| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:05 pm Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
 |
|
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:30:43 GMT, "JC"
<dontbother@imouttatown.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
I've just finished reading (for the second time) "Commentaries on the
Constitution" by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, circa 1833. If you want
to know why things are so screwed up today, just read that.
|
In 1833, women didn't vote, nor were slaves recognized
as people (mostly)
Property tended to be required to vote, and later on,
"tests" were applied to keep some from their franchise.
There are a great number of things written or "thought"
from 1789-forward---that don't quite fit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
JC
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:46 pm Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
<Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:5d3s7493bcf24pvg67cmt2jcqo8njr416u@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:30:43 GMT, "JC"
dontbother@imouttatown.net> wrote:
I've just finished reading (for the second time) "Commentaries on the
Constitution" by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, circa 1833. If you
want
to know why things are so screwed up today, just read that.
In 1833, women didn't vote, nor were slaves recognized
as people (mostly)
Property tended to be required to vote, and later on,
"tests" were applied to keep some from their franchise.
There are a great number of things written or "thought"
from 1789-forward---that don't quite fit.
|
I don't believe the principles ever change. It's the interpretation of them
that gets us in trouble. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
JC
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:47 pm Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
<Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:up2s74l25ifstip7r1am29vh9mcoskma1o@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:27:32 GMT, "JC"
dontbother@imouttatown.net> wrote:
Most of the time, the real claim (or opinion) turns out
to be just adverse policy that you don't like.
Oh, I like it that the government can spy on me, don't you? It's probably
very rare that the government acts outside the bounds of the rule of law
that it must follow. It just makes laws to cover themselves in those
instances.
Your beef is with a Executive, not a government.
Government is directed by the politician in power.
|
Wow. You mean the FISA law was just an executive order. Mercy. Where have I
been? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:55 pm Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:25:04 +0000, ZerkonX <Z@X.net
wrote:
The idea explored here is that human right is untouchable by government.
Human rights are "inalienable"---they are not absolute.
|
Oh, but rights /are/ absolute. The contrary view is fodder for the
totalitarian.
A right, within the bounds of that right, is NOT subject to government
regulation or infringement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:34 am Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:55:59 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:25:04 +0000, ZerkonX <Z@X.net
wrote:
The idea explored here is that human right is untouchable by government.
Human rights are "inalienable"---they are not absolute.
Oh, but rights /are/ absolute. The contrary view is fodder for the
totalitarian.
|
Nonsense. Nothing is absolute.
| Quote: |
A right, within the bounds of that right, is NOT subject to government
regulation or infringement.
|
You're defining a, or your, "right" as
"absolutes"---they are not.
They CAN be, and ARE removed, regulated, and otherwise
modified according to law.
You have an "inalienable" right to Life
You do NOT have an "absolute" right to life under
various circumstances---one of which is homicide.
You have an "inalienable" right to "freedom"---
You do NOT have an "absolute" right if you commit a
transgression to remove that right from you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:42 am Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:46:01 GMT, "JC"
<dontbother@imouttatown.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:5d3s7493bcf24pvg67cmt2jcqo8njr416u@4ax.com...
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:30:43 GMT, "JC"
dontbother@imouttatown.net> wrote:
I've just finished reading (for the second time) "Commentaries on the
Constitution" by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, circa 1833. If you
want
to know why things are so screwed up today, just read that.
In 1833, women didn't vote, nor were slaves recognized
as people (mostly)
Property tended to be required to vote, and later on,
"tests" were applied to keep some from their franchise.
There are a great number of things written or "thought"
from 1789-forward---that don't quite fit.
I don't believe the principles ever change. It's the interpretation of them
that gets us in trouble.
|
But you must agree that any "principle" that is a
function of accepted social or historical thinking, is
subject to modification
We accept, as truth, the "inalienable right" to life,
liberty, happiness, etc---as given by a Creator. They
do not come as "transferred" things from anyone, they
are individual grants.
