[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Rights (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 3/5/2013 6:48:49 AM EDT
|
Rights
A right being the freedom to do as one wish as long as it harms no one physically. With that said, one can see that rights do have limits; rights are by definition self-limiting not limited by government. Let me give you the most used example “You have no right to yell fire in a crowded theater”. Many will argue that is a limitation put on your rights by government, and that would be wrong. The limitation is on the right of freedom of speech because it falls outside the definition of rights in that it harms people to yell fire in a crowded theater. With that said if ones actions fall outside the definition of a right then the government has a right to control the said action, and if it falls inside the definition then it is a personal right. Now to the second amendment, “the right to have and bear arms shall not be infringed.” and in particular the “shall not be infringed” part. There is no question what is meant by that part of the amendment and if it is violated by government that it gives the people the right, authority and obligation to rise up and correct the government by whatever means necessary. Now some may argue that this would give and individual the right to have a nuclear Weapons, and I will argue no, and here is why. Nuclear weapons, and crew served weapons require more than and individual to operate in a reasonable and safe manor, hence they do not fall under individuals rights. One only need to look at the military to find which weapons are protected by individual rights, they would be the ones operated by individuals, in the military. Okay tell me where I am wrong? |
|
Quoted:
To answer your question , no I am no, but I might look into it. I realize that a large part of the US population does no agree with my given, I am trying to understand there given so I might better understand there thought process, or lack of one which ever the case.
Your definition of the word has been debated for centuries. Are you familiar with the Hohfeldian Analytical System? Anyway, I agree with your analysis. Just understand that not everyone agrees with your given. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
To answer your question , no I am no, but I might look into it. I realize that a large part of the US population does no agree with my given, I am trying to understand there given so I might better understand there thought process, or lack of one which ever the case.
Your definition of the word has been debated for centuries. Are you familiar with the Hohfeldian Analytical System? Anyway, I agree with your analysis. Just understand that not everyone agrees with your given. Your given is actually only philosophically supported by a very small minority. I believe in preemption, for instance. If I reasonably believe you are about to shoot me, I'm not going to let you pull the trigger before I shoot you. Similarly, I don't believe DUI laws are an infringement. |
|
Quoted:
As far as shooting someone who is about to shoot you, if you are willing to lay your case before the justice system and except the judgement then so be it. I see DUI laws as no infringement at all, because driving on the highway is a privilege not a right and you subject yourself to the rules when you drive.
Quoted:
Quoted:
To answer your question , no I am no, but I might look into it. I realize that a large part of the US population does no agree with my given, I am trying to understand there given so I might better understand there thought process, or lack of one which ever the case.
Your definition of the word has been debated for centuries. Are you familiar with the Hohfeldian Analytical System? Anyway, I agree with your analysis. Just understand that not everyone agrees with your given. Your given is actually only philosophically supported by a very small minority. I believe in preemption, for instance. If I reasonably believe you are about to shoot me, I'm not going to let you pull the trigger before I shoot you. Similarly, I don't believe DUI laws are an infringement. |
|
The creation of a nuclear weapon defies Natural Law, as it essentially creates permanent damage to the environment (whether you use it or not...you can't exactly just throw enriched nuclear material in the garbage). Nuclear weapons are NOT a natural right.
I can accept limitations to crew-manned weapons. I think your explanation of it is solid. But what if you built an automated tank that 1 person could operate? |
|
Quoted:
"What if" leaves a lot of room for speculation, one would need more information on the device.
The creation of a nuclear weapon defies Natural Law, as it essentially creates permanent damage to the environment (whether you use it or not...you can't exactly just throw enriched nuclear material in the garbage). Nuclear weapons are NOT a natural right. I can accept limitations to crew-manned weapons. I think your explanation of it is solid. But what if you built an automated tank that 1 person could operate? |
|
What are these rights you speak of? It is a very interesting concept.
From where do these..rights come from..and who administers them. Too many think the government has given these rights. Too many think the government has the power to take them away. Too many are willing to sacrifice freedom for perceived security. Too many want to be sheep. |
|
Quoted:
What are these rights you speak of? It is a very interesting concept. From where do these..rights come from..and who administers them. Too many think the government has given these rights. Too many think the government has the power to take them away. Too many are willing to sacrifice freedom for perceived security. Too many want to be sheep. OMG that was deep. |
|
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.
Then... a force continuum to defend Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness 1) Free speech - speak out if these rights are infringed 2) Right to bear arms - use force if speaking out is not good enough 3) No quartering of soldiers - revolution if preliminary use of force is still not good enough |
|
The "crowded theater" thing isn't about free speech or harming people, it's about property ownership. It violates the property rights of the owner, because the patron has disobeyed the rules which he agreed to as a condition of being allowed in the theater. The rules are based on who owns the theater, has nothing to do with free speech. A lot of issues can be solved asking who the property owner is.
Nuclear weapons are another story... 
|
|
Quoted:
Good read, thanks I believe you paid me a compliment. Thanks again.Your definition of the word has been debated for centuries. Are you familiar with the Hohfeldian Analytical System? Anyway, I agree with your analysis. Just understand that not everyone agrees with your given. 
|
|
Quoted:
The "crowded theater" thing isn't about free speech or harming people, it's about property ownership. It violates the property rights of the owner, because the patron has disobeyed the rules which he agreed to as a condition of being allowed in the theater. The rules are based on who owns the theater, has nothing to do with free speech. A lot of issues can be solved asking who the property owner is. Nuclear weapons are another story...
