Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Here is an interesting article about concepts of property in philosophy.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/property/

One thing you will note is that there is a concept of collective or non-private property. Would this conflict with the idea of a right to private property?

Or people just want things and will often be intimidated by the consequence society put up for stealing. (not even society, they could just be intimidated by the person they are stealing it from)

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Here is an interesting article about concepts of property in philosophy.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/property/

One thing you will note is that there is a concept of collective or non-private property. Would this conflict with the idea of a right to private property?

I don't think so. I don't have direct private ownership over everything I use and I don't need to have it. In a society you have communal property and private property. You can have societies that have both or only private property (in theory) but I don't think you can have only collective property rights. I don't think it's possible to stamp out individuality from people and that individuality is going to need to be expressed and that's when private property comes into play. Everyone is going to want some form of their own stuff and to make it theirs so you'll always have some level of private property ownership.

I have a natural inalienable right to my body and what I do with my body including the work I use my body to do. SInce I own my body and the work it does I also own all or at least part of the proceeds of that work. Since I own the proceeds I own what I use the proceeds to procure for myself, hence creating property that is solely mine.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Here is an interesting article about concepts of property in philosophy.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/property/

One thing you will note is that there is a concept of collective or non-private property. Would this conflict with the idea of a right to private property?

I don't think so. I don't have direct private ownership over everything I use and I don't need to have it. In a society you have communal property and private property. You can have societies that have both or only private property (in theory) but I don't think you can have only collective property rights. I don't think it's possible to stamp out individuality from people and that individuality is going to need to be expressed and that's when private property comes into play. Everyone is going to want some form of their own stuff and to make it theirs so you'll always have some level of private property ownership.

I have a natural inalienable right to my body and what I do with my body including the work I use my body to do. SInce I own my body and the work it does I also own all or at least part of the proceeds of that work. Since I own the proceeds I own what I use the proceeds to procure for myself, hence creating property that is solely mine.

But that relies on your claim that you have an inalienable right to your body. You haven't proven that.

One might claim that children belong to their parents who made them.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
One might claim that children belong to their parents who made them.

Yeah you never hear the end of it with Asian parents

but even then you cant do anything you want with your body.

you certainly cant sell it.
Nor can you put certain substances.
and in some places the government can take parts away from you as punishment.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Here is an interesting article about concepts of property in philosophy.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/property/

One thing you will note is that there is a concept of collective or non-private property. Would this conflict with the idea of a right to private property?

I don't think so. I don't have direct private ownership over everything I use and I don't need to have it. In a society you have communal property and private property. You can have societies that have both or only private property (in theory) but I don't think you can have only collective property rights. I don't think it's possible to stamp out individuality from people and that individuality is going to need to be expressed and that's when private property comes into play. Everyone is going to want some form of their own stuff and to make it theirs so you'll always have some level of private property ownership.

I have a natural inalienable right to my body and what I do with my body including the work I use my body to do. SInce I own my body and the work it does I also own all or at least part of the proceeds of that work. Since I own the proceeds I own what I use the proceeds to procure for myself, hence creating property that is solely mine.

That's very John Locke of you, seeing as he is the guy who helped bring forward the idea of mixing an object with labour to make it your own.

He also used it as an excuse to kick native Americans off their own land, but nobody is perfect I suppose.

With right to property, I don't think it's inalienable and a lot of it comes down to selfishness. Babies might get this weird idea that something that they own is there is theirs, but they also think everything under the sun is theirs too, they don't care if someone else has it, they want it. And it kind of shows that they don't understand or have an innate right to property, because if they did they would instinctively respect other people's property too.

Unless all babies are fethheads, which I'd also accept because they are.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
One might claim that children belong to their parents who made them.

like the Mother who screams " I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it too!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
which is the point if the bill of rights are removed or any part there of, this is no longer America since America was founded on them, so since I was born an American I was born with those rights, or is what you said wrong?

Truly the third amendment defines what it means to be an American.

and its that very amendment that should tell you the first 10 amendments are inviolate and essentially untouchable, see later amendments are prone to be created and removed but the first 10, the bill of rights or actually etched in stone and cannot be removed but by a dictatorship, the third amendments is testament to that a law that has no bearing and has not been used in how long, and yet it still exists because it is in the first holy 10 of the Constitution the bill of rights.

