Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (80879)	7/12/2004 12:21:46 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"The same rights I have today. I just would not be able to exercise these rights" You miss the point of the analogy entirely. Most people consider that animals do not have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we grant them such rights then we could not rightfully consume them. If the position was reversed and if tigers harvested us for consumption, it would be illogical for them to grant us the right not to be eaten, imprisoned, etc. Rights are not micro-chips embedded by Nature under our skin. They are not objects at the end of our key chains or attached to our name tags at work. They are merely agreements between rational people to treat one another to certain standards of decency in order that the Kingdom of Humanity may promote the self interest of all. It is only recently that rights have taken on a global disposition. Throughout most of history "rights" belonged only to ones own tribe or people. Other people could be abused, killed--and even eaten in some cultures. In Biblical times genocide was a standard policy--as well as was capturing virgins and taking them as property. So when we talk about human "rights" we are talking about the ideas of rational and benevolent people about how we ought to treat one another. For those in whom reason is not pre-eminent, there are no Natural Rights connected to a rational way of living. Only where a creature has a rational nature can we sensibly speak of natural "rights". The idea of "Natural Rights" was never consistent nor static. It was controversial: Hobbes and Locke did not agree. And Jefferson simply provided his own opinion which agreed with neither. Modern ideas are likewise dynamic and controversial. "This would not be the only example of the law calling something other then what it is." Quibbling does not fade the argument. Neglect is almost invariably considered an aspect of abuse. It doesn't matter what State you live in. If you neglect someone in your care beyond certain acceptable standards, you will be charged with ABUSE. "However your constitutional rights are pretty much just rights against the government or those acting as agents of the government" No, they are mainly rights against one another. The Government is there to see that we do not overly violate one another. That includes a speedy and fair trial for those accused of violating rights of others. 99 percent of people in prison are there because they violated the rights of their fellows which is against the Constitution. The Government is the structure which supervises our behavior. In order that it remain impartial and just, the Constitution takes great pains to define limitations of Governmental authority. Like all Constitutions, the Board of Directors must have limitations and obligations,and procedure for change or replacement sufficiently set down. But it must not be forgotten that the heart of the Constitution is that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the essence of the Constitutional contract. It is indeed YOUR basic argument as well as mine, whether we speak of the smallest unit--another individual--or larger groups of individuals up to and including Governments "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Oh. So you believe that State laws against discrimination are Constitutional, but that Federal laws against discrimination are unconstitutional? Is that correct, Tim? Now, let us get back to the ninth: "It also says nothing about any other rights besides the right enumerated in the constitution as being protected by the constitution." That is inaccurate. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." DOES mention other rights (those which were not listed but which do exist), and it says they are protected by the Constitution. These "other rights" are constitutionally protected from DENIAL and DISPARAGEMENT. They SHALL NOT be denied or disparaged. That is clear enough, I think. So why do you think they did not simply enumerate them all, Tim? There must be a reason...right? I will tell you why: because human rights are based on the rational agreements of human beings; and human reason is the manipulation of human knowledge. To take what is dynamic and to make it static is to guarantee the future “legal” violation of human "rights" by Government as well as by other individuals. At one time owning slaves was a basic “right”. It was so strongly believed to be so, that one of the bloodiest wars in human history was fought on that basis. Now most people no longer consider the owning of slaves to be their right. But there are still many people who believe that threatening the existence of others by denying them equal right to purchase essential goods and services is their God given right….just as they used to believe that owning slaves was their God given right. As I said to you before: I am well aware of the controversies. As a matter of fact…here is one of thousands of well written papers which cover a range of view-points and perspectives. law.berkeley.edu You are not alone in your view. And you are certainly entitled to it. But my understanding is that your Courts support the Constitutionality of human rights legislation. So you can either fight to change it legally, you can go to war, or you can accept that the interpretation and understanding of others prevails. I think we have beaten it to death. I have stated my approval of anti-racism laws where it affects the essential capacity of people to be citizens under the Constitution. I find no conflict whatsoever between such laws and the fundamental rights of free speech and association. All rights are limitative and all co-existence in society involves compromise. Only in a society of ONE do you have unlimited rights—natural or by your own decree—and that is only until the tiger bites off your head.