You will find that if one yells fire in a crowded theater and people are hurt or killed that the least of your problems will be a civil suit by the owner. One will have committed a felony and can be looking at major prison time, along with civil charges from those hurt, the families of the dead and the theater owner for damages.  The damages to the theater owner being the least of ones worries.
I will add for you that the argument being made is that the person yells fire in fact it is making a false alarm. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Good read, thanks I believe you paid me a compliment. Thanks again.Your definition of the word has been debated for centuries. Are you familiar with the Hohfeldian Analytical System? Anyway, I agree with your analysis. Just understand that not everyone agrees with your given.
I did. I largely agree with you. The part I was talking about earlier was speaking to your definition: A right being the freedom to do as one wish as long as it harms no one physically.
The subtlety here is that many folks believe that you have a Natural Right to do anything you wish, as long as it harms no one physically. They cleave to this concept the same way the "other" side cleaves to Zero Tolerance. Degrees of Harm are scary to debate...they're more comfortable sticking with the ignorant absolute. Your definition is true (ish) within reason. For instance, it is not Natural (capitalization intended) for me to ignore an imminent threat. Pre emption is part of the Natural Right to self defense. I have a Right to pre empt a slow overhand right with a chopping hook, even though I haven't yet incurred harm. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Good read, thanks I believe you paid me a compliment. Thanks again.Your definition of the word has been debated for centuries. Are you familiar with the Hohfeldian Analytical System? Anyway, I agree with your analysis. Just understand that not everyone agrees with your given.
I did. I largely agree with you. The part I was talking about earlier was speaking to your definition: A right being the freedom to do as one wish as long as it harms no one physically.
The subtlety here is that many folks believe that you have a Natural Right to do anything you wish, as long as it harms no one physically. They cleave to this concept the same way the "other" side cleaves to Zero Tolerance. Degrees of Harm are scary to debate...they're more comfortable sticking with the ignorant absolute. Your definition is true (ish) within reason. For instance, it is not Natural (capitalization intended) for me to ignore an imminent threat. Pre emption is part of the Natural Right to self defense. I have a Right to pre empt a slow overhand right with a chopping hook, even though I haven't yet incurred harm. You have a natural right to do anything that doesn't infringe on someone else's natural rights...physical harm is included, but is not exhaustive. Under Natural Law, you also have a responsibility to enforce Natural Law, meaning it is your responsibility to prevent someone from infringing someone else's natural rights (including your own). The fact that we vest the government with the power to do this on our behalf does NOT relieve us of that responsibility in the absense of government (alone in a dark alley). Ever wonder why all our superheroes are vigilantes? They all have their flaws, but they're predominantly champions of Natural Law. ETA: First statement does not reflect reality, obviously...Americans understand Natural Law about as well as they understand Rule of Law. |
|
Quoted:
I have no problem with your reasoning. Again government should be there only to decide who violated who's rights and correct the problem, it has no constitutional mandate to curtail peoples rights only to correct violators. Yes there are grey areas but if people understand what there rights are they can usually work around or avoid the grey.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Good read, thanks I believe you paid me a compliment. Thanks again.Your definition of the word has been debated for centuries. Are you familiar with the Hohfeldian Analytical System? Anyway, I agree with your analysis. Just understand that not everyone agrees with your given.
I did. I largely agree with you. The part I was talking about earlier was speaking to your definition: A right being the freedom to do as one wish as long as it harms no one physically.
The subtlety here is that many folks believe that you have a Natural Right to do anything you wish, as long as it harms no one physically. They cleave to this concept the same way the "other" side cleaves to Zero Tolerance. Degrees of Harm are scary to debate...they're more comfortable sticking with the ignorant absolute. Your definition is true (ish) within reason. For instance, it is not Natural (capitalization intended) for me to ignore an imminent threat. Pre emption is part of the Natural Right to self defense. I have a Right to pre empt a slow overhand right with a chopping hook, even though I haven't yet incurred harm. I think a large part of the problem in today's society is that people are not being taught to respect others and there rights, but that is most likely giving them more credit than they deserve, most likely they have no clue as to what a right is. |
|
right (righteous)
1. acting in accord with divine or moral law : free from guilt or sin. 2. morally right or justifiable <a righteous decision> rights are "god given" because god is the one who decides what is morally right and wrong, he is referred to as "the Supreme Judge of the world" in the declaration of independence. the idea of rights and self evident truths are from divine law, many ideas behind the declaration and bill of rights came from St. Thomas Aquinas’s “Treatise on Law” found in the Summa Theologiae. the founders were also incorporating ideas from Plato’s "Republic", John Locke, and others. rights are an ethical distinction between right and wrong in the law, so the limits to rights are decided by ethics tests (good vs evil). individuals cant own nuclear weapons because it would recklessly endanger lives and the constitution specifically protects a right to life... liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. if you do something evil with your "right" then it's no longer righteous. the 1a (free speech) is infringed upon for good reasons to create laws against libel, defamation, sedition, and treason. the 2a was supposed to be so important that they exempted it from any infringements at all! militiamen were volunteers and responsible for providing their own weapons, it was deliberately set up that way to prevent tyranny but it didn't last long. a draft was implemented and they began issuing weapons to soldiers which created an imbalance between what people had at home vs what the army had. the 3rd amendment is meant to safeguard against our own govt from keeping standing armies in our cities, Britain was forcing us to house redcoats in our own homes and using them as oppressive police forces. the founders would frown on the heavily armed police forces that we have got installed today in our cities, they are basically a standing army. the declaration says that people will suffer and put up with a lot of crap, they can make changes peacefully before its too late but won't do it because they won't be motivated to change what they've gradually become accustomed to. they will wait til the govt begins to show obvious signs of an absolutely evil corrupt system of dictatorship, with a long string of abuses against the people, and if it gets that bad it's our duty to fix it by force, not only our right but our duty. you will know when that time has come because commandos will be ransacking door to door executing blanket issued search warrants and shit like that. |
|
Quoted:
There are many problems with what you say but this bothers me most " rights are an ethical distinction between right and wrong in the law" given that the record of the people in government is far less than satisfactory in the ethics department It is not wise to count on them to determine what your rights are. A good example is Row"V"Wade while it may be law many find no right in it.
