Ban Tabacco and Alcohol!

[Selfdfenz]

I’ll stand on my past experience as a cigarette smoker and big time beer consumer and vote to ban both. Since I stopped using both too long ago to remember exactly when I stopped it’s no skin of my nose. Both second hand smoke and second hand drunks have zero redeeming qualities.

(there… some contrarian had to have the guts to say it )

Your friend in sobriety,

S-

 

[The Rabbi]

It's the same thing.
You smoke, you get cancer, you die.
You drinke, your liver dies, you die.
You get shot at, a bullet punctures your skin, you bleed and die.

That;s odd. Maybe Im one of the immortals then. I smoked for close to 10 years and I haven't gotten cancer 15 years after quitting. I have been drinking for probably close to 30 years and my liver is fine. I've never been shot (thank goodness) but I know a couple of people who have and they seem fine.

 

[sm]

Bingo !

Standing Wolf wrote:

They're voicing concern about so-called "health issues" simply to obscure the fact that they know they'll never be able to shove socialism down the throat of armed law-abiding American citizens. They don't care about health. They don't care about violent crime. They don't care about violent crime victims. They care about disarming commoners.

I agree.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

I really hate when people bring up "the right to child porn"

You have no right that violates the rights of another.....Therefore you have no right to child porn which violates a childs right to not be violated........

Secondly you have no right to manufacture porn without following government regs(like age limits and places "business" can be "transacted")......You cannot "steal" a book from the public library as you would hinder my right to check that book out later.....Is it really that hard to see ? A right can't violate anothers rights, period Fallacious is an awesome word by the way but only when used in the correct context and wow now the 9th ammendment is " total gibberish" since you don't like what it says..... Like I said in another thread, you could not list all the rights retained by the people if you wanted to! I say there is a right to hunt (with permission/following regs)/fish(ditto permission and regs) /drive/cook/eat/smoke/make love/talk/kill an intruder/play with explosives/dance a jig/kill fire ants/plant corn/plant roses/make a kite/start a fire/sniff paint fumes/kiss my pet cow Bessie/ on non government/private land as long as I have permission/justification and don't hurt anyone(without justification ie robber = reason to shoot) in the process, challenge that
The 9th is real and needs to be respected

 

[The Rabbi]

Umm, children dont have rights.
You have no right to check a book out of the library either.
I think on another thread I begged you to go look at some constitutional law on what the terms right and fundamental right mean. You obviously havent done it. If you think the 9th Amendment protects your right to check books out of the library then, yes, you are mouthing gibberish.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

You have no Constitutional right to breathe air or wear your hair as you see fit.....

If I believe what you say I have no right to breathe since it is not enumerated in the constitution, I have been "granted" by the government the "privilege" to breathe their air , the "privilege to have children, and the "privilege" to dress how I see fit ? These are not rights that I can exercise without asking for permission , yeah okay.....

 

[Sindawe]

If I believe what you say I have no right to breathe since it is not enumerated in the constitution, I have been "granted" by the government the "privilege" to breathe their air , the "privilege to have children, and the "privilege" to dress how I see fit ? These are not rights that I can exercise without asking for permission , yeah okay.....

Yep, that seems to be pretty much The Rabbi's stance as I understand it.

 

[Farnham]

The rights of a man are determined by what he will abide being taken away. Anything he will not suffer being taken away is a right. The Constitution is NOT the ultimate determination of a man's rights.

Back on topic...

I drink, I smoke, I shoot, I usually drive too fast, I eat far too much red meat and don't get enough exercise. That's my choice, and when something inevitably kills me, I'll die knowing I enjoyed myself. Incidentally, I don't drink and drive, drink and shoot, or smoke around non-smokers, simply because I can't tolerate non-smoking/non-drinking/non-shooting/Atkins Diet people around me, and I believe in being fair.

Farnham

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Farnham

+1

 

[c_yeager]

I can carry a gun into more places than i can either smoke or drink.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Too Many, you beat me to it! I am interested to hear the Rabbi’s answer about where he derives his rights to eat and breathe, as I can’t find them enumerated in the Constitution, except in that Ninth Amendment, which I obviously don’t understand in his estimation.