Asterios wrote:


and its that very amendment that should tell you the first 10 amendments are inviolate and essentially untouchable, see later amendments are prone to be created and removed but the first 10, the bill of rights or actually etched in stone and cannot be removed but by a dictatorship, the third amendments is testament to that a law that has no bearing and has not been used in how long, and yet it still exists because it is in the first holy 10 of the Constitution the bill of rights.

Pretty sure that an amendment that said that the 3rd amendment no longer applied could be introduced in an entirely democratic way.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Asterios wrote:


and its that very amendment that should tell you the first 10 amendments are inviolate and essentially untouchable, see later amendments are prone to be created and removed but the first 10, the bill of rights or actually etched in stone and cannot be removed but by a dictatorship, the third amendments is testament to that a law that has no bearing and has not been used in how long, and yet it still exists because it is in the first holy 10 of the Constitution the bill of rights.

Pretty sure that an amendment that said that the 3rd amendment no longer applied could be introduced in an entirely democratic way.

and yet it hasn't after 200 years of not even being used.

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Asterios wrote:


and its that very amendment that should tell you the first 10 amendments are inviolate and essentially untouchable, see later amendments are prone to be created and removed but the first 10, the bill of rights or actually etched in stone and cannot be removed but by a dictatorship, the third amendments is testament to that a law that has no bearing and has not been used in how long, and yet it still exists because it is in the first holy 10 of the Constitution the bill of rights.

Pretty sure that an amendment that said that the 3rd amendment no longer applied could be introduced in an entirely democratic way.

and yet it hasn't after 200 years of not even being used.

That might be the most pointless answer I've ever gotten here on DakkaDakka.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Asterios wrote:


and its that very amendment that should tell you the first 10 amendments are inviolate and essentially untouchable, see later amendments are prone to be created and removed but the first 10, the bill of rights or actually etched in stone and cannot be removed but by a dictatorship, the third amendments is testament to that a law that has no bearing and has not been used in how long, and yet it still exists because it is in the first holy 10 of the Constitution the bill of rights.

Pretty sure that an amendment that said that the 3rd amendment no longer applied could be introduced in an entirely democratic way.

and yet it hasn't after 200 years of not even being used.

That might be the most pointless answer I've ever gotten here on DakkaDakka.

because it proves your theory wrong? that you think one of the first 10 Amendments can be revoked or removed and yet here is one that has not been used in over 200 years and yet it still resides there untouched, unscathed and so forth.

as it goes it takes a 2/3rds majority to revoke an amendment, both parties have had such majorities and yet neither has willfully changed an Amendment as fundamental as the 2nd. amendment or even the first let alone a useless amendment like the 3rd.

The only rights you truly have are those that you can defend yourself. If the government gives them to you, it can also take them away.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
The only rights you truly have are those that you can defend yourself. If the government gives them to you, it can also take them away.

some countries you do not have the right to defend yourself.

Well you certainly CAN do it, you just have to face the consequences that are set.

Asterios wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
The only rights you truly have are those that you can defend yourself. If the government gives them to you, it can also take them away.

some countries you do not have the right to defend yourself.

What? You'll have to explain this more fully.

If you resist a lawful representative of the US government, be it police or whatever, you're going to suffer the consequences, up to and including death.

Asterios wrote:
because it proves your theory wrong? that you think one of the first 10 Amendments can be revoked or removed and yet here is one that has not been used in over 200 years and yet it still resides there untouched, unscathed and so forth.

It's a useless answer because it ignores the fact that redundant laws are ignored all the time. Even blatantly unconstitutional laws that can't be enforced anymore are often left intact because nobody bothers to repeal them. The fact that the third amendment still exists doesn't prove that it's some sacred part of what it means to be American, it just means that nobody cares enough to change it.

as it goes it takes a 2/3rds majority to revoke an amendment, both parties have had such majorities and yet neither has willfully changed an Amendment as fundamental as the 2nd. amendment or even the first let alone a useless amendment like the 3rd.

