| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Peter Franks
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:08 am Post subject: Laws abridge rights? |
 |
|
Idealistically speaking, is there any legitimate reason that a law
should abridge a right?
If so, what/why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:56 pm Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 19:08:54 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Idealistically speaking, is there any legitimate reason that a law
should abridge a right?
|
Sure, PeteyTroll
Even a middle school student learns why
Question is, why would you ask it?
| Quote: |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
"When Moses told the children of Israel that he
received the two tables of the commandments from the
hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him,
because they had no other authority for it that his
telling them so."
"The "commandments" carry no internal evidence of
divinity within them; they carry some good moral
precepts, such as any man qualified to be a law-giver,
or a legislator, could produce himself, without having
to recourse to supernatural intervention"
Thomas Paine,--------- Founder |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
ZerkonX
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:01 pm Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 19:08:54 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
| Quote: |
Idealistically speaking, is there any legitimate reason that a law
should abridge a right?
If so, what/why?
|
If one believes or holds to the principle that each person is born with
inalienable rights, a right itself is beyond the jurisdiction of the
state or any outside agent. This is as absolute and self-evident as a
person born is absolute and self-evident.
Being a principle or belief, this is a simplistic intangible. A matter of
human mortality or ethics. However, it is also an essential basis for all
that follows.
This is a operational social ideal. 'Operational' being that even though
it is an ideal it can guide, in practice, all operations of law so much
so that it helps define the ideal of 'justice'.
So, idealistically speaking, a right is outside of law.
Another shoe drops as each person lives in the society of other people,
of course, but it does not eradicate the first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:20 pm Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
ZerkonX wrote:
| Quote: |
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 19:08:54 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
Idealistically speaking, is there any legitimate reason that a law
should abridge a right?
If so, what/why?
If one believes or holds to the principle that each person is born with
inalienable rights, a right itself is beyond the jurisdiction of the
state or any outside agent. This is as absolute and self-evident as a
person born is absolute and self-evident.
Being a principle or belief, this is a simplistic intangible. A matter of
human mortality or ethics. However, it is also an essential basis for all
that follows.
This is a operational social ideal. 'Operational' being that even though
it is an ideal it can guide, in practice, all operations of law so much
so that it helps define the ideal of 'justice'.
So, idealistically speaking, a right is outside of law.
|
So, idealistically speaking, in your viewpoint there is no right that is
subject to the law?
| Quote: |
Another shoe drops as each person lives in the society of other people,
of course, but it does not eradicate the first.
|
I see this as the flexible nature of the bounds of rights. Jefferson
would agree. The right isn't abridged or infringed, but the bounds are
dynamic based on the rights of others -- the observed outcome is that
all can enjoy a particular right equally through natural control, not
artificial (legal). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
ZerkonX
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:16 pm Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 08:20:04 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
| Quote: |
So, idealistically speaking, a right is outside of law.
So, idealistically speaking, in your viewpoint there is no right that is
subject to the law?
|
Yes, by definition an inalienable right is not subject to law. It is
something one is born with.
| Quote: |
Another shoe drops as each person lives in the society of other people,
of course, but it does not eradicate the first.
I see this as the flexible nature of the bounds of rights. Jefferson
would agree. The right isn't abridged or infringed, but the bounds are
dynamic based on the rights of others -- the observed outcome is that
all can enjoy a particular right equally through natural control, not
artificial (legal).
|
I agree with Paine so do not consider law or government artificial but a
natural consequence of society. He see's it coming from size, I think it
is always there even in the form of taboo systems. A person living
absolutely alone is bound by restrictions that the environment will
impose.
Since we are discussing political Philosophy, I must return to this idea
that a right and an act are two separate things. I hesitate on making an
analogy with physicality but.. it is like the 'right' to have a leg as
opposed to a restriction placed on what one can do with that leg. If a
law is passed that says you can not kick someone, the law does not, can
not, infringe on the fact that one has a leg.
So saying that rights are granted by a court is much the same as saying
that one is only born with legs because a court deems it permissible.
This is why I will continue to bitch and moan when this distinction is
not made even with Jefferson (!!!). It is very dangerous to give law or
government a direct access to a right outside of an action. We can
overlay the leg analogy here and see the potential grim consequences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jeff Strickland
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:34 am Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:XIAbk.11898$Fj5.7489@newsfe23.lga...
| Quote: |
Idealistically speaking, is there any legitimate reason that a law should
abridge a right?
