[labgrade]

Much discussion about whether or not rights are absolute, or not.

We yak it up whether or not BATF is a "good" org, or not.

We muck it up whether or not ... yada.

You either have the right, or you do not.

IF the .Guv places some restriction on it, either by a permit, a fee, a registration, a license = ergo: you no longer have the right & a "defense of" only gives sway to the "other side" which detracts from the right itself.

You either stand for the right, or you don't.

It's either a right, or it isn't.

[Chris Rhines]

Concur.

If some entity has the legal, codified power to restrict your enjoyment of a right, then the right no longer exists.

- Chris

[Ian]

Yup. Licensing, regulation, and the like transform rights into government-granted privileges.

[rock jock]

It's either a right, or it isn't.
Sounds great, but you must first define the right and the context in which it exists.

[Chris Rhines]

There's really no need. All rights are identical, insomuch as that they are absolute. For instance, I have the absolute right to own the weapon of my choice, just as I have the absolute right to the disposition of my life, or the absolute right to express my thoughts in any way that I please.

When you come down to the brass tacks, there really is only one right - the right to own and dispose of property.

Neither is a discussion of context necessary, beyond the concept of ownership.

- Chris

[OF]

I want to make the point that the actions of the gov't, or whoever has practical power over you, do not nullify any rights which you, as a living person, have. You may live, as we're dicussing in another thread, in varying states of oppression, but that does not in any way nullify or cancel your rights.

You have the right to the pursuit of happiness, as it was so well put by our founding fathers. You may be being prevented from enjoying that right to the fullest you wish to take it by the actions of those in power, or the majority, or your relatives or whoever, but that doesn't mean you don't have a right to pursue happiness.

So, the fact that the gov't infringes on a right does not mean it ceases to be a right. It just means you are oppressed.

A privilege, on the other hand, is not a right. It never was. A right cannot become a privilege though action. A right is a right and a privilege is a privilege. A journalist's badge is a privilege. Freedom of expression is a right.

- Gabe

PS: I think for most everyone here this is a semantic issue, but I think it's important to get it right. ;) No pun intended.

[pax]

Sounds great, but you must first define the right ...

Looking up in the old Websters I find rights are "something to which one has just claim" or "the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled."

As the dictionary implies, the whole concept of 'rights' comes back to the idea that it is morally proper for people to do certain things, and morally improper for them to do certain other things. That is precisely what is at issue when someone talks about their "right to ____." At issue is whether someone else may justly deprive them of their ability to do that thing.

When someone appeals to "rights," they are really appealing to an almost-universally understood standard of what is morally proper (or 'just') and what is morally improper (or 'injust'). Arguments over what rights human beings have, if any, will nearly always boil down to such fundamental moral distinctions. That is why theists will usually take the shortcut of saying "God-given," since the moral code they claim is based on the idea of a God who endowed human beings with a moral sense.

This moral instinct or drive is something that most human beings have in common. Even those who reject the concept of a deity will generally find themselves saying things like "that's not fair!" when something bumps into this innate sense of justice, so it is possible to believe in, and appeal to, the human moral drive without believing in "God-given rights."

If you believe that it is not "right" for someone to kill you when you have done nothing to harm them; or if you believe that it is not "just" to throw someone in prison when they have committed no crime; or if you believe it is not "fair" when someone sneakily breaks the rules in a poker game -- then (by your appeal to it) you demonstrate that you do believe in the concept of innate human rights.

When the question becomes, "Are rights absolute?" then the answer is: Rights are as absolute as the moral code you live by.

Is it always wrong to kill an innocent who has done you no harm? Always wrong to enslave another human being? Always wrong to take things that you haven't earned and which don't belong to you?

If you answer yes to those, you believe that the rights to life, liberty, and property are absolute. If not, or if you shade your answers, you believe that such rights are not absolute.

pax

Audemus iura nostra defendere (We dare defend our rights) – state motto of Alabama

[Pendragon]

Interesting definition Chris re: private proterty.

So - how does one define ownership of private property? Is is posession? What if you believed you were making a legit deal but you bought stolen goods?

What if ownership of certain property is contingent on accepting certain conditions?

