Comments by "nexus1g" (@nexus1g) on "The Constitution Doesn't Say That!" video.

The Constitution is short, but the problem is the "colloquialization" of legal phraseology and the love of legal scholars to use common language to denote something very specific in legal speak. What exactly is the "general welfare"? What does "good behavior" mean? What constitutes "cruel & unusual"? People read something like these phrases and put all kinds of personal connotations into them. It takes an fair bit of research and reading to understand what's meant by that. This hinders a person's ability to simply read and understand the document.
1
Natural rights is the philosophy on which the United States is founded. That philosophy establishes that we agree to be under governments to be better off, not worse off. As such, everything we had and could do outside of government (which didn't infringe on another's like enjoyment of the same abilities) are a duty of a just government to protect--not infringe on. In this, these natural rights absolutely exist outside of government and are so-called negative rights because they require INaction from legislative authority to preserve these things. The action of a just legislative authority comes down only on following the abuse of such natural rights to infringe on the natural rights, civil rights, and civil liberties of others. So natural rights exist whether they're written or not, and they cannot be given away nor taken away and can only be infringed upon. If there exists an infringement, as soon as infringement stops, all rights are restored, because they exist regardless of forceful infringement--they never cease to exist.
1
@nout4812 Maybe you should address my entire argument instead of strawmanning it.
1
@nout4812 I had supporting argumentation in there as to why natural rights objectively exist which you completely ignored.
1
@nout4812 I'm not even sure what to say that was all you walked away with. Let me break down the various sentences of supporting argumentation given that you apparently missed: "...we agree to be under governments to be better off, not worse off. As such, everything we had and could do outside of government (which didn't infringe on another's like enjoyment of the same abilities) are a duty of a just government to protect--not infringe on" Unless you agree to be under government to be worse off than if government didn't exist, you must concede this premise, and the logic that follows that premise is true. "[Natural rights] are so-called negative rights because they require INaction from legislative authority to preserve these things." A thing that exists without the need of a human action is a base state of nature and exists as part of the human being independent of human reasoning. " If there exists an infringement, as soon as infringement stops, all rights are restored, because they exist regardless of forceful infringement--they never cease to exist." When human intervention stops, the right is restored. Nothing was, in fact, taken. It was merely suppressed. When the oppression stops, the rights, which existed all along--during and before oppression, are enjoyed again. That can only happen if they always existed, regardless of infringement. Otherwise they would have to be returned or restored through some other human action other than INaction.
1
@nout4812 Yeah, you know I argued a lot more than that. I've not even in the slightest interest in engaging with someone who either is purposefully not wanting to argue in good faith or lacks the common courtesy of knowing how to do so. I'm already on Twitter, so I have my fill of complete idiots there, thanks.
1