| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Peter Franks
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 12:29 am Post subject: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
 |
|
I hear these terms often in the context of rights discussions. Exempli
gratia: 'the right to bear arms is not unlimited' or 'the right to free
speech is not absolute'.
I really have no idea what those qualifiers mean in such contexts.
What, for example, would someone mean if the 'right to bear arms is
unlimited'?
This discussion is predicated on the basis that a right is (capable of
being) well defined. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 12:29 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
On Jun 27, 3:29 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
I hear these terms often in the context of rights discussions. Exempli
gratia: 'the right to bear arms is not unlimited' or 'the right to free
speech is not absolute'.
I really have no idea what those qualifiers mean in such contexts.
What, for example, would someone mean if the 'right to bear arms is
unlimited'?
|
Any law which infiringed on the right would be unconstitutional.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:59 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 27, 3:29 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
I hear these terms often in the context of rights discussions. Exempli
gratia: 'the right to bear arms is not unlimited' or 'the right to free
speech is not absolute'.
I really have no idea what those qualifiers mean in such contexts.
What, for example, would someone mean if the 'right to bear arms is
unlimited'?
Any law which infiringed on the right would be unconstitutional.
|
Ok.
So, then are you implying that governmental powers include the authority
to infringe rights? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 1:18 pm Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
On Jun 27, 5:59 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Jun 27, 3:29 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
I hear these terms often in the context of rights discussions. Exempli
gratia: 'the right to bear arms is not unlimited' or 'the right to free
speech is not absolute'.
I really have no idea what those qualifiers mean in such contexts.
What, for example, would someone mean if the 'right to bear arms is
unlimited'?
Any law which infiringed on the right would be unconstitutional.
Ok.
So, then are you implying that governmental powers include the authority
to infringe rights?
|
You are stuck on the notion that rights are determined from some
outside source.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
ZerkonX
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:45 pm Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:29:58 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
| Quote: |
This discussion is predicated on the basis that a right is (capable of
being) well defined.
|
This is the heart of the matter isn't it? Where the 'rubber of idealism
meets the road of pragmatic' and where law itself becomes or should
become subservient.
The or maybe 'a' place to start is the DOI.
Each human, by nature, is born with rights. OK, this is absolute, if you
believe it to be true in the first place. However, as described so well
by Paine, humans also, by nature, will group as government for mutual
benefit.
From this point onward then it is not the right itself which becomes non-
absolute but the ability to demonstrate or exercise that right, if it
violates those of another.
So the 'right to exercise' becomes different than the possession of the
right or the definition of a right. The right to have a gun can be
absolute but this does not the same as being mean able to shoot anyone
you please.
This difference is important. Maybe it is just a partisan view point but
I see the role of government and it's laws in no position to define what
a right is or is not, or if it is absolute or not. It's function is to
determine how this right is exercised and only then within the confines
of behavior which is further restricted to behavior which effects others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 12:41 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
On Jun 28, 7:36 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Jun 27, 5:59 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Jun 27, 3:29 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
I hear these terms often in the context of rights discussions. Exempli
gratia: 'the right to bear arms is not unlimited' or 'the right to free
speech is not absolute'.
I really have no idea what those qualifiers mean in such contexts.
What, for example, would someone mean if the 'right to bear arms is
unlimited'?
Any law which infiringed on the right would be unconstitutional.
Ok.
So, then are you implying that governmental powers include the authority
to infringe rights?
You are stuck on the notion that rights are determined from some
outside source.
So, then are you implying that governmental powers include the authority
to infringe rights?
Yes or no?
|
Only if you accept your premise that rights are determined from some
outside source.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:36 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 27, 5:59 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Jun 27, 3:29 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
I hear these terms often in the context of rights discussions. Exempli
gratia: 'the right to bear arms is not unlimited' or 'the right to free
speech is not absolute'.
I really have no idea what those qualifiers mean in such contexts.
What, for example, would someone mean if the 'right to bear arms is
unlimited'?
Any law which infiringed on the right would be unconstitutional.
Ok.
So, then are you implying that governmental powers include the authority
to infringe rights?