~G. Fink

 

[The Rabbi]

At least we're understanding each other

In my view there is no "right" to breathe per se. Rights to life liberty and property are embedded in America's history, going back to John Locke.
But the right to something is not inherent in any individual. I do not believe in "natural rights" and think rights are constructs of society. In North Korea you have no right to property since everything belongs to the government. If you live in N.Korea what are you going to do about that? Nothing. That's why I say rights are not inherent in individuals.
Further, the ability to do something does not automatically convey a right. I can take books out of the library, but thats a privelage, not a right. Same with driving on the streets. Same with being an NRA instructor (and they make you sign an agreement to that effect btw).
I think I've given a fairly coherent account of my view. It is too bad others cannot do similarly and instead bring up irrelevant arguments, invoke ipse dixit arguments from Jefferson and that famous American political philosopher Robert Heinlein and generally obfuscate and fume.
But the thread has drifted.
I remember once Philip Morris or Reynolds did a study in Czechoslovakia that showed that smoking was actually beneficial to society. People who smoked had more severe illnesses but died earlier and thus used fewer resources than non-smokers. The obvious lesson is that instead of taxing the heck out of cigarrettes, government ought to subsidize them and encourage people to smoke. Needless to say the study met with enormous criticism and is taboo.

 

[Control Group]

Well, Rabbi, you've certainly made your position clear, and are to be commended for that.

Of course, I find the notion that rights only exist when the government grants them to us to be utterly abhorrent. I also don't believe the Constitution was written based upon that philosophy (I make this claim based partly on other documents written around the same time by the same authors which indicate their belief in natural rights, and on the fact the the 9th specifically denies that rights need be enumerated to exist), and as such, I can reasonably assume I will disagree with every statement you make.

I realize, however, that my appeal to the Constitution and other writings of the founding fathers could be attacked as ipse dixit (though, since this entire conversation is in the context of regulation coming out of a legislative branch defined by the Constitution, I would argue that considering the intent and beliefs of its authors is highly relevant). Nonetheless, I am curious as to why you believe the ninth amendment to have been included at all if the only rights enjoyed by citizens are those specifically granted them in law.

But instead, let's consider your position outside the context of American law, that rights do not exist in any form aside from that specifically granted by society. Absent a legal/social structure, then, "right" is simply that which you can get away with. The natural consequence of your position is that right and wrong themselves do not exist except as defined by society - if I have no natural right to live, then there is no natural reason to not kill me. Thus, there can be no accusation of immorality leveled at Pol Pot, Stalin, Genghis Khan, etc. As the ultimate authorities in their respective societies, they define right and wrong.

Fundamentally, then, if a government can do something, it should do that thing, since the very fact that it is possible is a de facto recognition that society approves. If society didn't approve, after all, there would be refusal to allow whatever it is to happen (via vote, civil disobedience, armed revolt, or what-have-you).

There are two ways to look at this, and I am unsure which is more appropriate. From one point of view, this simply replaces individual rights with collective rights. You as a person have no "rights," and are morally subject to whatever society decrees you should suffer. This is certainly a belief with historical precedent, though, again, I believe this particular country was founded on the belief that individual rights trump collective rights. Alternatively, one can view this philosophy as simply Nietzsche writ large: as collective might will always outstrip individual might, collective right will always defeat individual right.

I realize I risk straying from the High Road when I say this, but I find your philosophy in all ways repugnant. The problem I face, of course, is that while I recognize your fundamental right to believe what you will, I have no reason to think that you recognize my fundamental right to the same.

Edited to change "a bill" to "regulation," since I was confusing my threads for a bit, there.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK, CG.
You dont have to agree with my position and merely finding it abhorrent is not a good argument.
We are agreed that the Constitution was written with the idea that certain rights are "inalienable" and that there exist natural rights somewhere in a vacuum. I think the reasoning is spurious, but thats besides the point.
A right is not something "you can get away with." A right is something that society by general agreement considers indispensible in most cases, i.e. that you would need a very good reason to take it away. Thus voting is a right but plenty of people either never have that right (children, aliens) or lose it (felons). But government would need a compelling reason to remove someone's right to vote.
Property is another right. But government can also deprive you of property either as a result of criminal conviction on your part (e.g. a fine) or through eminent domain, which is a common law right of the government. But generally the government needs a very good reason to deprive someone of his property. This is unlike N.Korea where someone has no property right.

