| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ZerkonX
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
 |
|
I want to explore, through discussion, the nature of rights outside of
any court conclusion, as if this topic were being considered for the
first time.
My position is that since a right is inalienable (if this premise is not
acceptable, please save for another thread) the right itself can not be
abridged or determined by the state. What can be are actions.
This distinction between a right and an action or behavior is what I
believe to be a valid point and equating the two a mistake.
The first question is or might be: are rights, for all practical
purposes, meaningless outside of behavior?
One answer to the first question, "yes, rights have a practical meaning
outside of behavior" is based on the same traditional liberal humanism
that conceived the notion in the first place.
The starting point is an innate right, or value, or self-worth possessed
by each person for no reason other than by being human, no other reason.
With this as a recognized natural possession, principles or *ways* to
behave are formed by each individual and, socially, this common value
forms a common bond and a human cohesion that transcends, has actually
transcended, cultures, race, nations and all governments. This indeed has
meaning and argues that rights and actions are not to be equated so
easily. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:19 am Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:11:04 +0000, ZerkonX <Z@X.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
My position is that since a right is inalienable (if this premise is not
acceptable, please save for another thread) the right itself can not be
abridged or determined by the state. What can be are actions.
|
Of course it can
You have no claim to "Liberty" if you commit a crime
Your behavior is a determinant of what "rights" you
enjoy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
JC
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:49 pm Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
"ZerkonX" <Z@X.net> wrote in message news:pan.2008.07.10.16.25.21@X.net...
| Quote: |
I want to explore, through discussion, the nature of rights outside of
any court conclusion, as if this topic were being considered for the
first time.
My position is that since a right is inalienable (if this premise is not
acceptable, please save for another thread) the right itself can not be
abridged or determined by the state. What can be are actions.
This distinction between a right and an action or behavior is what I
believe to be a valid point and equating the two a mistake.
The first question is or might be: are rights, for all practical
purposes, meaningless outside of behavior?
One answer to the first question, "yes, rights have a practical meaning
outside of behavior" is based on the same traditional liberal humanism
that conceived the notion in the first place.
The starting point is an innate right, or value, or self-worth possessed
by each person for no reason other than by being human, no other reason.
With this as a recognized natural possession, principles or *ways* to
behave are formed by each individual and, socially, this common value
forms a common bond and a human cohesion that transcends, has actually
transcended, cultures, race, nations and all governments. This indeed has
meaning and argues that rights and actions are not to be equated so
easily.
|
Here's a good example of laws (unconstitutional as they are) overiding a
right. Read about the "Gold Clause" cases. The government passed laws to
preclude lenders from foreclosing on home loans. So, the right of the lender
to receive payment, interest and/or the collateral was estopped. And, it's
happening again as we speak with the bail out bill being considered now.
--
I'm JC and I approved this message.
EDUCATE YOURSELF!
http://www.reason.com/
http://www.hillsdale.edu/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 5:55 am Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:11:04 +0000, ZerkonX <Z@X.net
wrote:
My position is that since a right is inalienable (if this premise is not
acceptable, please save for another thread) the right itself can not be
abridged or determined by the state. What can be are actions.
Of course it can
You have no claim to "Liberty" if you commit a crime
Your behavior is a determinant of what "rights" you
enjoy.
|
No, the enjoyment of a right is not conditional on behavior -- everyone
is free to enjoy their rights.
Those that choose to willingly violate the rights of others forfeit ALL
of their rights.
You may not be able to see a difference between what you and I wrote --
but there is a difference, a very real difference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 5:56 am Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
JC wrote:
| Quote: |
"ZerkonX" <Z@X.net> wrote in message news:pan.2008.07.10.16.25.21@X.net...
I want to explore, through discussion, the nature of rights outside of
any court conclusion, as if this topic were being considered for the
first time.
My position is that since a right is inalienable (if this premise is not
acceptable, please save for another thread) the right itself can not be
abridged or determined by the state. What can be are actions.
This distinction between a right and an action or behavior is what I
believe to be a valid point and equating the two a mistake.
The first question is or might be: are rights, for all practical
purposes, meaningless outside of behavior?
One answer to the first question, "yes, rights have a practical meaning
outside of behavior" is based on the same traditional liberal humanism
that conceived the notion in the first place.