You are stuck on the notion that rights are determined from some
outside source.
|
So, then are you implying that governmental powers include the authority
to infringe rights?
Yes or no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:42 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
ZerkonX wrote:
| Quote: |
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:29:58 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
This discussion is predicated on the basis that a right is (capable of
being) well defined.
This is the heart of the matter isn't it? Where the 'rubber of idealism
meets the road of pragmatic' and where law itself becomes or should
become subservient.
The or maybe 'a' place to start is the DOI.
Each human, by nature, is born with rights. OK, this is absolute, if you
believe it to be true in the first place. However, as described so well
by Paine, humans also, by nature, will group as government for mutual
benefit.
From this point onward then it is not the right itself which becomes non-
absolute but the ability to demonstrate or exercise that right, if it
violates those of another.
So the 'right to exercise' becomes different than the possession of the
right or the definition of a right. The right to have a gun can be
absolute but this does not the same as being mean able to shoot anyone
you please.
This difference is important. Maybe it is just a partisan view point but
I see the role of government and it's laws in no position to define what
a right is or is not, or if it is absolute or not. It's function is to
determine how this right is exercised and only then within the confines
of behavior which is further restricted to behavior which effects others.
|
I'm just not understanding what is and isn't an absolute right.
A right, by definition, will have bounds. Jefferson explained it best
in my opinion by saying that the a right extends up to the point that it
substantially affects the rights of another (I'm paraphrasing here).
So, some then argue that because a right has bounds, it is no longer
absolute. My response is then that there is NOTHING that is absolute
then, under that definition, and the word absolute has nothing to do
with reality but rather hypothetical discussions.
I, on the other hand, argue that the right is absolute, even though it
is bounded, meaning that one that holds the right is free to exercise,
unconditionally, that right -- and just to be clear -- exercising that
right within the bounds of that right.
So, in the case of gun rights -- presuming the person hasn't forfeited
that right, that person has the absolute right to exercise their right,
unconditionally and free from government infringement.
The same model applies to any other right. If the person hasn't
forfeited that right, they can exercise that right absolutely and
unconditionally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jeff Strickland
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:50 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:Xcb9k.8589$F97.1851@newsfe18.lga...
| Quote: |
I hear these terms often in the context of rights discussions. Exempli
gratia: 'the right to bear arms is not unlimited' or 'the right to free
speech is not absolute'.
I really have no idea what those qualifiers mean in such contexts. What,
for example, would someone mean if the 'right to bear arms is unlimited'?
This discussion is predicated on the basis that a right is (capable of
being) well defined.
|
The right to bear arms is not unlimited -- this construct is a double
negative. The courts have held that gun ownership can be regulated, a
background check for prior criminal activity that might cause one to forfeit
the right is reasonable. A concealed carry permit is a reasonable
requirement. These are two examples of limitations that the courts have held
as legitimate.
The right to free speech is not absolute. An example of this might be
slander and/or libel laws where your speech might do actual harm to another
person. Another example might be the restriction on screaming, "Fire," in a
crowded theater.
The problem that Washington DC faced with its law was that otherwise law
abiding citizens were prevented from exercising their 2nd Amendment Right.
The law was overly broad. The court has held in other cases that a law can
be crafted that targets a certain class of individuals -- they (whomever
"they" are) might not want violent felons to be able to have a gun, but
that's not what the law in DC did. The DC law went after the entire
populous, not after a finely defined subset. The limitation was too broad to
be allowable under the Constitution.
They can draft a law that says an ex-felon can not have a gun, then turn
around and apply that law to you and I. We (severally or together) can then
sue on the grounds that we are not ex-felons, and that the law had been
wrongly applied. (I suppose that as an ex-felon, we might try to sue that we
should be able to get our guns back, but we would have to overcome the
precident that says felons can be forced to forfiet certain rights that the
rest of the citizenry enjoys.) But when the law defines a specific class of
people to deny rights to, people can raise the case that they are not part
of the class. DC denied rights to everybody, and the court said this is
wrong. I agree with the court on this, as much as I understand the objective
of DC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
ZerkonX
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:11 pm Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 16:42:05 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
| Quote: |
I'm just not understanding what is and isn't an absolute right.
|
In the previous post I questioned that term, so I also do not understand
exactly what this means as it was used.
| Quote: |
I, on the other hand, argue that the right is absolute, even though it
is bounded, meaning that one that holds the right is free to exercise,
unconditionally, that right -- and just to be clear -- exercising that
right within the bounds of that right.
|
I am attempting to distinguish a difference between the absolute
procession of a right and the non-absolute exercise of that right that is
processed absolutely.
