| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Peter Franks
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:42 am Post subject: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
 |
|
Which reigns supreme? Rights over laws (1), or laws over rights(2)?
(1) Conservative viewpoint?
(2) Liberal viewpoint? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
ZerkonX
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:05 am Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:42:03 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
| Quote: |
Which reigns supreme? Rights over laws (1), or laws over rights(2)?
(1) Conservative viewpoint?
(2) Liberal viewpoint?
|
To me, this question needs to be questioned.
IMO
A right and a law are not in balance so one can not 'reign supreme' over
the other. Law is the consideration of tangibles, rights are not tangible
but a principle. However, a bias can be determined, or that which is
considered as primary importance.
In the preamble to the USC, a government was established by people to
secure liberty, not to create it. Liberty being a preexisting condition
or a condition before law. Law was meant to protect, not to give, create
or define.
This is why I still insist that law must be limited to the consideration
of tangibles. Social behavior being that tangible. Here, law is granted
supremacy but only through the right of consent of those subject to the
law, not through the force of law alone.
I consider this view neither conservative or liberal. If it is, then I
will change whatever I have said to make it not so!!
(last sentence: humor) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:36 am Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
ZerkonX wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:42:03 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
Which reigns supreme? Rights over laws (1), or laws over rights(2)?
(1) Conservative viewpoint?
(2) Liberal viewpoint?
To me, this question needs to be questioned.
IMO
A right and a law are not in balance so one can not 'reign supreme' over
the other. Law is the consideration of tangibles, rights are not tangible
but a principle. However, a bias can be determined, or that which is
considered as primary importance.
In the preamble to the USC, a government was established by people to
secure liberty, not to create it. Liberty being a preexisting condition
or a condition before law. Law was meant to protect, not to give, create
or define.
This is why I still insist that law must be limited to the consideration
of tangibles. Social behavior being that tangible. Here, law is granted
supremacy but only through the right of consent of those subject to the
law, not through the force of law alone.
I consider this view neither conservative or liberal. If it is, then I
will change whatever I have said to make it not so!!
(last sentence: humor)
|
Ok, but idealistically speaking:
should NO LAW infringe upon the free exercise of a right by the law abiding?
- or -
CAN a law infringe upon the free exercise of a right by the law abiding?
In my opinion, the core ideology of a conservative viewpoint is YES/NO
and a liberal viewpoint is NO/YES. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:13 pm Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:36:24 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
should NO LAW infringe upon the free exercise of a right by the law abiding?
|
Laws are in place to prevent behavior.
| Quote: |
In my opinion, the core ideology of a conservative viewpoint is ....
|
A nonsense scenario concocted for trolling purposes.
Conservatives tend to view human behavior in best
possible situations---then conclude that no laws will
serve society better.
History always proves them wrong
Eventually, some "librul" will have to come along and
pick up the mess caused by that stupidity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
ZerkonX
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:30 pm Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:36:24 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
| Quote: |
should NO LAW infringe upon the free exercise of a right by the law
abiding?
- or -
CAN a law infringe upon the free exercise of a right by the law abiding?
|
If you abide the law then law has no cause to infringe. If you do not,
there is, so it can.
| Quote: |
In my opinion, the core ideology of a conservative viewpoint is YES/NO
and a liberal viewpoint is NO/YES.
|
'Liberal' and 'conservative' are, like rights, principles. The political
tangibles, or behavior, are the two parties. I see them as false
opposites, or giving mere illusions of difference. Both terms, liberal
and conservative, have become too corrupted for me to have any serious
discussion other then rant.
The real political contention, or the thing at the base of most all
difference no matter how it's named is now, as it was from the beginning
between Federalists and Republicans. Today, I believe we live in, or
actually under, a war forged federalist system only made tolerable by
calling it a republic or, worse still, a democracy.
America was founded on liberal (inclusive) ideology in modest opposition
to the more exclusive political nature of Europe (divine right, church/
state alliances AND crown sanctioned monopolies).
I do not think there is anything more fundamental to this liberalism then
that each human 'resigns supreme' over how they choose to live which is
their inalienable right, and to this principle all law must remain bias. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:01 am Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:36:24 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
should NO LAW infringe upon the free exercise of a right by the law abiding?
Laws are in place to prevent behavior.
|
Yes, that would be a liberal viewpoint.
The liberal ideology is that all others are incapable of controlling
themselves, so the law must be enacted to force them into correct behavior. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:05 am Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
ZerkonX wrote:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:36:24 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
should NO LAW infringe upon the free exercise of a right by the law
abiding?
- or -
CAN a law infringe upon the free exercise of a right by the law abiding?
If you abide the law then law has no cause to infringe. If you do not,
there is, so it can.
|
Yes, if you abide the law, but that isn't the question.
What if the law infringes upon the right? And you, an otherwise law
abiding citizen attempts to exercise that right. Now what? You are
exercising what should be considered a right, free and clearly, yet the
law prohibits it. Are you then a law breaker and subject to the
forfeiture of that right in its entirety?
The liberal ideology would argue YES, the law reigns supreme.
The conservative ideology would argue NO, the right reigns supreme and
the law is defective.
| Quote: |
In my opinion, the core ideology of a conservative viewpoint is YES/NO
and a liberal viewpoint is NO/YES.
'Liberal' and 'conservative' are, like rights, principles. The political
tangibles, or behavior, are the two parties. I see them as false
opposites, or giving mere illusions of difference. Both terms, liberal
and conservative, have become too corrupted for me to have any serious
discussion other then rant.
|
I'm talking about liberal/conservative as an ideology, not politically. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
RhymeCon
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:44 pm Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
On Jul 3, 8:03 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@gotcha.comcast.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Peter Franks wrote:
The liberal ideology would argue YES, the law reigns supreme.