right (righteous) 1. acting in accord with divine or moral law : free from guilt or sin. 2. morally right or justifiable <a righteous decision> rights are "god given" because god is the one who decides what is morally right and wrong, he is referred to as "the Supreme Judge of the world" in the declaration of independence. the idea of rights and self evident truths are from divine law, many ideas behind the declaration and bill of rights came from St. Thomas Aquinas’s “Treatise on Law” found in the Summa Theologiae. the founders were also incorporating ideas from Plato’s "Republic", John Locke, and others. rights are an ethical distinction between right and wrong in the law, so the limits to rights are decided by ethics tests (good vs evil). individuals cant own nuclear weapons because it would recklessly endanger lives and the constitution specifically protects a right to life... liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. if you do something evil with your "right" then it's no longer righteous. the 1a (free speech) is infringed upon for good reasons to create laws against libel, defamation, sedition, and treason. the 2a was supposed to be so important that they exempted it from any infringements at all! militiamen were volunteers and responsible for providing their own weapons, it was deliberately set up that way to prevent tyranny but it didn't last long. a draft was implemented and they began issuing weapons to soldiers which created an imbalance between what people had at home vs what the army had. the 3rd amendment is meant to safeguard against our own govt from keeping standing armies in our cities, Britain was forcing us to house redcoats in our own homes and using them as oppressive police forces. the founders would frown on the heavily armed police forces that we have got installed today in our cities, they are basically a standing army. the declaration says that people will suffer and put up with a lot of crap, they can make changes peacefully before its too late but won't do it because they won't be motivated to change what they've gradually become accustomed to. they will wait til the govt begins to show obvious signs of an absolutely evil corrupt system of dictatorship, with a long string of abuses against the people, and if it gets that bad it's our duty to fix it by force, not only our right but our duty. you will know when that time has come because commandos will be ransacking door to door executing blanket issued search warrants and shit like that. |
|
Quoted:
right (righteous) 1. acting in accord with divine or moral law : free from guilt or sin. 2. morally right or justifiable <a righteous decision> rights are "god given" because god is the one who decides what is morally right and wrong, he is referred to as "the Supreme Judge of the world" in the declaration of independence. the idea of rights and self evident truths are from divine law, many ideas behind the declaration and bill of rights came from St. Thomas Aquinas’s “Treatise on Law” found in the Summa Theologiae. the founders were also incorporating ideas from Plato’s "Republic", John Locke, and others. rights are an ethical distinction between right and wrong in the law, so the limits to rights are decided by ethics tests (good vs evil). individuals cant own nuclear weapons because it would recklessly endanger lives and the constitution specifically protects a right to life... liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. if you do something evil with your "right" then it's no longer righteous. the 1a (free speech) is infringed upon for good reasons to create laws against libel, defamation, sedition, and treason. the 2a was supposed to be so important that they exempted it from any infringements at all! militiamen were volunteers and responsible for providing their own weapons, it was deliberately set up that way to prevent tyranny but it didn't last long. a draft was implemented and they began issuing weapons to soldiers which created an imbalance between what people had at home vs what the army had. the 3rd amendment is meant to safeguard against our own govt from keeping standing armies in our cities, Britain was forcing us to house redcoats in our own homes and using them as oppressive police forces. the founders would frown on the heavily armed police forces that we have got installed today in our cities, they are basically a standing army. the declaration says that people will suffer and put up with a lot of crap, they can make changes peacefully before its too late but won't do it because they won't be motivated to change what they've gradually become accustomed to. they will wait til the govt begins to show obvious signs of an absolutely evil corrupt system of dictatorship, with a long string of abuses against the people, and if it gets that bad it's our duty to fix it by force, not only our right but our duty. you will know when that time has come because commandos will be ransacking door to door executing blanket issued search warrants and shit like that. You used the incorrect contextual definition of Right. Your definition of Natural Rights is completely flawed. Rights aren't a moral distinction. They are dictated by the Natural state of being. That makes them derived from God, fine, but not in the manner you describe. |
| As stated above "A right being the freedom to do as one wish as long as it harms no one physically." You may choose to put limits on your own rights for religious and or moral reasons and that is your right, that does not preclude others from exercising there rights to the maximum as long as it does not go beyond the boundaries of what a right is. And again government should only play a part in this when a person steps beyond what a right is. |
|
rights are nothing more than pie in the sky philosophical debates.
your "rights" only exist in the ability for you to claim them from society. you can scream from the highest mountain about your right of free speech or right to own a gun. If society sends it's armed agents to oppress you,then no you don't have that right. What our founding documents call rights, today are privileges in every sense on the word. free speech has been gone for years, 2A is so heavily regulated as to be a joke, want to assemble to protest.. sorry only with a permit and permission, search and seizure... ALWAYS THINK FORFEITURE, 10th amendment dies after the civil war. your "god given rights" are moot when the government stops recognizing them. |
|
Quoted:
Government could make a law outlawing the use of rights altogether, but you still have your rights. The only problem being would you have the will to use them.