The argument against my position (I think made my Leo Strauss at Chicago) is that, as you said, by that standard totalitarian governments are not wrong in oppressing their citizens. My response is that what is legal and what is moral are not always identical, although maybe they should be. It may have been legal to dispose of 1M peasants in the Ukraine as Stalin did but that does not make it moral. Whether Stalin violated their "rights" is rather immaterial: what difference does it make?
Your fifth and sixth paragraphs make no sense to me.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Thank you, Rabbi. I understand you clearly now.

~G. Fink

 

[The Rabbi]

Gordon Fink,
Im sure you disagree with me but lets look at the flip side. Without specifically enumerating rights then suddenly everything becomes one. And they are usually entitlements. Thus we hear about a "right" to college education. A "right" to health care and so on. My right of freedom of religion and protest will conflict with your right to have an abortion. In the end you get chaos and anarchy. That isnt good for anyone.

 

[jnojr]

There you go again, as one great Californian used to say. You have no right to have a glass of wine at home. Presently it isnt illegal for you to do so but it is not a right.

You should move to Germany, The Rabbi. You'd like it there. If something isn't expressly permitted by law, then it's forbidden. Makes for a very neat, orderly way of doing things.

However, here in the United States of America, we presume that one does have a right to do whatever s/he wants, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. Sure, lots of arguably "harmless" things are banned, but by specific laws... only those particular harmless things (like marijuana) are banned, and everything else is OK.

Gordon does have a right to drink his wine at home. I'm frightened by anyone who would claim that he does not because there's no government sanctioned piece of paper saying so.

 

[jnojr]

The Constitution does not grant rights. It recognizes them. Important distinction... if the former were true, then one could claim that because a given "right" isn't enumerated, it doesn't exist.

I do have a right to breathe, eat, drink, etc. I have an absolute right to do any damn thing I please, so long as A) I don't violate your rights in the exercise of mine, and B) I don't violate a law. And B) is there simply because I face reality... if the government says standing on your head is illegal, and I stand on my head, I'll be arguing about the "fairness" of that law from inside of a prison cell. I still believe I have a right to stand on my head, since my doing so does not hurt or even effect anyone else.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Rabbi....If nothing else you stick to your guns....That I can respect, but

I do have a right to go to college.....If I qualify through exam, If I have money to pay, and have met the qualifications ......Some right are conditional but no less a right......

 

[Gordon Fink]

Without specifically enumerating rights then suddenly everything becomes one. And they are usually entitlements.…

Rabbi, as you probably know, I’m a libertarian. Remember when you called us all “immoral†in another thread? If you had done even a little research, you probably would have discovered the libertarian doctrine on the non-initiation of force. Once you understand that, you can see how rights are sorted out fairly easily.

~G. Fink

 

[cgv69]

Well well,

I have to say this thread went places I never expected but that’s fine. I simply put this out there as something to think about. Another “tool†if you will when debating with Anti-gun liberals.

Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. Substitute your word of choice

Maybe so but what many people seem to not realize is, generally speaking, the more you try to control something, the less control you end up actually having. Again, I will use Prohibition and the current “War on Drugs†as perfect examples. The government tried to place strict “control†over these substances but instead, they lost any control that they might of ever had.

 

[The Rabbi]

Maybe so but what many people seem to not realize is, generally speaking, the more you try to control something, the less control you end up actually having. Again, I will use Prohibition and the current “War on Drugs†as perfect examples. The government tried to place strict “control†over these substances but instead, they lost any control that they might of ever had.

That's counterintuitive. That suggests that laws to curb something will result in more of that activity, i.e. that laws and penalties have no effect on human behavior. That simply defies common sense and observed phenomena.