The conservative ideology would argue NO, the right reigns supreme and
the law is defective.
This liberal/conservative distinction is nonsense.
Josh Rosenbluth
|
Exactly what do you mean by "reigns supreme?" "Legally" by definition
means that a law can overide some one's rights which is cause enough
to cast a jaundiced eye at laws. I make thousands of decisions every
day ("should I go t bed or finish this book?") without even thinking
about the law but only occasionally ("got only three minutes to get
back to the parking meter") do I think about the law. Conservatives
make the latter as rare as possible, still maintaining an orderly
society, but a vigorous, productive life for us all.
Our founding fathers knew this when they passed the first ten
ammendments. Someone has called these, misleadingly, the "bill of
rights." In fact, they don't give us a single right. They prevent
government from taking AWAY our rights. Just read them and you'll see
what I mean. (O.K., there's a minor exception in VII which is about
lawsuits which are usually between two citizens, not a citizen and
government.)
RhymeCon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 5:00 pm Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
Peter Franks wrote:
| Quote: |
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:36:24 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
should NO LAW infringe upon the free exercise of a right by the law
abiding?
Laws are in place to prevent behavior.
Yes, that would be a liberal viewpoint.
The liberal ideology is that all others are incapable of controlling
themselves, so the law must be enacted to force them into correct behavior.
|
Where did you get that one from?
"Liberal" has its roots in the "liberty", the opposite of what you claim
liberalism is.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 5:03 pm Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
Peter Franks wrote:
| Quote: |
The liberal ideology would argue YES, the law reigns supreme.
The conservative ideology would argue NO, the right reigns supreme and
the law is defective.
|
This liberal/conservative distinction is nonsense.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:37 pm Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
| Quote: |
Peter Franks wrote:
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:36:24 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
should NO LAW infringe upon the free exercise of a right by the law
abiding?
Laws are in place to prevent behavior.
Yes, that would be a liberal viewpoint.
The liberal ideology is that all others are incapable of controlling
themselves, so the law must be enacted to force them into correct
behavior.
Where did you get that one from?
"Liberal" has its roots in the "liberty", the opposite of what you claim
liberalism is.
|
"liberal" may claim "liberty", but at the core, that is false.
The true core of the ideology is that laws reign supreme over rights.
Therefore, a person isn't free to exercise their rights to the fullest
extent, only to the extent permitted by law. The law is considered
supreme, and is enacted to ensure that the citizens behavior is correct. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:41 pm Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
| Quote: |
Peter Franks wrote:
The liberal ideology would argue YES, the law reigns supreme.
The conservative ideology would argue NO, the right reigns supreme and
the law is defective.
This liberal/conservative distinction is nonsense.
|
Choose the terminology that suits you: liberal/conservative,
socialist/capitalist, rights/social contract, etc. The choice of
terminology is irrelevant.
The core assertion remains. There are two ideologies: one where rights
reign supreme, the other where laws reign supreme. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:22 am Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
RhymeCon wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 3, 8:03 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@gotcha.comcast.net
wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
The liberal ideology would argue YES, the law reigns supreme.
The conservative ideology would argue NO, the right reigns supreme and
the law is defective.
This liberal/conservative distinction is nonsense.
Josh Rosenbluth
Exactly what do you mean by "reigns supreme?"
|
Another, perhaps more popular way to phrase it would be:
- laws a consequence of rights (rights reign supreme)
- rights are a consequence of laws (laws reign supreme)
| Quote: |
"Legally" by definition
means that a law can overide some one's rights which is cause enough
to cast a jaundiced eye at laws. I make thousands of decisions every
day ("should I go t bed or finish this book?") without even thinking
about the law but only occasionally ("got only three minutes to get
back to the parking meter") do I think about the law. Conservatives
make the latter as rare as possible, still maintaining an orderly
society, but a vigorous, productive life for us all.
Our founding fathers knew this when they passed the first ten
ammendments. Someone has called these, misleadingly, the "bill of
rights." In fact, they don't give us a single right. They prevent
government from taking AWAY our rights. Just read them and you'll see
what I mean. (O.K., there's a minor exception in VII which is about
lawsuits which are usually between two citizens, not a citizen and
government.)
|
Yes, that is why I don't use that terminology in favor of the
'Amendments', 'Amendments to the Constitution', or 'First 10
Amendments', etc., whichever is appropriate.
Far too many people are of the mistaken persuasion that our rights come
from the Constitution (or the Amendments) -- they don't. Similarly, the
phrase 'constitutional right' is found in common parlance, also a
misguided concept. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:32 am Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
On Jul 3, 9:37 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Nick...@Click.com wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:36:24 -0700, Peter Franks
n...@none.com> wrote:
should NO LAW infringe upon the free exercise of a right by the law
abiding?
Laws are in place to prevent behavior.
Yes, that would be a liberal viewpoint.
The liberal ideology is that all others are incapable of controlling
themselves, so the law must be enacted to force them into correct
behavior.
Where did you get that one from?
"Liberal" has its roots in the "liberty", the opposite of what you claim
liberalism is.
"liberal" may claim "liberty", but at the core, that is false.
The true core of the ideology is that laws reign supreme over rights.
|
A fact-free claim made up out of whole cloth.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:36 am Post subject: Re: Which reigns supreme? Rights or Laws? |
|
|
On Jul 3, 9:41 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
The core assertion remains. There are two ideologies: one where rights
reign supreme, the other where laws reign supreme.
|
Neither is the case in the USA. Rights are supreme except in a few
limited circumstances.
Josh Rosenbluth |
|
| 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