rights are nothing more than pie in the sky philosophical debates. your "rights" only exist in the ability for you to claim them from society. you can scream from the highest mountain about your right of free speech or right to own a gun. If society sends it's armed agents to oppress you,then no you don't have that right. What our founding documents call rights, today are privileges in every sense on the word. free speech has been gone for years, 2A is so heavily regulated as to be a joke, want to assemble to protest.. sorry only with a permit and permission, search and seizure... ALWAYS THINK FORFEITURE, 10th amendment dies after the civil war. your "god given rights" are moot when the government stops recognizing them. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Government could make a law outlawing the use of rights altogether, but you still have your rights. The only problem being would you have the will to use them.
rights are nothing more than pie in the sky philosophical debates. your "rights" only exist in the ability for you to claim them from society. you can scream from the highest mountain about your right of free speech or right to own a gun. If society sends it's armed agents to oppress you,then no you don't have that right. What our founding documents call rights, today are privileges in every sense on the word. free speech has been gone for years, 2A is so heavily regulated as to be a joke, want to assemble to protest.. sorry only with a permit and permission, search and seizure... ALWAYS THINK FORFEITURE, 10th amendment dies after the civil war. your "god given rights" are moot when the government stops recognizing them. i argue you would not as they do not nor ever have existed. a god given "right" can not be taken away. a convicted felon loses many of his rights up to and including his right to life. if you live as a peaceful citizen you are granted privileges of citizenship by society/gov. those privileges are modified at the whim of society. therefore they simply cannot be rights. |
|
excellent read. the very concept of such a thing is incompatible with ANY form of government.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/973633/posts WHAT IS A RIGHT? Fatal Blindness (FR archives) ^ | 06/14/99 | Fulton Huxtable Posted on 8/31/2003 11:27:09 AM by NMC EXP A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. The concept of a right carries with it an implicit, unstated footnote: you may exercise your rights as long as you do not violate the same rights of another—within this context, rights are an absolute. A right is universal—meaning: it applies to all men, not just to a few. There is no such thing as a "right" for one man, or a group of men, that is not possessed by all. This means there are no special "rights" unique to women or men, blacks or white, the elderly or the young, homosexuals or heterosexuals, the rich or the poor, doctors or patients or any other group. A right must be exercised through your own initiative and action. It is not a claim on others. A right is not actualized and implemented by the actions of others. This means you do not have the right to the time in another person’s life. You do not have a right to other people’s money. You do not have the right to another person’s property. If you wish to acquire some money from another person, you must earn it—then you have a right to it. If you wish to gain some benefit from the time of another person’s life, you must gain it through the voluntary cooperation of that individual—not through coercion. If you wish to possess some item of property of another individual, you must buy it on terms acceptable to the owner—not gain it through theft. Alone in a wilderness, the concept of a right would never occur to you, even though in such isolation you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In this solitude, you would be free to take the actions needed to sustain your life: hunt for food, grow crops, build a shelter and so on. If a hundred new settlers suddenly arrive in your area and establish a community, you do not gain any additional rights by living in such a society nor do you lose any; you simply retain the same rights you possessed when you were alone. A right defines what you may do without the permission of those other men and it erects a moral and legal barrier across which they may not cross. It is your protection against those who attempt to forcibly take some of your life’s time, your money or property. Animals do not have rights. Rights only apply to beings capable of thought, capable of defining rights and creating an organized means—government—of protecting such rights. Thus, a fly or mosquito does not possess rights of any kind, including the right to life. You may swat a fly or mosquito, killing them both. You do not have the right to do the same to another human being, except in self-defense. You may own and raise cows, keep them in captivity and milk them for all they are worth. You do not have the right to do the same to other men, although that is what statists effectively do to you. There is only one, fundamental right, the right to life—which is: the sovereignty to follow your own judgment, without anyone’s permission, about the actions in your life. All other rights are applications of this right to specific contexts, such as property and freedom of speech. The right to property is the right to take the action needed to create and/or earn the material means needed for living. Once you have earned it, then that particular property is yours—which means: you have the right to control the use and disposal of that property. It may not be taken from you or used by others without your permission. Freedom of speech is the right to say anything you wish, using any medium of communication you can afford. It is not the responsibility of others to pay for some means of expression or to provide you with a platform on which to speak. If a newspaper or television station refuses to allow you to express your views utilizing their property, your right to freedom of speech has not been violated and this is not censorship. Censorship is a concept that only applies to government action, the action of forcibly forbidding and/or punishing the expression of certain ideas. Statists have corrupted the actual meaning of a right and have converted it, in the minds of most, into its opposite: into a claim on the life of another. With the growth of statism, over the past few decades, we have seen an explosion of these "rights"—which, in fact, have gradually eroded your actual right to your life, money and property. Statists declare you have a "right" to housing, to a job, to health care, to an education, to a minimum wage, to preferential treatment if you are a minority and so on. These "rights" are all a claim, a lien, on your life and the lives of others. These "rights" impose a form of involuntary servitude on you and others. These "rights" force you to pay for someone’s housing, their health care, their education, for training for a job—and, it forces others to provide special treatment for certain groups and to pay higher-than-necessary wages. Under statism, "rights" are a means of enslavement: it places a mortgage on your life—and statists are the mortgage holders, on the receiving end of unearned payments forcibly extracted from your life and your earnings. You do not have a right to your life, others do. Others do not have a right to their lives, either, but you have a "right" to theirs. Such a concept of "rights" forcibly hog-ties everyone to everyone else, making everyone a slave to everyone else—except for those masters, statist politicians, who pull the strings and crack the whips. Actual rights—those actions to which you are entitled by your nature as man—give you clear title to your life. A right is your declaration of independence. A statist "right" is their declaration of your dependence on others and other's dependence on you. Until these bogus "rights" are repudiated, your freedom to live your life as you see fit will continue to slowly disappear. |
|
My views are pretty much that ones "Rights" end when they infringe on the Rights of another.