I am not really going in the direction of evil whitey steals America.

I am wondering - if rights are absolute and are about private property, then there should be an absolute standard for determining ownership rights. Yet - our Constitution says that private property may not be taken without just compensation - implying that is CAN be taken.

Is that part of the Constitution in violation of the principle of absolute property rights?

Also - it would seem that your absolute property rights are only as absolute as the claim to ownership which could be undermined or diluted by various political or legal problems.

Finally, lets say I own a 5 mile strip of land in the woods. You are seriously injured on one side, help is on the other side. What are your rights to cross my land - I say no way, no how - I stand by with loaded gun to enforce my rights. How should this play out? Can I shoot you for trying to cross?

Honestly wondering.

[Pendragon]

ok, some of you know that I have a serious problem with the idea that your property rights allow you to exploit your employee in dehumanizing ways.

what if "society" declares that all employment involved an implied contract that forbids sexual exploitation? If you want to be able to harass or require sex for promotions, you MUST include an contract in the hiring process that explicitly states that the "no sexual harassment" clause of the default city employment contract is void for this employment term.

you still have the right to be a creep (a damn creep), but you just have to be transparent and up front about the fact that it may come up.

also - how do you feel about laws that require business to adhere to accepted accounting practices to report income and losses so that investors are "fully informed"? does that not violate your right to use creative and "modern" accounting practices that may be "better"?

[Chris Rhines]

So - how does one define ownership of private property? There are a couple of possible ways to define ownership of property. Purchases, gifts, et cetera. For property that is unclaimed or abandoned, the first person to take possession is the owner. Land can be purchased or given away, like other forms of property, or unowned land can be 'homesteaded.'

What if ownership of certain property is contingent on accepting certain conditions? Doesn't follow. If one's ownership of some piece of property is dependent on accepting conditions set by another party, then it is this other party that really owns the land. The first party is just renting it.

I am wondering - if rights are absolute and are about private property, then there should be an absolute standard for determining ownership rights. Yet - our Constitution says that private property may not be taken without just compensation - implying that is CAN be taken. Hence, my continuing insistence that the Constitution ain't the shining beacon of freedom that everyone makes it out to be.

Also - it would seem that your absolute property rights are only as absolute as the claim to ownership which could be undermined or diluted by various political or legal problems. Um, you're gonna have to be a little clearer with that one - I have no idea what you mean.

Finally, lets say I own a 5 mile strip of land in the woods. You are seriously injured on one side, help is on the other side. What are your rights to cross my land... I have none. Your land is your land. My being injured has no bearing on the matter.

- I say no way, no how - I stand by with loaded gun to enforce my rights. How should this play out? Can I shoot you for trying to cross? Yes indeed, you could. It's your property, and you have the right to determine who may and may not cross it. I would be very thankful if you did not, though.

- Chris

[Chris Rhines]

what if "society" declares that all employment involved an implied contract that forbids sexual exploitation? 'Society' is an abstraction - it cannot issue declarations, nor can it enforce them.

I would prefer that companies that permit sexual exploitation as an element of the employee/employer contract simply die out for lack of workers.

also - how do you feel about laws that require business to adhere to accepted accounting practices to report income and losses so that investors are "fully informed"? This is a seemingly very simple question that is in fact very tough to answer fully. Short version - no law should force private companies to use any particular accounting practices. However, if the contract between the company and its shareholders, or any other outside agency requires the use of a particular accounting method, then such contracts must be complied with.

- Chris

[Ian]

I would point out that much of the complexity of corporate accounting comes from issues of taxation. If campanies didn't have to deal with our labyrinthine corporate tax codes, these problems would be minimized.

[labgrade]

Pendragon,

With all due respect.

Can we not set the clock back to firearms-related aspects? We have yet to set the stage regards the basic premise.

Cannot we strike a stake in the ground that says (at the least)we have the "right to keep and bear arms?" Or, don't we?

One or the other.

We either have the right, or we don't,

Folks. It is as simple as that. We do, or we don't.

BA-BOOMB!

We do - or we don't - have the right to keep and bear arms.