If so, what/why?
|
All laws in essence abridge rights. Laws are Constitutional to the extent we
as a group accept the abridgement as necessary to social order, or
unconstitutional to the extent we object to the constraints they place on us
individually.
Nobody would object to the laws against robbing banks because social order
requires the stuff that we all place in a bank be protected.
Some of us object to public nudity laws because they prohibit girls from
going naked, but the vast majority of those that object are lecherous old
men, and society (American) accepts the abridgement as necessary maintain
social order.
We (America) never gave gay marriage a second thought. We always felt that
to maintain social order, we should confine marriage to that of one man and
one woman -- with the notable exception of one man and multiple women, as is
practiced among some Mormons (which the Mormons accept but the rest of
society rejects). Over the past decade or so, gay rights are beginning to
topple the old standard social order and question the validity of not
allowing gays to marry. Social order accepts the abridgement as a reasonable
constraint, but the social view is changing. I'm not taking a stand here for
or against gay marriage -- although it is widely known that I object to
it -- but I am using the issue to illustrate the idea that rights can be
abridged to the extent we accept the abridgement as necessary to social
order. Today, 2008, it appears that we as a society no longer accept this
particular abridgement any longer.
So, rights can be abridged to the extent society does not balk at the
abridgement. We tend to balk more at some abridgements than others, and some
rights tend to be abridged with amazing regularity, even though a few of us
have balked in the past and won the argument.
As an example, we have a right to keep and bear arms, but the abridgement is
that we can't actually carry our arms around on the street with us unless we
possess a special permit. We are allowed to separate the arms from the
ammunition for the purpose of transporting the arms from one location to
another, presumably from home to a place where they can lawfully be
discharged. Generally, this form of abridgement has been held to be
reasonable to maintain social order. Washington DC passed a law that
prohibitted its citizens from even owning a gun, much less carry it in the
car from one location to another. The abridgement created by that law was
challenged, and the law was deemed to be unreasonable because it abridged a
right for no other reason than a person might live in Washington DC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jeff Strickland
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:54 am Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:XIAbk.11898$Fj5.7489@newsfe23.lga...
| Quote: |
Idealistically speaking, is there any legitimate reason that a law should
abridge a right?
If so, what/why?
|
Peter,
Your entire life expereince can be summed up by three rules. 1.) you gotta
be happy. 2.) you gotta have fun. 3.) you can't screw it up for anybody
else.
If you are out there being happy and having fun at the expense of your
neighbors, then you are violating the third rule. It's 10:30 at night and
you have the stereo blaring, you are happy and having fun, but your neighbor
has a reasonable complaint. This is an example of an accepted abridgement of
your rights. (I get that some argue the neighbor is an idiot, but that's
another thread.) Your exercising of your rights causes your neighbor to not
be able to enjoy his rights -- he is not happy nor is he having fun.
Perhaps your community has a noise ordinance that says the music can never
be heard over the fence at any time of the day or night. You might argue
this is an abridgement of your rights that has no value in the realm of
social order, but the abridgement being imposed after 10:00 at night is
suitible. (You would make such an argument in front of the judge.) Assuming
the judge bought your argument, he would direct the city to strike the
exisiting law and draft a new one. Now, your neighbor gets his quiet at
night and you get your fun in the day. His right is abridged in the day,
your right is abridged at night. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 6:17 am Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:34:00 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
All laws in essence abridge rights.
|
No, that's too broad a claim, Jeffy
Laws regulate interaction in society
the "rights" under discussion are "natural rights" that
are assumed (not proven)---but assumed all humans have.
Laws that regulate or define what an individual,
government, etc, may do, are done to promote harmony
among the members of the society.
You have a natural right to live, be happy, to be free,
to worship whatever god you choose, etc, etc
Laws are there to give you freedom to enjoy them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
ZerkonX
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:55 pm Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:34:00 -0700, Jeff Strickland wrote:
| Quote: |
All laws in essence abridge rights.
|
This is only one of the two edges of the sword.