I have a right to let my dog sit outside and bark But my neighbor has a Right to a quiet and peaceful home. So if my Barking dog infringes on his Right to a quiet home then I, being the infringing one need to voluntarily curtail my rights and quiet my dog. |
|
Quoted:
My views are pretty much that ones "Rights" end when they infringe on the Rights of another. I have a right to let my dog sit outside and bark But my neighbor has a Right to a quiet and peaceful home. So if my Barking dog infringes on his Right to a quiet home then I, being the infringing one need to voluntarily curtail my rights and quiet my dog. if your right "ends" is it really a right? |
|
Quoted:
Actually you have no right to let your dog bark if it Bothers your neighbor. Your rights ended where his rights began. What I am saying is you are not curtailing your rights but they no longer exist.My views are pretty much that ones "Rights" end when they infringe on the Rights of another. I have a right to let my dog sit outside and bark But my neighbor has a Right to a quiet and peaceful home. So if my Barking dog infringes on his Right to a quiet home then I, being the infringing one need to voluntarily curtail my rights and quiet my dog. after thinking about this I realized, I should point out that your barking dog is most likely not a violation of your neighbors rights unless it does harm physical harm to him but more likely a violation of rules that you consented to when you moved into the neighborhood.
|
|
Quoted:
My views are pretty much that ones "Rights" end when they infringe on the Rights of another. I have a right to let my dog sit outside and bark But my neighbor has a Right to a quiet and peaceful home. So if my Barking dog infringes on his Right to a quiet home then I, being the infringing one need to voluntarily curtail my rights and quiet my dog. Your neighbor has no natural right to a quiet and peaceful home. Your neighbor has a natural right to move someplace quiet and peaceful, or to buy a large enough piece of land that disturbances at the property line won't be likely to disturb him in his residence. Your neighbor may have rights to a quiet and peaceful home, granted by local law. In this case, you have agreed to abide by those laws by living there, and have surrendered your right, under law, to let your dog bark outside. The thing to remember, though, is the very basic principal on which Natural Law is based: the Golden Rule. Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. |
|
Quoted:
Let me see if I can get this headed in a different direction. Does anyone have a problem with the concept of of rights being "freedom to do as one wish as long as it harms no one physically" and if so why? what about financially? what about mentally <ie.. loud music annoying you>? |
|
Quoted:
Financially, yes one can snow physical harm, damage or lose of ones property that is real. Mentally no you and you alone are in control of your mind and what you think and do, no one else can change your mind it's the only thing you are in total control of.(others may do things to cause you to change your mind but in the end it's your decision.) Being annoyed is a mental state just as happiness is, you have a right to pursue it, not to have it.
Quoted:
Let me see if I can get this headed in a different direction. Does anyone have a problem with the concept of of rights being "freedom to do as one wish as long as it harms no one physically" and if so why? what about financially? what about mentally <ie.. loud music annoying you>? |
|
It's not that simple. First off, physical harm is not the only reasonable or natural limitation on rights. Causing someone undue financial/property harm is also a limitation on rights. A robber breaking into your house just to steal your TV does not physically harm you, but no one would argue that forbidding the robber from doing so would infringe on his pursuit of happiness. No one has the right to deliberately deceive you for their own financial gain, and no reasonable person would argue that forbidding someone from doing so would infringe on their pursuit of happiness. Second, government is a necessary step in securing rights. Without government, the weak have no way to secure their rights against the strong. In order for government to act, boundaries must be defined, both on where individual liberties end and government authority begins. The issue that America has is spelled out specifically in the Declaration of Independence. Governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. Americans have abdicated a lot of authority to government. The animating contest for liberty, they process of keeping government in check and assuming certain risks with regards to liberty, is too much for them and so they have turned it over to government to decide how best to provide them with the security and wealth which they prefer over liberty. Our present situation is one of our own creation and the leviathan will only grow until the American people decide that risk of liberty is preferable to the risk of tyranny.
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Financially, yes one can snow physical harm, damage or lose of ones property that is real. Mentally no you and you alone are in control of your mind and what you think and do, no one else can change your mind it's the only thing you are in total control of.(others may do things to cause you to change your mind but in the end it's your decision.) Being annoyed is a mental state just as happiness is, you have a right to pursue it, not to have it. Quoted: Let me see if I can get this headed in a different direction. Does anyone have a problem with the concept of of rights being "freedom to do as one wish as long as it harms no one physically" and if so why? what about financially? what about mentally <ie.. loud music annoying you>? If I live next door to you and play loud music which you hate day and night, then am I not interfering with you pursuit of happiness? |
|
Quoted:
You will note I did not say you had a right to happiness only you have a right to pursue it. You have several options, one you can come over and ask that I turn the music down, or you may be able to call the police and have them come and explain to me that there is and ordnance against loud music, with a fine if I don't turn it down. When one lives in a city one has entered into a consensual contract with the city to obey there rules.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Financially, yes one can snow physical harm, damage or lose of ones property that is real. Mentally no you and you alone are in control of your mind and what you think and do, no one else can change your mind it's the only thing you are in total control of.(others may do things to cause you to change your mind but in the end it's your decision.) Being annoyed is a mental state just as happiness is, you have a right to pursue it, not to have it.