But we accept the premise, that the working rule of law
(constitution) can, and should be modified in
regulating the laws as society changes----among which
are "interpretations" as to what the law means in
various society stages.
Thus, the "thinking" of rural, pre-industrial America
changed over generations, and certainly as westward
expansion and large immigration required us to modify
many of the long-standing "principles" we held
Eventually, the "principle" of little or no government
involvement in the life of citizens caused major
problems---so it was modified.
There was a long period of "loonytarian" policy that
eventually failed--replaces with more government
involvement and regulation. It is remarkable that
present day loonytarians either don't know about former
"hands off" by government, or they're deliberately
ignoring it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:43 am Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:47:01 GMT, "JC"
<dontbother@imouttatown.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Your beef is with a Executive, not a government.
Government is directed by the politician in power.
Wow. You mean the FISA law was just an executive order. Mercy. Where have I
been?
|
The aberration of the FISA laws was a direct result of
Bush/Cheney instigation----with their Justice Dept
okaying every step. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:52 am Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:55:59 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:25:04 +0000, ZerkonX <Z@X.net
wrote:
The idea explored here is that human right is untouchable by government.
Human rights are "inalienable"---they are not absolute.
Oh, but rights /are/ absolute. The contrary view is fodder for the
totalitarian.
Nonsense. Nothing is absolute.
|
Within the context of what is being defined & discussed, yes, rights are
absolute.
| Quote: |
A right, within the bounds of that right, is NOT subject to government
regulation or infringement.
You're defining a, or your, "right" as
"absolutes"---they are not.
|
Not my definition, but the correct definition.
| Quote: |
They CAN be, and ARE removed, regulated, and otherwise
modified according to law.
|
They can not be legitimately removed. They can be forfeited.
They can not be legitimated regulated.
A law that attempts to remove or regulate is illegitimate in pure terms.
| Quote: |
You have an "inalienable" right to Life
You do NOT have an "absolute" right to life under
various circumstances---one of which is homicide.
|
You have an absolute right to life. If you willingly and maliciously
violate the rights of another, you forfeit your right.
| Quote: |
You have an "inalienable" right to "freedom"---
You do NOT have an "absolute" right if you commit a
transgression to remove that right from you.
|
Ibidem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:40 am Post subject: Re: The Question Of Franks confusion of "absolute" and "inal |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:52:38 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:55:59 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:25:04 +0000, ZerkonX <Z@X.net
wrote:
The idea explored here is that human right is untouchable by government.
Human rights are "inalienable"---they are not absolute.
Oh, but rights /are/ absolute. The contrary view is fodder for the
totalitarian.
Nonsense. Nothing is absolute.
Within the context of what is being defined & discussed, yes, rights are
absolute.
|
Nonsense
The context you're "discussing" cannot achieve absolute
because it's in a societal and human venue. You're
still attempting to set up an unachievable scenario in
an imperfect environment, then argue as if it's
possible
You cannot achieve "absolute Rights" in a human
environment.
| Quote: |
A right, within the bounds of that right, is NOT subject to government
regulation or infringement.
You're defining a, or your, "right" as
"absolutes"---they are not.
Not my definition, but the correct definition.
|
THere is no venue or environment where "human rights"
are absolute.
| Quote: |
They CAN be, and ARE removed, regulated, and otherwise
modified according to law.
They can not be legitimately removed. They can be forfeited.
|
They can---because you do NOT have absolute
rights---you have inalienable rights.
| Quote: |
They can not be legitimated regulated.
A law that attempts to remove or regulate is illegitimate in pure terms.
|
The rights you claim are "absolute" are not such. There
is no such thing.
| Quote: |
You have an "inalienable" right to Life
You do NOT have an "absolute" right to life under
various circumstances---one of which is homicide.
You have an absolute right to life. If you willingly and maliciously
violate the rights of another, you forfeit your right.
|
Sorry, but you lose again
If a right is "absolute", it cannot be forfeited.
| Quote: |
ab·so·lute (²b“s…-l›t”, ²b”s…-l›t“) adj. Abbr. abs.