The essence of the Constitution was to abridge the power of government to
make laws. The essential element in a republic is to abridge government
itself. Government, itself, unlike each of the governed, has no rights
but those given to it. There is no such thing as a government's
inalienable right.
While what you say is all true, or I agree with it anyway, it should be
counter-balanced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
ZerkonX
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:02 pm Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:34:00 -0700, Jeff Strickland wrote:
| Quote: |
All laws in essence abridge rights.
|
This is only one of the two edges of the sword.
The essence of the Constitution was to abridge the power of government to
make laws. The essential element in a republic is to abridge government
itself. Government, itself, unlike each of the governed, has no rights
but those given to it. There is no such thing as a government's
inalienable right.
While what you say is all true, or I agree with it anyway, it should be
counter-balanced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jeff Strickland
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:16 pm Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
"ZerkonX" <Z@X.net> wrote in message news:pan.2008.07.09.15.06.49@X.net...
| Quote: |
On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:34:00 -0700, Jeff Strickland wrote:
All laws in essence abridge rights.
This is only one of the two edges of the sword.
The essence of the Constitution was to abridge the power of government to
make laws. The essential element in a republic is to abridge government
itself. Government, itself, unlike each of the governed, has no rights
but those given to it. There is no such thing as a government's
inalienable right.
While what you say is all true, or I agree with it anyway, it should be
counter-balanced.
|
Exactly true.
As a practical matter, we have rights that reign supreme over laws, but we
allow laws to abridge our rights in order to promote healthy social order.
We eventually balk at the laws, in which case we take our case to court to
complain that the legislature has abridged too far. If the court agrees, the
rights are restored to a previous abridgement level that we allow due to the
necessity of maintaining social order.
When a law (abridgement) exceeds the need of social order, we make a case
before the court which then is charge with weighing the balance of rights
and laws.
Clearly this explaination is far too simplistic, but it ought to illustrate
in a Big Picture sort of way how we balance rights and laws. I assume the
trigger mechanism for the discussion is the Washington DC gun law that was
recently over turned. My illustration states that the court found the
abridgement to go beyond the needs of maintaining social order -- or that
social order is attained at too heavy a cost in the abridgement of our
rights. Either way, a law was passed and an abridgement was created and then
challenged, and the court agreed with the challenge -- all of which fits the
illustration that is far too simplistic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:44 am Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
ZerkonX wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 08:20:04 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
So, idealistically speaking, a right is outside of law.
So, idealistically speaking, in your viewpoint there is no right that is
subject to the law?
Yes, by definition an inalienable right is not subject to law. It is
something one is born with.
Another shoe drops as each person lives in the society of other people,
of course, but it does not eradicate the first.
I see this as the flexible nature of the bounds of rights. Jefferson
would agree. The right isn't abridged or infringed, but the bounds are
dynamic based on the rights of others -- the observed outcome is that
all can enjoy a particular right equally through natural control, not
artificial (legal).
I agree with Paine so do not consider law or government artificial but a
natural consequence of society. He see's it coming from size, I think it
is always there even in the form of taboo systems. A person living
absolutely alone is bound by restrictions that the environment will
impose.
Since we are discussing political Philosophy, I must return to this idea
that a right and an act are two separate things. I hesitate on making an
analogy with physicality but.. it is like the 'right' to have a leg as
opposed to a restriction placed on what one can do with that leg. If a
law is passed that says you can not kick someone, the law does not, can
not, infringe on the fact that one has a leg.
|
This is where I'd diverge. My view is that there shouldn't be a law
that says you can not kick someone; rather the law should be: if you
kick someone, the consequence is... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:50 am Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
Jeff Strickland wrote:
| Quote: |
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:XIAbk.11898$Fj5.7489@newsfe23.lga...
Idealistically speaking, is there any legitimate reason that a law
should abridge a right?
If so, what/why?
All laws in essence abridge rights. Laws are Constitutional to the
extent we as a group accept the abridgement as necessary to social
order, or unconstitutional to the extent we object to the constraints
they place on us individually.
Nobody would object to the laws against robbing banks because social
order requires the stuff that we all place in a bank be protected.
Some of us object to public nudity laws because they prohibit girls from
going naked, but the vast majority of those that object are lecherous
old men, and society (American) accepts the abridgement as necessary
maintain social order.