This also doesn't say very much because merely having a majority in the government doesn't mean that your immediate priority is to rewrite the constitution. For example, repealing the second amendment would make it easier to pass gun control laws, but many of the people who support those gun control laws don't support a total ban. And the most common suggestions for gun control laws* can probably be done without changing the second amendment. So why invest political resources into attempting to change something that isn't necessary for your agenda?

*For example, banning "assault weapons", a law that already existed in the past without any constitutional issues.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Spoiler:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Yay sociology.....


I would say that there is no such thing as a fundamental right, they do not exist. All of our rights are social constructs, but we have had some social rights for such a long time that they appear fundamental.

There is no unalienable right to life, there is a social one, but you are not born with the right to life. It can be taken from you, or you can take it away yourself (suicide) and if you have the ability to deprive a right, it's not unalienable.

No the ability for others or myself to end my life doesn't take away my right to life or give others the right to murder me. I am physically able to murder my neighbor but my neighbor has a right to keep his life and I don't have a right to murder him. Murder is an unjustified killing, that's why nobody has a right to do it. The capability to do something is not the same as having a right to do something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Yay sociology.....


I would say that there is no such thing as a fundamental right, they do not exist. All of our rights are social constructs, but we have had some social rights for such a long time that they appear fundamental.

There is no unalienable right to life, there is a social one, but you are not born with the right to life. It can be taken from you, or you can take it away yourself (suicide) and if you have the ability to deprive a right, it's not unalienable.

so essentially you are saying nobody has any basic human rights?

Socially they do, but we are not born with human rights. Are ants born with fundamental rights? How about Viruses or bacteria? We are the same as every other animal, except we have a law based society.

We are demonstrably different from other animals and life forms. We are self aware, we have language and culture and higher levels of cognitive thought. We all have natural rights and we are all innately aware of them. You're born alive, you know you're alive, you know you want to stay alive and you know you want to defend yourself from harm. You are innately aware that you have a right to your life, a right to defend yourself and a right to be secure in your person. We even have an innate understanding of property rights because we understand ownership on an instinctive level.

So you are saying humans are demonstrably different because we have higher degrees of things found in other animals? Even a bug avoids death, and many animals demonstrate awareness of self and communication with others. You illustration of inalienable rights seems to be a lot closer to examples of survival instinct. Giving a baby resisting a changing as somehow an acknowledgement of "property" is an extremely poor example- human babies resist uncertainties that they perceive as threat. Some babies are fussy about changing, some not so much. Most will happily pee all over the place since they are largely acting at an instinctual level. Humans inherently seek survival advantages, including acquisition of resources. So do ants.

Rights are nothing more than a conceptual scheme to encompass the most fundamental human values. Mainly, we don't like being killed off, abused, etc. Much like most animals. But they are still social constructs that have no meaning outside of societal protections. The fact that their is great debate about which ones beyond life are inherent rights indicates how arbitrary they really are.

Rights serve a great role in enumerating goals of society as it moved beyond simple "big man" and warrior caste systems, but should not be confused with the cold, concrete realities of nature which recognizes nothing that cannot be actuated (generally by force or threat of force).

 Peregrine wrote:


*For example, banning "assault weapons", a law that already existed in the past without any constitutional issues.

a law that still exists in some states, but the point is to repeal, alter, change an amendment is not a quick and easy process sometimes it takes years to do, look at the 27th Amendment it was approved by the house and senate in 1789 and yet was not even ratified till 1992, even the prohibition the 18th. Amendment instituted in 1919 took till 1933 to be repealed by the 21st. Amendment it took years to repeal and it was pretty much agreed upon by all involved to repeal.

so even to repeal an amendment you have to make a new Amendment to repeal it.

Asterios wrote:
a law that still exists in some states, but the point is to repeal, alter, change an amendment is not a quick and easy process sometimes it takes years to do, look at the 27th Amendment it was approved by the house and senate in 1789 and yet was not even ratified till 1992, even the prohibition the 18th. Amendment instituted in 1919 took till 1933 to be repealed by the 21st. Amendment it took years to repeal and it was pretty much agreed upon by all involved to repeal.

so even to repeal an amendment you have to make a new Amendment to repeal it.