1. Perfect in quality or nature; complete.
2. Not mixed; pure.
3.a. Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional.
b. Unqualified in extent or degree; total.
4. Unconstrained by constitutional or other provisions.
5. Not to be doubted or questioned; positive
|
as opposed to:
| Quote: |
in·al·ien·a·ble (¹n-³l“y…-n…-b…l, -³“l¶-…-) adj.
That cannot be transferred to another or others.
|
Which can be modified, removed, or forfeited. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
ZerkonX
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:57 pm Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:55:59 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
| Quote: |
Human rights are "inalienable"---they are not absolute.
Oh, but rights /are/ absolute. The contrary view is fodder for the
totalitarian.
|
The purely material aspect of this is birth. If one is born, one has
rights as part, an absolute part, of each human's nature. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:59 am Post subject: Re: The Question Of Franks confusion of "absolute" and "inal |
|
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
They CAN be, and ARE removed, regulated, and otherwise
modified according to law.
They can not be legitimately removed. They can be forfeited.
They can---because you do NOT have absolute
rights---you have inalienable rights.
|
We have:
- inalienable rights (that is, they can't be transferred from one
entity to another)
- absolute rights (that is, they aren't subject to legal restriction)
| Quote: |
They can not be legitimated regulated.
A law that attempts to remove or regulate is illegitimate in pure terms.
The rights you claim are "absolute" are not such. There
is no such thing.
|
There is where you fail to understand.
ALL rights are absolute. Legal restrictions on rights is nothing more
than saying that laws reign supreme.
But laws don't reign supreme, rights do. And legitimate laws are
enacted to PROTECT rights, not RESTRICT rights.
| Quote: |
You have an "inalienable" right to Life
You do NOT have an "absolute" right to life under
various circumstances---one of which is homicide.
You have an absolute right to life. If you willingly and maliciously
violate the rights of another, you forfeit your right.
Sorry, but you lose again
If a right is "absolute", it cannot be forfeited.
ab·so·lute (²b“s…-l›t”, ²b”s…-l›t“) adj. Abbr. abs.
1. Perfect in quality or nature; complete.
2. Not mixed; pure.
3.a. Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional.
b. Unqualified in extent or degree; total.
4. Unconstrained by constitutional or other provisions.
5. Not to be doubted or questioned; positive
|
Nothing you quote is contrary to my point. Forfeiture is not an aspect
of absolute as can be clearly seen from your provided definition.
| Quote: |
as opposed to:
in·al·ien·a·ble (¹n-³l“y…-n…-b…l, -³“l¶-…-) adj.
That cannot be transferred to another or others.
Which can be modified, removed, or forfeited.
|
Forfeiture is not a transfer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 2:32 am Post subject: Re: The Question Of Franks confusion of "absolute" and "inal |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:59:40 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
The rights you claim are "absolute" are not such. There
is no such thing.
There is where you fail to understand.
|
No, I understand the difference between a philosophical
"absolute" and reality
| Quote: |
ALL rights are absolute.
|
If that were true, then no right could be abrogated by
law, society, or any means--which we know as not
reality. You would be free to behave or act in any
manner you saw fit.
That simply is not reality, it is nothing more than a
philosophical exercise in nonsense.
| Quote: |
But laws don't reign supreme, rights do. And legitimate laws are
enacted to PROTECT rights, not RESTRICT rights.
|
Since there are no "absolute rights", in practice, your
arguments are invalid.
Those "rights" you claim are "absolute", are modifed
immediately when in conflict with anothers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 2:34 am Post subject: Re: The Question Of Franks confusion of "absolute" and "inal |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:59:40 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Forfeiture is not an aspect
of absolute as can be clearly seen from your provided definition.
|
You just claimed that any "absolute right" cannot be
forfeited under any circumstance. THe definition of
"Absolute" is quite clear. |
|
| 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