It is not entirely meaningless to have a right but not be at liberty to
exercise it, as I see it. The burden shifts from the right itself to
specific and tangible behavior which then can be legally examined. This
denies government any direct involvement in defining what a right is and
who has or does not have them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
ZerkonX
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:13 pm Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:18:23 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
| Quote: |
You are stuck on the notion that rights are determined from some outside
source.
|
From what inside source are they determined? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:41 pm Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 16:42:05 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
ZerkonX wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:29:58 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
This discussion is predicated on the basis that a right is (capable of
being) well defined.
This is the heart of the matter isn't it? Where the 'rubber of idealism
meets the road of pragmatic' and where law itself becomes or should
become subservient.
The or maybe 'a' place to start is the DOI.
Each human, by nature, is born with rights. OK, this is absolute, if you
believe it to be true in the first place. However, as described so well
by Paine, humans also, by nature, will group as government for mutual
benefit.
From this point onward then it is not the right itself which becomes non-
absolute but the ability to demonstrate or exercise that right, if it
violates those of another.
So the 'right to exercise' becomes different than the possession of the
right or the definition of a right. The right to have a gun can be
absolute but this does not the same as being mean able to shoot anyone
you please.
This difference is important. Maybe it is just a partisan view point but
I see the role of government and it's laws in no position to define what
a right is or is not, or if it is absolute or not. It's function is to
determine how this right is exercised and only then within the confines
of behavior which is further restricted to behavior which effects others.
I'm just not understanding what is and isn't an absolute right.
|
You need a short course in what "natural rights" are,
and what restrictions and regulations are applied by a
rule of law----.
| Quote: |
So, some then argue that because a right has bounds, it is no longer
absolute. My response is then that there is NOTHING that is absolute
then, under that definition, and the word absolute has nothing to do
with reality but rather hypothetical discussions.
|
You have an "absolute right" to life, liberty, and
pursuit of happiness" as stated.
You forfeit that "absolute right" when you abrogate the
restrictions placed on your behavior by natural or
other law.
Therefore your warrant is mostly silly setting up
statements that have little or no discussable
validation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:55 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
ZerkonX wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:18:23 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
You are stuck on the notion that rights are determined from some outside
source.
From what inside source are they determined?
|
In the USA, the Constitution and how it is interpreted by the judiciary.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:36 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
| Quote: |
ZerkonX wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 06:18:23 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
You are stuck on the notion that rights are determined from some outside
source.
From what inside source are they determined?
In the USA, the Constitution and how it is interpreted by the judiciary.
|
So, prior to the constitution or the judiciary, there were no rights?
So, in countries where there are not constitutions or judiciaries, there
are no rights?
Why do these people without rights fight for freedom then? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:37 am Post subject: Re: Meaning of the qualification 'unlimited' or 'absolute' |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 28, 7:36 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Jun 27, 5:59 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Jun 27, 3:29 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
I hear these terms often in the context of rights discussions. Exempli
gratia: 'the right to bear arms is not unlimited' or 'the right to free
speech is not absolute'.
I really have no idea what those qualifiers mean in such contexts.
What, for example, would someone mean if the 'right to bear arms is
unlimited'?
Any law which infiringed on the right would be unconstitutional.
Ok.
So, then are you implying that governmental powers include the authority
to infringe rights?
You are stuck on the notion that rights are determined from some
outside source.
So, then are you implying that governmental powers include the authority
to infringe rights?
Yes or no?
Only if you accept your premise that rights are determined from some
outside source.
|
I'm not playing the game. I asked a clarifying question, you haven't
responded.
Have a nice day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
137 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