Quoted:
Let me see if I can get this headed in a different direction. Does anyone have a problem with the concept of of rights being "freedom to do as one wish as long as it harms no one physically" and if so why? what about financially? what about mentally <ie.. loud music annoying you>? If I live next door to you and play loud music which you hate day and night, then am I not interfering with you pursuit of happiness? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: You will note I did not say you had a right to happiness only you have a right to pursue it. You have several options, one you can come over and ask that I turn the music down, or you may be able to call the police and have them come and explain to me that there is and ordnance against loud music, with a fine if I don't turn it down. When one lives in a city one has entered into a consensual contract with the city to obey there rules. Quoted: Quoted: Financially, yes one can snow physical harm, damage or lose of ones property that is real. Mentally no you and you alone are in control of your mind and what you think and do, no one else can change your mind it's the only thing you are in total control of.(others may do things to cause you to change your mind but in the end it's your decision.) Being annoyed is a mental state just as happiness is, you have a right to pursue it, not to have it. Quoted: Let me see if I can get this headed in a different direction. Does anyone have a problem with the concept of of rights being "freedom to do as one wish as long as it harms no one physically" and if so why? what about financially? what about mentally <ie.. loud music annoying you>? If I live next door to you and play loud music which you hate day and night, then am I not interfering with you pursuit of happiness? You can't be oppressing me with your goon squad! If I want to play my NWA at full volume from oversized speaker cabinets, then you have no right infringing on my rights with your armed statist BS! You don't own the air, so if I want to put sound waves in the air then that's my business!
|
|
Quoted:
I see no limitation on your rights rather you voluntarily gave up your rights to live in the city, if you did not like living with though restrictions on your rights to move. Keep in mind that one does have a right to play music also.
Quoted:
Quoted:
You will note I did not say you had a right to happiness only you have a right to pursue it. You have several options, one you can come over and ask that I turn the music down, or you may be able to call the police and have them come and explain to me that there is and ordnance against loud music, with a fine if I don't turn it down. When one lives in a city one has entered into a consensual contract with the city to obey there rules.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Financially, yes one can snow physical harm, damage or lose of ones property that is real. Mentally no you and you alone are in control of your mind and what you think and do, no one else can change your mind it's the only thing you are in total control of.(others may do things to cause you to change your mind but in the end it's your decision.) Being annoyed is a mental state just as happiness is, you have a right to pursue it, not to have it.
Quoted:
Let me see if I can get this headed in a different direction. Does anyone have a problem with the concept of of rights being "freedom to do as one wish as long as it harms no one physically" and if so why? what about financially? what about mentally <ie.. loud music annoying you>? If I live next door to you and play loud music which you hate day and night, then am I not interfering with you pursuit of happiness? You can't be oppressing me with your goon squad! If I want to play my NWA at full volume from oversized speaker cabinets, then you have no right infringing on my rights with your armed statist BS! You don't own the air, so if I want to put sound waves in the air then that's my business!
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: I see no limitation on your rights rather you voluntarily gave up your rights to live in the city, if you did not like living with though restrictions on your rights to move. Keep in mind that one does have a right to play music also.Quoted: Quoted: You will note I did not say you had a right to happiness only you have a right to pursue it. You have several options, one you can come over and ask that I turn the music down, or you may be able to call the police and have them come and explain to me that there is and ordnance against loud music, with a fine if I don't turn it down. When one lives in a city one has entered into a consensual contract with the city to obey there rules. Quoted: Quoted: Financially, yes one can snow physical harm, damage or lose of ones property that is real. Mentally no you and you alone are in control of your mind and what you think and do, no one else can change your mind it's the only thing you are in total control of.(others may do things to cause you to change your mind but in the end it's your decision.) Being annoyed is a mental state just as happiness is, you have a right to pursue it, not to have it. Quoted: Let me see if I can get this headed in a different direction. Does anyone have a problem with the concept of of rights being "freedom to do as one wish as long as it harms no one physically" and if so why? what about financially? what about mentally <ie.. loud music annoying you>? If I live next door to you and play loud music which you hate day and night, then am I not interfering with you pursuit of happiness? You can't be oppressing me with your goon squad! If I want to play my NWA at full volume from oversized speaker cabinets, then you have no right infringing on my rights with your armed statist BS! You don't own the air, so if I want to put sound waves in the air then that's my business! And that is exactly how our government got control of so much of our lives. People gave up their rights. We the People gave gorvnment it's powers, and when it started taking powers for itself we let it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Financially, yes one can snow physical harm, damage or lose of ones property that is real. Mentally no you and you alone are in control of your mind and what you think and do, no one else can change your mind it's the only thing you are in total control of.(others may do things to cause you to change your mind but in the end it's your decision.) Being annoyed is a mental state just as happiness is, you have a right to pursue it, not to have it.
Quoted:
Let me see if I can get this headed in a different direction. Does anyone have a problem with the concept of of rights being "freedom to do as one wish as long as it harms no one physically" and if so why? what about financially? what about mentally <ie.. loud music annoying you>? If I live next door to you and play loud music which you hate day and night, then am I not interfering with you pursuit of happiness? NO. THIS is what's wrong with America. You have the right to pursue happiness, you are not ENTITLED to happiness. If you can't find happiness living close to noisy neighbors, pursue it elsewhere. |
|
There is no limits on your rights, and no authority in the constitution for the government to limit your rights rather the constitution is in place to keep others and the government from infringing upon said rights.