You do realize that you're just making my point for me, right?

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
a law that still exists in some states, but the point is to repeal, alter, change an amendment is not a quick and easy process sometimes it takes years to do, look at the 27th Amendment it was approved by the house and senate in 1789 and yet was not even ratified till 1992, even the prohibition the 18th. Amendment instituted in 1919 took till 1933 to be repealed by the 21st. Amendment it took years to repeal and it was pretty much agreed upon by all involved to repeal.

so even to repeal an amendment you have to make a new Amendment to repeal it.

You do realize that you're just making my point for me, right?

no my point is repealing the 2nd. amendment is an option that will not happen, mostly because of the last word of the second amendment, doing so will mean the amendments are nothing and the constitution is nothing but useless toilet paper.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
The only rights you truly have are those that you can defend yourself. If the government gives them to you, it can also take them away.

I'll go further and change 'can defend' to 'are able and willing to defend'.

One can always violate another's rights. We use the word violate intentionally. The right exists. It does not cease to exist. It is violated, sometimes by another person, sometimes by all this 'social construct' crap some of you are chucking around. But if someone is willing and able they can refuse or defend against the violation. They may find themselves unable to do so, but that does not change the fact that they had a right, even if it was violated.

That's a good point.

The question is where these rights come from. If only a construct of society then presumably society can deconstruct them. Slavery might be an example though I would say that is an example of a fundamental objective right that arises from nature being violated by constructivism.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's a good point.

The question is where these rights come from. If only a construct of society then presumably society can deconstruct them. Slavery might be an example though I would say that is an example of a fundamental objective right that arises from nature being violated by constructivism.

I don't believe the 'social construct' aspect at all. Give me two folks alone some place and only enough water for one to survive. Each has the right to live in their own mind, regardless of 'social constructs' and the one best able to defend his right is gonna violate the crap out of the other one. We, especially in the 'civilized' world are lucky. Our ancestors scraped by and figured out ways to help each other protect their rights, and adopted practices and in most cases were willing to accept limits on some rights to help ensure ease of maintaining the rest. That is where your 'social construct' comes in.

I've been places where 'social construct' has broken down completely (or damned close to it). Rights still exist in those places, but some are more willing and able to violate the rights of others in order to cement the safety of their own rights.

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Asterios wrote:


and its that very amendment that should tell you the first 10 amendments are inviolate and essentially untouchable, see later amendments are prone to be created and removed but the first 10, the bill of rights or actually etched in stone and cannot be removed but by a dictatorship, the third amendments is testament to that a law that has no bearing and has not been used in how long, and yet it still exists because it is in the first holy 10 of the Constitution the bill of rights.

Pretty sure that an amendment that said that the 3rd amendment no longer applied could be introduced in an entirely democratic way.

and yet it hasn't after 200 years of not even being used.

That might be the most pointless answer I've ever gotten here on DakkaDakka.

because it proves your theory wrong? that you think one of the first 10 Amendments can be revoked or removed and yet here is one that has not been used in over 200 years and yet it still resides there untouched, unscathed and so forth.

How does it prove ANYTHING? You're trying to claim that just because none of the amendments in the Bill of Rights have been changed to date they can't ever be democratically changed; that's completely insane!

Amendments in The Bill of Rights can't be changed but new amendments can change their effect. As see by the prohibition of alcohol.

CplJake: I don't think you are getting what a social construct is. Rights do not exist in the wild. They are a creation of understanding of human governance and individual demands. They are not inherent to human existence. The ancient Egyptians didn't talk about rights, yet had a tremendous, prosperous empire. Food and death are real things; rights are an idea that we have a society have decided has value. People wanting limited water has nothing to do with "rights"- it is basic animal survival.

Asterios wrote:
no my point is repealing the 2nd. amendment is an option that will not happen, mostly because of the last word of the second amendment, doing so will mean the amendments are nothing and the constitution is nothing but useless toilet paper.