Easily simple as that. Of course, you are required to be responsible for your actions (firearms-related, or not, but ... )

Frankly, at this stage, I care not about any waitress' ability to either, or not, claim her income - subject to IRS-reporting legalities

Good grief & Damit! Do not any of you get it at all!? (many do, & in no way am I ranting at you.)

Our discussion here cannot even decide whether or not we're allowed to have a damnable revolver without permission of a fed-level governmental entity versus a semi-auto, versus what might make something "more quiet" - or even a single-shot F-ing .22 short rifle - full-length (stock & barrel & perfectly legitimate in all current aspects)

(I've gone crazy in even my typing in what's "allowalbe" lately ...

And do you realize that we used to be able to own any full-auto, any "destructive device," anyone could purchase a firearm/ammo ... & all the while the crime rate was So much less.

Guns got nothing to do with it. Restiction of ourfreedoms has nothing to do with it.

Never did. Never will.

Good grief!

The title is:

Rights - drawn where?

There's no discussion, there is no "I guess I'll subjugate my right due to the fair-the-wellfare-of-the-best-of-the-whole nonsense y'all've been brought up to live in ......

None of it ever made any sense to begin with & for any of y'all to buy into it is so stupid I cannot begin to express my distain.

[/rant off]

You either have the right to "keep & bear arms" or you don't.

"Legalities" aside, makes no differenece whether or not you anhave any damnable gun you want.

(Yeah rambling = I was interupetd with work & life, but catch my drift or not ...)

Frankly, I could care less .... either you buy into it or you don't.

& (politely) stuff it for those that cant catch the drift.

[QKRTHNU]

The title is:

Rights - drawn where?
At the point that they interfere with the rights of another.

[Jeeper]

The difference between what is a right and what isnt is an ARBITRARY line. It is drawn with regard to public policy and history and other items. NO RIGHT IS ABSOLUTE. People say that you should be able to own any weapon. Ok what about nukes. OK what if I am not a criminal as far as prior record but I want to do bad things with the nuke. It is hard to argue I have a RIGHT to own a nuke. I think it is funny that people think rights are completely absolute when our founders did not.

Here are examples
First amend. - not a right when it comes to libel, slander, or creating a threat"yelling fire in a theater"
Second amend - Criminals couldnt be in Militia
Private property - Zoning - eminent domain

The list goes on. The difference is really arbitrary between what is and isnt a right. THis is becasue a line HAS to be drawn somewhere and there is not always an easy place.

[Pendragon]

labgrade,

The title of this thread is "Rights - the line is drawn where:? " and it is posted in the Legal and Political section.

Honestly, I am not that interested in discussing our absolute right to own firearms. Silencers, Full Auto, Short Barreled - I got no problem. The discussion often then goes to "so we should all be alble to own nukes then?" and of course, then it is hard to own a nuke without endangering other people and there is really no place for civillian use of a nuke. You could make the argument, but I think the more interesting argument would be about grenades and rockets and stuff like that.

However - since the thread is about rights, I wanted to address some of the more peripheral areas of individual rights. Owning a revolver is just a no brainer - but what about your right to exploit people by using your private property? What about your right to not let someone pass and they die from their injury?

Chris: when I said "society", I meant the law - I dont think it matters if it is local, state or federal in my example - I was just saying that a law could be passed that states the default contract of all employment and that if you do want to include the rigt to harass people on the job, you simply include it in writing - full disclosure, in advance, etc.

And I am glad to see you think the Constitution is an imperfect document with regard to idividual rights absolutism.

I am not sure how we came up with the idea of owning land. I think the concept is based on culture and tradition and not a few assumptions about what it means to own something.

Maybe you think that if the Russians parachute onto your land and try and setup a small base that it is only a problem of your property rights being violated? Our Army cannot engage them unless you say they can? If a fugitive from justice hides on your land, the police have to stop and ask for permission to persue him?

I am looking for holes in your idea of individual rights absoluteism because I think there are holes. Maybe your land has the only pond or lake for miles - you start a fire on your land and it gets out of control and threatens your neighbors land. Can the fire department (do they exist in your world?) come and take water from your pond to put out the fire as it has now began to jump to my adjascent land?