A right being the freedom to do as one pleases as long as it harms no one. What possible reason would anyone have to object to this? |
|
Food for thought...
You do have a right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, especially if there is in fact a fire. There is no prior restraint on your right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You are not forced to wear a muzzle before entering the theater just as a precaution. |
|
Rights do not exist in the real world, they are a utopian ideal, just as equality of all men is . The only rights you have are the ones you have power and force to claim and defend. Lofty ideals mean squat and a piece of paper with those lofty ideals on it has no more worth than the stuff you wipe your ass with without the power to back it up. |
|
Quoted:
Looks like you contradicted yourself.Rights do not exist in the real world, they are a utopian ideal, just as equality of all men is . The only rights you have are the ones you have power and force to claim and defend. Lofty ideals mean squat and a piece of paper with those lofty ideals on it has no more worth than the stuff you wipe your ass with without the power to back it up. 
|
|
Quoted:
Does yelling fire in a crowed theater caues harm to others? Yes, therefore it is not a right by definition.
Food for thought... You do have a right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, especially if there is in fact a fire. There is no prior restraint on your right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You are not forced to wear a muzzle before entering the theater just as a precaution. |
|
1.) The absence of law is anarchy. There is no rights in anarchy. People do what they wish to do. This doesn't mean it's all bad, they may all conform to an accepted code, such as religious doctrine or what have you. It's just you have no defined rights. Your interaction with other people is dictated by what they give YOU. "Right" exists in the hands of those with power at that point.
2.) For law to exist, some person or unit of people need sovereignty. They are then able to create law in that area. 3.) Sovereignty exists when nobody else is able to respectfully challenge your claim that you have it. It's purely a perception of those person or collectives that interact in your territory. To put it slightly more on-topic, it exists in the minds of those who maintain power. 4.) The person or unit with sovereignty is able to pass law. Conversely, a person or unit unable to enforce that law fails at #3, and it consequently invalidates #4. 5.) That law dictates the extent of the sovereignty, in regards to what powers are located where/in whom. There was a lot of argument in the 18th century as to sovereignty and formations of various states, which is primarily the argument between the federalist and anti-federalists. Documents like the US Bill of Rights were created by people wishing to specifically call out those facets of sovereignty that would be maintained by the US States or the People themselves. Technically it was not necessary, as the Constitution already said that any power not specifically given to the federal government was not in their purview, but some people worried (and rightly so it would seem) that politicians would still end up grabbing power and passing law that assumed additional powers. The reason its difficult to argue with people about "Their rights" right now is because we've been so trodden on by federal Statism at this point that their paradigm is grossly flawed. This has been exacerbated (IMO) by a growing % of the population of the US who felt the US Federal government "gave" them their rights. Either people who were forceably imported into the US as chattel, people who were initially disenfranchised (due to race, gender or creed) or people who were given amnesty after they illegally came over. It's the great irony of the US (IMO at least), that the people most interested in their "rights" are also generally the ones who keep asking for them. If they just realized it was theirs to begin with, then they wouldn't be beholden to anyone. Edit: Or to sum that up: 1.) Your rights are defined (sometimes loosely) by code or law 2.) Code or law is dictated by the sovereignty of the body or property you're interested in 3.) Sovereignty is dictated by those in power 4.) Power resides in the hands of where people think it does, generally that's in the hands of the people who threaten to remove life, liberty, or property from others. Aka, where the weapons are As a result, disarming a populace inherently renders them powerless. Or, TLDR: No weapons = No Rights. |
|
Quoted:
1.) The absence of law is anarchy. There is no rights in anarchy. People do what they wish to do. This doesn't mean it's all bad, they may all conform to an accepted code, such as religious doctrine or what have you. It's just you have no defined rights. Your interaction with other people is dictated by what they give YOU. "Right" exists in the hands of those with power at that point. 2.) For law to exist, some person or unit of people need sovereignty. They are then able to create law in that area. 3.) Sovereignty exists when nobody else is able to respectfully challenge your claim that you have it. It's purely a perception of those person or collectives that interact in your territory. To put it slightly more on-topic, it exists in the minds of those who maintain power. 4.) The person or unit with sovereignty is able to pass law. Conversely, a person or unit unable to enforce that law fails at #3, and it consequently invalidates #4. 5.) That law dictates the extent of the sovereignty, in regards to what powers are located where/in whom. There was a lot of argument in the 18th century as to sovereignty and formations of various states, which is primarily the argument between the federalist and anti-federalists. Documents like the US Bill of Rights were created by people wishing to specifically call out those facets of sovereignty that would be maintained by the US States or the People themselves. Technically it was not necessary, as the Constitution already said that any power not specifically given to the federal government was not in their purview, but some people worried (and rightly so it would seem) that politicians would still end up grabbing power and passing law that assumed additional powers. The reason its difficult to argue with people about "Their rights" right now is because we've been so trodden on by federal Statism at this point that their paradigm is grossly flawed. This has been exacerbated (IMO) by a growing % of the population of the US who felt the US Federal government "gave" them their rights. Either people who were forceably imported into the US as chattel, people who were initially disenfranchised (due to race, gender or creed) or people who were given amnesty after they illegally came over. It's the great irony of the US (IMO at least), that the people most interested in their "rights" are also generally the ones who keep asking for them. If they just realized it was theirs to begin with, then they wouldn't be beholden to anyone. Edit: Or to sum that up: 1.) Your rights are defined (sometimes loosely) by code or law 2.) Code or law is dictated by the sovereignty of the body or property you're interested in 3.) Sovereignty is dictated by those in power 4.) Power resides in the hands of where people think it does, generally that's in the hands of the people who threaten to remove life, liberty, or property from others. Aka, where the weapons are As a result, disarming a populace inherently renders them powerless. Or, TLDR: No weapons = No Rights. you're so far off track it's scary. go read Locke's 2nd Treatise on the Role of Government and then check back in with us. your post belongs on du. I'm typing this 1 handed, sorry. |
