The problem is that the creator isn’t very responsive to requests for clarification.

Without writing down what our natural rights are in a way that is understandable, you’re stuck trying to reconcile religious beliefs. How do you deal with an individual who believes that people of African descent we designated by the creator as less than human?

We deal with this today in other contexts. Ambiguity and conviction don’t mix well.

That was basically the debate that occurred, the risk of not writing them down was also very large for the reasons you mention. It’s only a problem if that list is then viewed as a) what defines those rights and / or b) is an exhaustive list. Unfortunately, that is what tends to happen over time, hence the need for constant pushback on people who attempt such shenanigans.

As far as your other question, it comes back to coercion vs those rights. If some jackass wants to believe that, I can’t change those beliefs. But I can certainly support the right of self-defense or shared defense of the intended victim if that ideology is used to attack them.

It's a complex issue for sure. There was a time where I was more drawn to being against the list.

But... when you look at how the world turns, and that Jim Crow was legal well into my parents lifetime, and that some individuals fight against things like privacy rights in pursuit of their own agenda and others fight for universal payments under the guise of "general welfare", the scope provided by a written list seems like the pragmatic choice.

Right, the pragmatic approach is fine as long as the ontological basis of rights is maintained in the culture.

This is actually my favorite comment of the year.

Pardon the ignorant question, but what did you study to learn this? My midwestern education completely failed me here. I'd like to read whatever it is you read.

Thank you. :)

Man, I wish I had a simple answer for you, it's basically what I've pieced together over the years by trying to fill in the gaps in my own midwestern education.

A lot of it, I did pick up by digging into the history the Federalist / Anti-Federalist papers themselves, as well as various readings on the Founders / framing of the Constitution. If I think of anything specific I can point to, I'll follow back up here.

Thank you. Honestly, any starting point whatsoever would be extremely helpful. That's the thing that's prevented me from ever seriously diving in, mostly because life makes so little time for it. But I can make the time now.

I find it worthwhile to re-read the Declaration of Independence from time to time, even more so than the US Constitution (for some of the reasons mentioned above).

The Anti-Federalist Papers aren't necessarily easy to breeze through, but definitely worth reading: https://www.amazon.com/Anti-Federalist-Papers-Dover-Thrift-E...

They can also be found in audio format here, and elsewhere: https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/q3qhq-50128/The-Anti-...

The real mindset change happened, for me, when I saw that coercion in society is THE enemy. All actions and interactions should be voluntary. It's when those lines are crossed that crimes and evil occur. Everything flows from that, in my opinion.

This is why, in debate, i prefer not to use the word law and instead refer to them are "regulation"

Regulation is generated by those in power and largely

The law comes from the constitution alone.