Or does that violate your right to your pond water and I am SOL - let it burn and then I just have to sue you in court for irresponsible burning? Of course, you are a crusty old bum with no assets so again, I am SOL.

Wow between this paragraph and the one before, I just had a 40 minute conversation with a "conservative" here at work who just told me about how important it is to sacrifice all kinds of freedoms so we can get along and how I should not leave CA becausse there are taxes and corruption everywhere and how CCW is scary because he could bump into someone and they could shoot him - :what: I think I got him turned around on the value of CCW, but if he is what passes for "conservative" then I am really really depressed.

[mercedesrules]

Agree. Some examples brought up so far have to do with "prior restraint". Jeeper mentioned "fire in a theater". Well, they don't duct-tape your mouth when you go in. You always have all the equipment needed to break the law with you at the movies. You only violate others rights by falsely yelling "fire" (If there is a fire, you are fine).

I hereby claim any "rights" that any other human claims. I admit that there are a few I can't defend now, but I still don't relinquish them. That goes for "law enforcement officer" guns and equipment, as well as all other weapons. If I don't have a right to them, who gave the right to those that claim exclusive rights to them? Basically, they took the rights and keep them by (threat of) force.

MR

[pax]

If I don't have a right to them, who gave the right to those that claim exclusive rights to them? Basically, they took the rights and keep them by (threat of) force.
Mercedesrules,

Very well said.

pax

A slave cannot be freed, save he do it himself. Nor can you enslave a free man; the very most you can do is kill him. -- Robert Heinlein

[Al Norris]

Mercedesrules wrote:
I hereby claim any "rights" that any other human claims. I admit that there are a few I can't defend now, but I still don't relinquish them.
But then you wrote:
If I don't have a right to them, who gave the right to those that claim exclusive rights to them? Basically, they took the rights and keep them by (threat of) force.
Only one of these statements can be true, as they are mutually contradictive. I submit that any right that cannot be defended is no longer your right.

[OF]

Only one of these statements can be trueNope. Read it again. especially the word 'exclusive' in the second part.

- Gabe

[OF]

I submit that any right that cannot be defended is no longer your right.This makes no sense. Is my right to speak my mind no longer my right if I am prevented from speaking my mind through show of force? Like I said earlier, a right is a right, regardlesss of whether or not it can be exercised at any given point in time. If you cannot speak your mind freely, you have not lost your right to free speech, you are oppressed.

Without the means to defend your rights you are subject to oppression at the whim of those more powerful than you, of course, but to say that you no longer have rights due to that oppression is misleading. Oppressors cannot 'take away your rights'. Your rights are natural. You are endowed with them by powers far higher than anything on earth. They are incapable of being stripped from you. You may be prevented from enjoying those rights by your oppressors, but they are still your rights.

Again, how do we define oppression? If you no longer have rights, how do you know you are being oppressed?

- Gabe

PS: Help! Help! ;)

[Al Norris]

Any right that cannot be defended is no longer a right.

GRD wrote:
They are incapable of being stripped from you. You may be prevented from enjoying those rights by your oppressors, but they are still your rights.
So you think that if you are prevented from exercising a right, you still have said right? Interesting...

A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

[tyme]

Any right that cannot be defended is no longer a right.
:boggle:

Unless you consider dying rather than conceding to be "defending" your rights, that is a rather glum assessment of rights. I don't think there exists any person who can defend all his or her rights against any assault.

[Soap]

Ian- Half of my accounting classes are dedicated to screwing over the IRS as much as possible :D

[OF]

So you think that if you are prevented from exercising a right, you still have said right?Of course. If you didn't have the right, then you aren't being denied your rights, are you? It may seem like a semantic issue, but it's the difference between rights as granted by the state and rights as an innate human reality. Inalienable, as some have said in the past.

If you understand the difference, all this talk about 'non-absolute' rights gets put into it's proper perspective as nothing more than varying degrees of oppression.