We (America) never gave gay marriage a second thought. We always felt
that to maintain social order, we should confine marriage to that of one
man and one woman -- with the notable exception of one man and multiple
women, as is practiced among some Mormons (which the Mormons accept but
the rest of society rejects).
|
Mormons don't practice polygamy, nor does the religion accept it.
| Quote: |
Over the past decade or so, gay rights are
beginning to topple the old standard social order and question the
validity of not allowing gays to marry. Social order accepts the
abridgement as a reasonable constraint, but the social view is changing.
I'm not taking a stand here for or against gay marriage -- although it
is widely known that I object to it -- but I am using the issue to
illustrate the idea that rights can be abridged to the extent we accept
the abridgement as necessary to social order. Today, 2008, it appears
that we as a society no longer accept this particular abridgement any
longer.
So, rights can be abridged to the extent society does not balk at the
abridgement.
|
So, under that model, totalitarianism is legitimate as the dissenters
are disposed until society accepts it OR the central propaganda machine
is sufficient to overcome societal objections.
No good, man.
You are just saying that rights are relative to the majority or those in
control -- social contract.
| Quote: |
As an example, we have a right to keep and bear arms, but the
abridgement is that we can't actually carry our arms around on the
street with us unless we possess a special permit.
|
Stop there.
To what end does the permit serve? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:52 am Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:34:00 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
All laws in essence abridge rights.
No, that's too broad a claim, Jeffy
Laws regulate interaction in society
the "rights" under discussion are "natural rights" that
are assumed (not proven)---but assumed all humans have.
Laws that regulate or define what an individual,
government, etc, may do, are done to promote harmony
among the members of the society.
You have a natural right to live, be happy, to be free,
to worship whatever god you choose, etc, etc
Laws are there to give you freedom to enjoy them.
|
No, they aren't, idealistically.
In an ideal government, the laws are there to /protect/ the rights
against infringement by others and government.
In practical terms, what you say is what has been foisted on the public
-- you need laws to be free, therefore the more laws, the more free you
will be. Obviously, when you look at it for what it is, it can't
possibly be true, and obviously isn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:57 am Post subject: Re: Laws abridge rights? |
|
|
Jeff Strickland wrote:
| Quote: |
"ZerkonX" <Z@X.net> wrote in message news:pan.2008.07.09.15.06.49@X.net...
On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:34:00 -0700, Jeff Strickland wrote:
All laws in essence abridge rights.
This is only one of the two edges of the sword.
The essence of the Constitution was to abridge the power of government to
make laws. The essential element in a republic is to abridge government
itself. Government, itself, unlike each of the governed, has no rights
but those given to it. There is no such thing as a government's
inalienable right.
While what you say is all true, or I agree with it anyway, it should be
counter-balanced.
Exactly true.
As a practical matter, we have rights that reign supreme over laws, but
we allow laws to abridge our rights in order to promote healthy social
order. We eventually balk at the laws, in which case we take our case to
court to complain that the legislature has abridged too far. If the
court agrees, the rights are restored to a previous abridgement level
that we allow due to the necessity of maintaining social order.
When a law (abridgement) exceeds the need of social order, we make a
case before the court which then is charge with weighing the balance of
rights and laws.
Clearly this explaination is far too simplistic, but it ought to
illustrate in a Big Picture sort of way how we balance rights and laws.
I assume the trigger mechanism for the discussion is the Washington DC
gun law that was recently over turned. My illustration states that the
court found the abridgement to go beyond the needs of maintaining social
order -- or that social order is attained at too heavy a cost in the
abridgement of our rights. Either way, a law was passed and an
abridgement was created and then challenged, and the court agreed with
the challenge -- all of which fits the illustration that is far too
simplistic.
|
The argument of the case was defective, as was the ruling. There isn't
a right to keep and bear arms, per se, but there is a right to life and
a right to preserve that life.
THAT is what the argument should have been -- Heller should have argued
that he was denied the ability to defend himself in and out of his home,
using whatever appropriate means necessary. Under the ruling, Heller is
'permitted' to defend himself in his home, but STILL DENIED the ability
outside of his home.
The supreme Court essentially said that right of self defense requires a
permit, and that the right to self defense ends at Heller's doorstep. |
|
| 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
|
142 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
