rights. As I said above, we attempt to correctly recognize
> our Inherent Rights, but it is entirely possible that we incorrectly
> recognize a Right. After all, we're not perfect. But, nice thing
> about being imperfect is that there is always room for improvement.
> So, while Inherent Rights are unchanging and Inalienable, Enumerated
> Rights do come, go and change as we attempt to improve our recognition
> of our Inherent Rights.
>
> So, while I will admit that our Enumerated Rights are indeed a Social
> construct, which can be added to, changed, and subtracted from, I still
> maintain my recognition of our Inherent Rights, which are indeed
> Inalienable, and which our Enumerated Rights attempt to Mirror.

All I read are the same old circular arguments used to support one
another. I'm still waiting for proof that those rights exist
independent of a social structure.

John S wrote:
>
> All I read are the same old circular arguments used to support
> one another.

Yet, you don't bother to detail your objections.

Easy to say your opponent is wrong. Harder to prove it.


> I'm still waiting for proof that those rights exist
> independent of a social structure.

And, I'm still waiting for proof I'm wrong.

Don't worry! I won't hold my breath.