So, your proclamation that any right that cannot be defended ceases to be a right is misleading and incorrect. Your rights are inalienable. That means they cannot be stripped from you, surrendered or beaten out of you. They are yours because you are rightfully free. It is man's natural state to be free. If you are enslaved, you do not lose your rights, as they are inalienable. If you are prevented from exercising your inalienable rights, then you are living in a state of oppression. How do you know you are being oppressed? Because you cannot exercise your rights. If the state of being oppressed means you no longer have rights, how do you know you are oppressed?

- Gabe


inalienable

\In*al"ien*a*ble\, a. [Pref. in- not + alienable: cf. F. inali['e]nable.] Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred to another; not alienable; as, in inalienable birthright.

[pax]

Any right that cannot be defended is no longer a right.
Al,

I suspect you are only throwing out bait. At least I hope so.

For starters, please read my first post on this thread. From that post: Looking up in the old Websters I find rights are "something to which one has just claim" or "the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled."

As the dictionary implies, the whole concept of 'rights' comes back to the idea that it is morally proper for people to do certain things, and morally improper for them to do certain other things. That is precisely what is at issue when someone talks about their "right to ____." At issue is whether someone else may justly deprive them of their ability to do that thing.

Consider: if someone is choking you to death, do you still have the right to breathe? I think you do -- you just won't be able to exercise that right unless you fight for it.

Can someone justly deny you the ability to breathe when you have done nothing to them? Even if you can't fight back, I think not.

pax

Inconsistency is the only thing in which men are consistent. -- Horatio Smith

[Diesle]

"Consider: if someone is choking you to death, do you still have the right to breathe? I think you do"

Just for fun, Ill turn this one around....

Consider: You have the right to pursuit of happiness. Suppose you claim that your happiness is dependant on your ability to be able to choke someone to death regularly.

As demonstrated above, the subjective nature of a persons 'right(s)' can often lead to the infringement of someone else’s right(s). I’m sure that you can think of thousands of examples of that. One of the most common being that you have the right to free speech, but do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater.

Some rights absolutist feel that yes, in fact you do have the right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater. In doing so, you assume the existence of implied risk and are willing to take whatever consequences come about as a result of you exercising your right.

Well, that’s where the gov. steps in. In an effort to preemptively negate some possible ill effects of free people exercising their rights to the detriment of others, laws are passed that in effect oppress or suppress the execution of the right by the free person.

For instance, because most 'reasonable' people consider yelling fire in a crowded movie theater a problem (or an infringement of their rights), a law exists that states you can not disrupt the peace. You can be arrested for exercising your right to free speech.

Would you consider your arrest the next time you felt like yelling fire....? Sure you would. Could you easily twist that feeling of suppression into Governmental oppression? Sure you can.

How about another popular example.... Do you or do you not have the right to own a nuclear weapon? You have the right to protect yourself under all circumstances don’t you...?

Rights absolutism looks all nice on paper and all, but gets very messy in practice.

Diesle

[OF]

One of the most common being that you have the right to free speech, but do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater.This needs to be put to rest right now. If yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is going to disrupt the paying patrons and upset the property owner, then you do not have a right to yell fire that crowded theater under those circumstances.

There is no conflict with the views expressed here by the 'rights abolutists', and the oft-cited 'fire' scenario is a red herring. Consider: You have the right to pursuit of happiness. Suppose you claim that your happiness is dependant on your ability to be able to choke someone to death regularly. You have the right to the pursuit of happiness. Where your right to pursue that happiness ends is when it intersects with my right to defend myself. This is really not that hard to understand. There is nothing about this that contradicts the 'rights absolutist' view. As a matter of fact, the absolutist view is the ONLY view that cleanly resolves the scenario you brought up. My absolute right to life makes it very clear where and why your right to choke people ends. If you don't buy the absolute view, who decides? The legislature?

What gives the gov't the right to step in and arrest someone? The power vested in the gov't by the people to protect the rights of those same people. The gov't is tasked with defending the rights of the people. You are being arrested in the theater for violating the property rights of the patrons and business owner. The gov't is acting as the agent of those whose rights have been violated. It is all about rights, and if those rights are not understood to be absolute than nothing makes any sense. If rights aren't absolute, under what authority are you arrested in that theater?

- Gabe

[QKRTHNU]

I get really sick of all the talk about "You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater".

Sure you can.