 

[Control Group]

The argument against my position (I think made my Leo Strauss at Chicago) is that, as you said, by that standard totalitarian governments are not wrong in oppressing their citizens. My response is that what is legal and what is moral are not always identical, although maybe they should be. It may have been legal to dispose of 1M peasants in the Ukraine as Stalin did but that does not make it moral. Whether Stalin violated their "rights" is rather immaterial: what difference does it make?
Your fifth and sixth paragraphs make no sense to me.

Emphasis, obviously, added by me.

This is exactly the point. If you do not recognize individual rights as existing without societal approval, then what is legal and what is moral are the same by definition. Absent individual rights, to what standards of morality can you hold a government? The only reason to believe that a totalitarian government is in some sense "wrong" is if you also believe that they are violating the rights of their citizens. If the ability of their citizens to live, speak freely, own property, etc. only exist at the whim of society, then there is no case to be made that the totalitarian government is "wrong."

You ask what difference it makes whether Stalin violated the rights of his citizens. It makes all the difference in the world. Without the understanding that people have a right to not be murdered, how can you claim Stalin was morally wrong? No one would argue that Stalin was morally wrong if he ordered a million Ukrainian wrenches to be melted into slag, because the wrenches have no independent right to exist. If his citizens have a fundamental right to life, then what he did was wrong. If they do not, then what he did is not wrong (morally, that is).

And this is the point of my fifth paragraph (beginning "Fundamentally..."). Without a standard by which to judge the morality of government, there can be no claim that a government does anything "right" or "wrong." If the only standard by which a government is judged is whether the society it governs approves of its actions, then anything a government does is morally legitimate: "tacit consent of the governed." That is, if the people really objected to what the government was doing, the government couldn't get away with it. Hence, society always approves of what the government does, so there is no moral check on government action.

In a strictly legal sense, I understand your point regarding "rights" being "what society, by general agreement, considers indispensable in most cases." Again in a legal sense, I'll agree with the statement: that defines what are legally considered to be rights of a citizen of a given society. The question that is unanswered by that statement, though, is whether that's the end point or the starting point. Is society's explicit recognition of something as a right required for it to be a right, or is the absence of a societal condemnation all that is required for something to be a right?

Your examples of rights being dependent upon society are interesting. The right to vote and the right to property are generally accepted in our society as individual rights, but not in many other societies. But note that both of these rights are positive rights: that is, they confer upon the citizen the ability to, in some measure, control or affect another person's rights. Generally, the understanding is that negative rights (that is, rights which relate to you not being interefered with) are inherent to the person, while positive rights are granted by an external authority.

So I will agree that the rights you list are, in fact, dependent upon society - after all, without society and a government, the right to vote is meaningless. Your right to deprive someone else of something, the right to property, is also meaningless without a social framework. I would argue, however, that your rights to not be interefered with do not depend on society. Your right to not be murdered may be much easier to defend within a society, but it doesn't lose all meaning outside of one. Ditto your right to use what you can to defend yourself, your right to pollute/not pollute your own body, your right to think what you will, your right to express those thoughts, etc.

Ultimately, the question is whether society exists to grant you rights or protect your rights. I agree with the founders that the answer to this is the latter: government exists to serve the people; the people do not exist to serve the government.

 

[The Rabbi]

I do have a right to go to college.....If I qualify through exam, If I have money to pay, and have met the qualifications ......Some right are conditional but no less a right......

Thats simply wrong. College is a privelage. Dont confuse that with a right.

 

[Master Blaster]

Rabbi

In my view there is no "right" to breathe per se. Rights to life liberty and property are embedded in America's history, going back to John Locke.
But the right to something is not inherent in any individual. I do not believe in "natural rights" and think rights are constructs of society..

I could not possibly disagree with you more.

The entire foundation of this country is the idea of natural inalienable rights possessed by every person which he/she is endowed by the creator at birth. The government only has power delegated to it by the just consent of the governed. Th bill of rights is there not to grant rights but to prohibit the government absolutely from infringeing upon the rights we already have.

Given your view that the government grants us rights I doubt that we could ever reach an agreement on anything. Are you a Russian communist?
Why the heck did you ever take the moniker "Rabbi"? Surely a good Jew (like me) could never subscribe to the view you have advanced here since it is totally against our philosophy.