The starting point is an innate right, or value, or self-worth possessed
by each person for no reason other than by being human, no other reason.
With this as a recognized natural possession, principles or *ways* to
behave are formed by each individual and, socially, this common value
forms a common bond and a human cohesion that transcends, has actually
transcended, cultures, race, nations and all governments. This indeed has
meaning and argues that rights and actions are not to be equated so
easily.
Here's a good example of laws (unconstitutional as they are) overiding a
right. Read about the "Gold Clause" cases. The government passed laws to
preclude lenders from foreclosing on home loans. So, the right of the
lender to receive payment, interest and/or the collateral was estopped.
And, it's happening again as we speak with the bail out bill being
considered now.
|
An unconstitutional law is not legitimate.
Therefore, in your scenario, the bailouts are not legitimate, regardless
of their 'legislative' status. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 5:59 am Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
ZerkonX wrote:
| Quote: |
I want to explore, through discussion, the nature of rights outside of
any court conclusion, as if this topic were being considered for the
first time.
My position is that since a right is inalienable (if this premise is not
acceptable, please save for another thread) the right itself can not be
abridged or determined by the state. What can be are actions.
This distinction between a right and an action or behavior is what I
believe to be a valid point and equating the two a mistake.
|
I don't follow.
In the context of mortality, there is only one right -- the right to
life; all other rights are subordinate to that right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
ZerkonX
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:59 pm Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:59:03 -0700, Peter Franks wrote:
| Quote: |
This distinction between a right and an action or behavior is what I
believe to be a valid point and equating the two a mistake.
I don't follow.
In the context of mortality, there is only one right -- the right to
life; all other rights are subordinate to that right.
|
I am going to extend this to 'the pursuit of happiness' and am going to
interpret this as living life as each sees fit to live their life by
their own determinants (e.g. religion, social and political associations,
occupation). This implies the 'liberty' to do so.
The basis is what people do by their nature, what each is born to do, not
what they are allowed to do. So the demand upon government is to not
interfere with human nature.
I suppose we are in agreement up to this point.
Taking this as given, there are no subordinate rights. None trump
another, they are equal as they constitute the entire nature of each
person. However, this is an ideal or operating principle, the starting
point for what follows.
What follows are the actions taken in this 'pursuit of happiness'. The
action has, or can have, consequences in human society with each person
pursuing their own want. Are the actions beneficial, harmful or neutral
to others in the society? The principle of 'rights' here is not in
question, the action is.
This is what I would like to be put under group consideration in this
thread. I want to force (?) a consideration of principle as being
separate from actions taken under that principle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
JC
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 5:16 pm Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:hBSek.18720$3q7.11215@newsfe15.lga...
| Quote: |
JC wrote:
"ZerkonX" <Z@X.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.07.10.16.25.21@X.net...
I want to explore, through discussion, the nature of rights outside of
any court conclusion, as if this topic were being considered for the
first time.
My position is that since a right is inalienable (if this premise is not
acceptable, please save for another thread) the right itself can not be
abridged or determined by the state. What can be are actions.
This distinction between a right and an action or behavior is what I
believe to be a valid point and equating the two a mistake.
The first question is or might be: are rights, for all practical
purposes, meaningless outside of behavior?
One answer to the first question, "yes, rights have a practical meaning
outside of behavior" is based on the same traditional liberal humanism
that conceived the notion in the first place.
The starting point is an innate right, or value, or self-worth possessed
by each person for no reason other than by being human, no other reason.
With this as a recognized natural possession, principles or *ways* to
behave are formed by each individual and, socially, this common value
forms a common bond and a human cohesion that transcends, has actually
transcended, cultures, race, nations and all governments. This indeed
has
meaning and argues that rights and actions are not to be equated so
easily.
Here's a good example of laws (unconstitutional as they are) overiding a
right. Read about the "Gold Clause" cases. The government passed laws to
preclude lenders from foreclosing on home loans. So, the right of the
lender to receive payment, interest and/or the collateral was estopped.
And, it's happening again as we speak with the bail out bill being
considered now.
An unconstitutional law is not legitimate.
Therefore, in your scenario, the bailouts are not legitimate, regardless
of their 'legislative' status.
|
But nobody seems to care whether laws are legitimate anymore.