#1. If there is really a fire you won't be found guilty of inciting panic, you'll be a hero.

#2. If there is not really a fire you will be arrested for inciting panic. Same thing if you falsly yelled "BOMB!"

The decision is still yours to make either way. You vocal cords were not modified to remove the ability to say the word fire. Your mouth was not stapled shut.

Free speech is not infringed in any way. Everyone who has the ability to speak is capable of lible, slander, fraud, inciting panic etc. If they choose to use their freedom of speech in those manners then they have chosen to infringe on anothers rights and will suffer the consequenses of the law.

All rights work this way.

I have the right to burn my house down if I want to (so long as I'm not trying to defraud an ins co. But if I live in an apartment building I do not have the right to set fire to my dwelling as it will infringe on the property rights of my neighbors.

[Al Norris]

Hiyah Pax!

OK, I'll admit to stirring the pot...a little. :)

Are rights absolute. The simple definition of the word absolute, means without limit. To apply this to the human condition would fail to take into account the social nature of humankind. One might also argue that absolute implies "without challenge." Clearly beyond argument, practically.

Humans, as far a I can tell, have never been isolated animals. As individuals, they have always been a social creature. Clans; tribes; villages; cities and so on.

To that end, man has always imposed a certain order upon the chaos of unrestrained rights of individuals. This was at the beginnings of culture, a survival technique. In order for the clan to survive, certain rules and orders inimical to individualism had to be imposed. To oppose this self made order usually meant death. For the individual certainly, for the clan, possibly.

As time moved on and mans social construct became more involved and intertwined with other cultures, moral and/or ethical constructs became the norm. People imposed upon themselves certain rules of behavior in order for personal and group survival.

I posit, on the one hand, that rights are in fact absolute - with the only caveat being that my rights stop when they interfere with your rights. This limitation is a social construct that I have placed upon myself. It is nothing more than a survival trait. Mine as well as the culture I live in.

On the other hand, your rights also stop or end, when you are unwilling or unable to defend them, hence the need for the "social order," the source of the debate. The distinction between unable or unwilling is not an important one, to the consequence of survival...Except perhaps to the "likelihood" of survival.

To restate, there seems to be the theoretical and the practical. Care to guess which takes precedence in the world of reality?

From the standpoint of reality then, if you claim a right, they are only yours to the extent that you accept the obligations that go along with the right. One of those obligations is defense of the right. To the extent that you are not willing to defend, you are going to degrade the right...to the point wher it no longer exists, except in theory.

Therefore, I am responsible for my own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I do that best in cooperation with others of similar, (not precise,) opinion. We band together and, if you please, take our rights by force, and defend them by force, including lethal force if needed. We make a deal with each other that we will each grant the others some leeway. We first used tradition, and then, eventually, laws, to describe the character of that "leeway." Our supreme tradition/law is The Constitution. But, our supreme enforcement is the individual, what we call "the citizen."

Our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is our fundamental tradition, a statement meant to clarify our citizen status. But, it is not free. It has a price. To the extent that we are not willing to pay that price, our "rights" are less than they might have been. If we became a pacifist nation, unwilling to pay the ultimate price, we would disappear as a smorgasbord for vultures, and it wouldn't take long.

[Diesle]

"To restate, there seems to be the theoretical and the practical. Care to guess which takes precedence in the world of reality?"

Exactly.

Many expect theoretical absolutism when it comes to defending personal rights to the very limits of their theoretical existance. Thats just not a very practical approach when your one of about 6 billion something.....

Diesle

[rock jock]

There's really no need. All rights are identical, insomuch as that they are absolute.
Some others have already addressed this, but suffice it to say that the libertarian fantasyland that this statement applies to has no bearing on reality, never has, never will.

[Justin Moore]

Sounds great, but you must first define the right and the context in which it exists.

It all depends upon the meaning of what 'rights' is - William Jefferson Klinton

;)

[dustind]

I think it has to do with what is your definition of absolute is. I believe I have the absolute right to freedom of speech. I can not libel, slander or yell fire at inopportune times, because my rights end where others begin. If I could not question what goverment officials were doing for fear of imprisonment, then it would not be an absolute right.