I see. So the entire constitution is meaningless unless everyone can own guns? Did it also become "useless toilet paper" when the various parts allowing slavery were abolished? Or is gun ownership a special snowflake thing that our entire society depends on?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Asterios wrote:


and its that very amendment that should tell you the first 10 amendments are inviolate and essentially untouchable, see later amendments are prone to be created and removed but the first 10, the bill of rights or actually etched in stone and cannot be removed but by a dictatorship, the third amendments is testament to that a law that has no bearing and has not been used in how long, and yet it still exists because it is in the first holy 10 of the Constitution the bill of rights.

Pretty sure that an amendment that said that the 3rd amendment no longer applied could be introduced in an entirely democratic way.

and yet it hasn't after 200 years of not even being used.

That might be the most pointless answer I've ever gotten here on DakkaDakka.

because it proves your theory wrong? that you think one of the first 10 Amendments can be revoked or removed and yet here is one that has not been used in over 200 years and yet it still resides there untouched, unscathed and so forth.

How does it prove ANYTHING? You're trying to claim that just because none of the amendments in the Bill of Rights have been changed to date they can't ever be democratically changed; that's completely insane!

No, it's not "insane", as you put it. It's part of the founding philosophies of this nation.


The Founding Fathers had absolutely no trust whatsoever in majoritarian government (i.e. democracy of any kind). That's why they created a Constitutional Republic, and not a fething "democracy". The House of Representatives was the only "democratic" aspect of the Federal Government, but even that had the "check and balance" of only stakeholders in society (i.e. property owners) could vote in Federal elections. It's why the State governments were allowed the power of regulating the election process in their jurisdictions. It's also why we have the Electoral College and Electorate System (butchered up as it is nowadays). It's only been since the so-called "progressive era" of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, that those checks and balances have been torn down and ripped asunder, and the "democratization" of this country, on the national level, has happened. Now, we have the mess of a Federal Government and the breakdown of our Federalist system we have today.


The Declaration of Independence specifically says:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government."

1. Certain "inalienable rights" are endowed upon us all by the "Creator". We have these rights by virtue of birth.

2. Government are instituted to secure those inalienable rights, by our consent, in a "social contract"

3. When they no longer perform that task, per the social contract, the government in question becomes illegitimate.



The Constitution, when originally drafted, didn't have a Bill of Rights. What people nowadays fail to acknowledge is that such freedoms existed were assumed to be "common sense", Fortunately, the more realistic among the powers that be understood that a Bill of Rights in the Constitution was a necessity, considering their recent experiences. Looking at the fact that idiots today bicker over those rights, and we need a bunch of old farts in black robes to tell us what those Amendments mean because we're either stupid or power mad, despite that they are clear, concise, and leave no room for "interpretation", proves the wisdom of those who pushed for the Bill of Rights.


The Constitution does not grant rights. The Federal Government does not grant rights. The "several States" do not grant rights. The "people" do not grant rights. The rights outlined in the first ten Amendments exist and belong to us, regardless of whether there is a government, society, or an existing Amendment. Nobody can legislate or amend those rights out of existence. Those natural rights in the Bill of Rights are necessary and forever tied to the inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Sure, you can call a Constitutional Convention, and amend away the Bill of Rights....on paper. But regardless of that, those rights still exist and we still have the right to exercise them. Regardless of what's on paper, what the "tyranny of the majority", or the few, decrees. Any attempt to "remove" those inalienable rights is a failure of the government "instituted among Men" to secure those rights and adhere to the social contract, is one that becomes a detriment to Liberty. In other words, that government becomes illegitimate. And we know what Jefferson said about the Tree of Liberty.....

The idea of a "living Constitution" is only correct to a point. There are certain parts of the Constitution, as anybody who understands what the founding philosophies and ideals of the country are will know (which many Americans no longer do, or don't care about anymore), fall under the "strict constructionist" idea. Unfortunately, there are people in both camps who argue "all of nothing", and are either ignorant of that fact, or just don't give a good goddamned as long as their agendas carry the day. The Founding Fathers intended for the Constitution to grow and adapt to needs. But they sure as hell didn't intend on donkey-caves trying to suppress those inalienable rights we have, or erase the Bill of Rights.