--
If there was supposed to be a separation of church
and state in the US Constitution, why did the founders
put the words "in the year of our Lord" in it?
From the Federalist Papers:
The second method will be exemplified in the federal
republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it
will be derived from and dependent on the society,
the society itself will be broken into so many parts,
interests and classes of citizens, that the rights of
individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger
from interested combinations of the majority.
In a free government the security for civil rights must
be the same as that for RELIGIOUS RIGHTS.
It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests,
and in the other in the multiplicity of SECTS. The degree
of security in both cases will depend on the number of
interests and SECTS
JC
http://www.reason.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:09 pm Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
JC wrote:
| Quote: |
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:hBSek.18720$3q7.11215@newsfe15.lga...
JC wrote:
"ZerkonX" <Z@X.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.07.10.16.25.21@X.net...
I want to explore, through discussion, the nature of rights outside of
any court conclusion, as if this topic were being considered for the
first time.
My position is that since a right is inalienable (if this premise is
not
acceptable, please save for another thread) the right itself can not be
abridged or determined by the state. What can be are actions.
This distinction between a right and an action or behavior is what I
believe to be a valid point and equating the two a mistake.
The first question is or might be: are rights, for all practical
purposes, meaningless outside of behavior?
One answer to the first question, "yes, rights have a practical meaning
outside of behavior" is based on the same traditional liberal humanism
that conceived the notion in the first place.
The starting point is an innate right, or value, or self-worth
possessed
by each person for no reason other than by being human, no other
reason.
With this as a recognized natural possession, principles or *ways* to
behave are formed by each individual and, socially, this common value
forms a common bond and a human cohesion that transcends, has actually
transcended, cultures, race, nations and all governments. This
indeed has
meaning and argues that rights and actions are not to be equated so
easily.
Here's a good example of laws (unconstitutional as they are)
overiding a right. Read about the "Gold Clause" cases. The government
passed laws to preclude lenders from foreclosing on home loans. So,
the right of the lender to receive payment, interest and/or the
collateral was estopped. And, it's happening again as we speak with
the bail out bill being considered now.
An unconstitutional law is not legitimate.
Therefore, in your scenario, the bailouts are not legitimate,
regardless of their 'legislative' status.
But nobody seems to care whether laws are legitimate anymore.
|
Sad, but true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:55:21 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Your behavior is a determinant of what "rights" you
enjoy.
No, the enjoyment of a right is not conditional on behavior -- everyone
is free to enjoy their rights.
|
Nonsense
Your "rights" stop where others start, and can be
stripped if your behavior so warrants it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:55:21 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
You may not be able to see a difference between what you and I wrote --
but there is a difference, a very real difference.
|
Well, slowy, but surely, most everyone is figuring out
that what you conclude is somewhere in lala land. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:56:44 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
An unconstitutional law is not legitimate.
|
So, then how did Jim Crow laws get enacted? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:12 pm Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:16:42 GMT, "JC"
<dontbother@imouttatown.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Therefore, in your scenario, the bailouts are not legitimate, regardless
of their 'legislative' status.
But nobody seems to care whether laws are legitimate anymore.
|
Nobody seems to want to admit that what they consider
"illegitimate" is nothing more than them not getting
their way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
JC
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:27 am Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
<Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:62jp74p5kjvagqp3r4d0id0qjgsdfc6utn@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:16:42 GMT, "JC"
dontbother@imouttatown.net> wrote:
Therefore, in your scenario, the bailouts are not legitimate, regardless
of their 'legislative' status.
But nobody seems to care whether laws are legitimate anymore.
Nobody seems to want to admit that what they consider
"illegitimate" is nothing more than them not getting
their way.
|
We are all at fault for allowing a government by the people to become
subjects of the government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:57 am Post subject: Re: The Question Of Rights (yet again) |
|
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:55:21 -0700, Peter Franks
none@none.com> wrote:
Your behavior is a determinant of what "rights" you
enjoy.
No, the enjoyment of a right is not conditional on behavior -- everyone
is free to enjoy their rights.
Nonsense
Your "rights" stop where others start, and can be
stripped if your behavior so warrants it.
|
You obviously didn't understand what I wrote. |
|
| 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
