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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (21544)	7/21/2005 3:05:02 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

In other words, there are some rights derived from natural law that we are, or should be, unwilling to part with under any circumstances (i.e. remain inalienable by Webster's). Is that what you are saying? If so, I agree and don't think I've said anything to imply otherwise. But I would also point out that what I consider a "right" in this context is always something derived from natural law and never something created by the state or society. Those things created by positive act of society that instill in us a sense of entitlement and some would call a "right" would be better termed "privileges", IMO. This would include such things as the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads or the privilege of being educated at taxpayer expense. Some rights, however, that are nevertheless derived from natural law are voluntarily subjected to constraint by society's laws. Liberty, for example, is a rather broad and vague term and our right to liberty is clearly not without limit. By your argument, there would have to be some liberties that are natural rights, and therefore inalienable by Webster's definition, and others that are lesser rights - merely privileges created by society. Well, which are which? Where is the line? My position is that liberty is the natural right, however vague the term, and WE, in and as society, judge what constraints we will accept on our liberty. No right to liberty is created by law. The laws only protect or constrain rights, or extend privileges. Finally, I understand what you are saying about an implication in my argument of no clear limit on what rights may be constrained. However, I would remind you that in a democracy, sovereignty rests in each individual, not the state. The government has no authority to take away (or grant, for that matter) rights. It only has the authority that we assign to it, and then only to constrain where we deem it appropriate and acceptable or, otherwise, to protect our rights and grant or take away privileges. It is our responsibility as citizens to decide where that line is - the rights we can not allow to be constrained or limited. We may, from time to time, allow the line to drift marginally one way or another (it moved dramatically during the Civil War and WWII, but we moved it back), but if we feel that government has stepped over that line and is placing limits that are not acceptable, then we, as society, must reign in the government. It is accountable to us and, again, only has the powers we grant it. We had a revolution to make that point.