|
Quoted:
you're so far off track it's scary. go read Locke's 2nd Treatise on the Role of Government and then check back in with us. your post belongs on du. I'm typing this 1 handed, sorry. I have, but I respectfully disagree. Locke is attempting to provide a reason as to why humans have inalienable rights without standing those rights directly religion (Universally-given instead of God-given). I realize what you're saying in regards to perception-based vs universally-based. My point is that all measurements are based from a fixed point of reference. At any given point, whoever you ask to codify natural law is going to create a different set of standards. We don't even have a national understanding of "common sense" anymore. The connotation of the term has been completely undermined to mean "what I want.". I agree that the founding fathers and many of the scholars of that time attempted to codify the universal law, but we as a society have ceased to honor it. The "scholars" of our time have declared it null and void. So, if natural law dictates our rights, and the law is open to redefinition at any given time by the intelligentsia, then it's not really universal? I apologize if you don't think its germane to the discussion or if I've misrepresented your position. I do think your 1-handed typing was perfectly fine to challenge the case. I do not agree with the positions on DU, so either I'm not doing a very good job of explaining my position, or you will need to provide 2-hands to facilitate my education. |
|
Well, I guess I did. Rights are unlimited in scope and nature with the power and force to claim them and nonexistent without that power. Edit: Since I am now drinking, I thought I might as well expand on my thoughts. Basically I am saying that everything in this world can be taken from you by those with more power. The poeple of the US have had the power to claim and hold what we call rights in 2 ways. The first is through force of numbers, we as a people banded together to declare certain things as rights and the second has been through the force of arms in civilian hands. Our enemies have defeated the first power by splintering our numbers and fracturing our solidarity through polarization in insignificant issues and through controlling media/education. Right now they are after the last power we have and when it is gone so are our so called rights. Quoted: Quoted: Looks like you contradicted yourself.Rights do not exist in the real world, they are a utopian ideal, just as equality of all men is . The only rights you have are the ones you have power and force to claim and defend. Lofty ideals mean squat and a piece of paper with those lofty ideals on it has no more worth ightsthan the stuff you wipe your ass with without the power to back it up. |
|
Quoted:
Your rights are defined very well by the statement ""Rights are the freedom to do as one pleases as long as it does no physical harm to anyone" The founders new that people in government would always try to limit peoples rights, they put the Bill Of Rights in the constitution so that the government could not limit them, you will find that there is nothing in the constitution that gives such a power to government. Government should be there only when one does physical harm to another, thus violating what a right is. I see no anarchy in that, rather a well defined simple system.
1.) The absence of law is anarchy. There is no rights in anarchy. People do what they wish to do. This doesn't mean it's all bad, they may all conform to an accepted code, such as religious doctrine or what have you. It's just you have no defined rights. Your interaction with other people is dictated by what they give YOU. "Right" exists in the hands of those with power at that point. 2.) For law to exist, some person or unit of people need sovereignty. They are then able to create law in that area. 3.) Sovereignty exists when nobody else is able to respectfully challenge your claim that you have it. It's purely a perception of those person or collectives that interact in your territory. To put it slightly more on-topic, it exists in the minds of those who maintain power. 4.) The person or unit with sovereignty is able to pass law. Conversely, a person or unit unable to enforce that law fails at #3, and it consequently invalidates #4. 5.) That law dictates the extent of the sovereignty, in regards to what powers are located where/in whom. There was a lot of argument in the 18th century as to sovereignty and formations of various states, which is primarily the argument between the federalist and anti-federalists. Documents like the US Bill of Rights were created by people wishing to specifically call out those facets of sovereignty that would be maintained by the US States or the People themselves. Technically it was not necessary, as the Constitution already said that any power not specifically given to the federal government was not in their purview, but some people worried (and rightly so it would seem) that politicians would still end up grabbing power and passing law that assumed additional powers. The reason its difficult to argue with people about "Their rights" right now is because we've been so trodden on by federal Statism at this point that their paradigm is grossly flawed. This has been exacerbated (IMO) by a growing % of the population of the US who felt the US Federal government "gave" them their rights. Either people who were forceably imported into the US as chattel, people who were initially disenfranchised (due to race, gender or creed) or people who were given amnesty after they illegally came over. It's the great irony of the US (IMO at least), that the people most interested in their "rights" are also generally the ones who keep asking for them. If they just realized it was theirs to begin with, then they wouldn't be beholden to anyone. Edit: Or to sum that up: 1.) Your rights are defined (sometimes loosely) by code or law 2.) Code or law is dictated by the sovereignty of the body or property you're interested in 3.) Sovereignty is dictated by those in power 4.) Power resides in the hands of where people think it does, generally that's in the hands of the people who threaten to remove life, liberty, or property from others. Aka, where the weapons are As a result, disarming a populace inherently renders them powerless. Or, TLDR: No weapons = No Rights. |