I hope folks enjoy reading this little history lesson, short write-up on what our Founding ideals were, and outline of what our Founders intended. Because I sure as hell didn't enjoy typing out what should understood by Americans, even in this age of American Idol, ideological bickering, agendas, selfishness, and intellectual laziness. I didn't need some academic prick or Wikipedia to fill my head with nonsense, "interpretation", and theories. I've read the Constitution myself. I've read the Declaration of Independence myself. I've read the the writings of the Founding Fathers myself. I've read the Federalist Papers myself. And to be honest, it doesn't take a lawyer, a professor with a doctorate, a judge, or some nebulous "expert" to understand what was behind our system of government or Constitution.

Have a nice day.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
The Founding Fathers had absolutely no trust whatsoever in majoritarian government (i.e. democracy of any kind). That's why they created a Constitutional Republic, and not a fething "democracy". The House of Representatives was the only "democratic" aspect of the Federal Government, but even that had the "check and balance" of only stakeholders in society (i.e. property owners) could vote in Federal elections. It's why the State governments were allowed the power of regulating the election process in their jurisdictions. It's also why we have the Electoral College and Electorate System (butchered up as it is nowadays).

You seem to have a rather limited understanding of US history. A significant part of why we got the system that we did is various compromises related to slavery. It wasn't some noble and enlightened attempt to avoid the dangers of direct democracy, it was fear that the states with the largest population (IOW, southern states with lots of slaves) would have disproportionate influence. Quite a few of those founding fathers did want direct democracy, and the final result is a compromise between competing factions.

It's only been since the so-called "progressive era" of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, that those checks and balances have been torn down and ripped asunder, and the "democratization" of this country, on the national level, has happened. Now, we have the mess of a Federal Government and the breakdown of our Federalist system we have today.

Ah yes, what a tragedy it is that we have "ripped asunder" the checks and balances of only allowing wealthy white men to vote. Truly we live in a broken world.

The Declaration of Independence

Is not a US legal document. It was a propaganda statement, and the government that immediately followed it doesn't even exist anymore. That failed government, by the way? It was a system with much less central power, and the authors of the constitution made a deliberate choice to change this in the next government.

What people nowadays fail to acknowledge is that such freedoms existed were assumed to be "common sense"

No they weren't. Do you think that the third amendment exists as a purely theoretical exercise in the rights of private property? Of course not. It exists because it wasn't considered common sense that the state can't forcibly borrow your property to house its troops, and the colonial governments had done exactly that. That's why we have an explicit statement that it is not allowed under US law, because without one "common sense" was that it was something that governments did.

Looking at the fact that idiots today bicker over those rights, and we need a bunch of old farts in black robes to tell us what those Amendments mean because we're either stupid or power mad, despite that they are clear, concise, and leave no room for "interpretation", proves the wisdom of those who pushed for the Bill of Rights.

They are perhaps clear and concise, but interpreting them literally is utter lunacy. Things like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, private ownership of nuclear weapons, etc, would be permitted under the strictest interpretation of the first and second amendments. Obviously this is not something we want to have in a functioning society. But don't take my word for it, ask Thomas Jefferson:

"A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."

The Constitution does not grant rights. The Federal Government does not grant rights. The "several States" do not grant rights. The "people" do not grant rights. The rights outlined in the first ten Amendments exist and belong to us, regardless of whether there is a government, society, or an existing Amendment. Nobody can legislate or amend those rights out of existence. Those natural rights in the Bill of Rights are necessary and forever tied to the inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Don't you think this is being a bit dramatic about housing troops on civilian property? I mean, it may be good policy not to do it unless it's really necessary, but I'd hardly think that this is some inherent property of the universe we're talking about, existing independently of any legal system.

And we know what Jefferson said about the Tree of Liberty.....

Thank god Jefferson's statements about the value of revolution are something we've left firmly in the past. One would hope that Jefferson, on seeing the modern world and the horrifying scale of modern warfare, would also reconsider this position.

But they sure as hell didn't intend on donkey-caves trying to suppress those inalienable rights we have, or erase the Bill of Rights.

They were, on the other hand, quite happy to allow slavery to exist. They were happy to limit voting rights to rich white men like themselves. This seems much less like a noble desire to protect inalienable rights than a selfish attempt to ensure that life continued to be good for their fellow rich white men.