are rights absolute?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quick read, chipster. & frankly, I don't have the time to.

My rights have nothing to do with any interaction of a society.

They exist. Period.

That any semblance of a society seems to get their rocks off by limiting them = so sorry & too bad.

Rights exist as they are, regardless of what a society may think of them.
 
Rights are defined by the system of governance that one lives in. Rights may well be absolute if you live on a deserted island or the moon, but they're not absolute (unconditional, without exception) when a human being lives under the Rule of Law. In fact, rights are only meaningful to the extent that they can be enforced. In America, we rely on the Law to enforce our individual rights. On an island of nomads, you'd have to enforce your own individual rights. However, because we choose to live in the U.S. we also subject ourselves to the Rule of Law. As mentioned before, the Rule of Law has carved out exceptions or restrictions to every human right that has been mentioned in this thread. So, in a society that is premised on the Rule of Law, there are simply no "absolute rights."

As for the thought that we are born with absolute rights, it may be an ideal way of thinking about rights, but it makes no difference to a female born in Saudi Arabia who is denied many of the rights we consider fundamental because of the oppressive society she lives in. Does she still have the right of free speech if she can't exercise it? She doesn't have the "right" (ability) to speak freely about politics or other issues because she'll be arrested and punished if she does.

So, I would say to KMKeller and labgrade that it makes all the difference in the world what society of humans you are born into when determining the nautre and scope of your rights. Rights are meaningless unless they can be legally enforced. Our founding fathers created the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court as enforcement mechanisms to protect the rights of individuals. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best one I've seen yet.
 
Does she still have the right of free speech if she can't exercise it?
Click to expand...
Yep. If a tree falls in the forest, does it make any sound? She is being stripped of that right by an oppressive regime. The right exists whether she can enforce it or not.
 
KMKeller,

Rights are of no use if there are no others with whom to interact. No doubt that you would have and they would be absolute simply because there would be no one else around to where you would run up against the natural limits of your rights. My rights end at your nose. Your rights end at mine. This is not about any restrictions society might dream up to suppress your exercise of liberty. It is about acknowledging the fact that your rights end where mine begin.

I am not speaking of governmental limits or restrictions imposed by any external force. Yes, rights are absolute if you exist in a social vacuum however, people do not exist in a social vacuum. Therefore your rights must have limits at the point which the exercise of your rights infringes on another person's rights.

Chipper
 
If a tree falls in the forest, does it make any sound?
Click to expand...
Of course it does; what's your point? :confused:

She is being stripped of that right by an oppressive regime.
Click to expand...
And being "stripped of that right" means that she no longer possesses it.

The right exists whether she can enforce it or not.
Click to expand...
Where does it exist? In her mind? A right unexercised is no right at all.
 
And being "stripped of that right" means that she no longer possesses it.
Click to expand...
Nope. She still has the right. Each time an officer of her government suppresses her expression of her right, he commits a positive wrong. That's part of the function rights serve: to point out when might is in the wrong.

Where does it exist? In her mind?
Click to expand...
It exists in the same place it always did. The same place her life exists. There is no one corporeal location for one's life—it simply is when all the parts are functioning properly, yet it is no less real. In the same way, rights are real without having to be physical, and even when they are denied.

A right unexercised is no right at all.
Click to expand...
Several of us disagree.
 
Chipper
Rights are of no use if there are no others with whom to interact
Click to expand...
So if Mowgli is walking through the jungle and spots a juicy berry, he has no right to pick it and eat it unless another human is there? I don't buy that for a second.


Beer
And being "stripped of that right" means that she no longer possesses it.
Click to expand...
WrongO old buddy. It means that the penalty for exercising her right is more detrimental to her general welfare than the exercising of that right would be beneficial.

Where does it exist? In her mind? A right unexercised is no right at all.
Click to expand...
Maybe she exercises it while she's on the john, or taking a bath, or on a solitary walk. Just because you don't hear it doesn't mean it's not there. And further, if she stands up one day and shouts "No more, the politicians are criminals". Does her right to free speach only exist for that split moment she exercises it? Nope, it was there all along and fear prevented it's use. Fear is the only thing that can prevent the exercise of one's rights. No government can legislate your rights so far into oblivion that you can't exercise them. Fear of reprisal will prevent their use and so will forgetting that they exist.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, rights are absolute if you exist in a social vacuum however, people do not exist in a social vacuum. Therefore your rights must have limits at the point which the exercise of your rights infringes on another person's rights.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Indeed. Well put.
Click to expand...

Indeed, very well put. And this statement also bolsters the fact that your rights are as absolute as are mine.
 
It means that the penalty for exercising her right is more detrimental to her general welfare than the exercising of that right would be beneficial.
Click to expand...
Well, KM, we can agree on one thing based on your above statement, that her right is not absolute (without exception and unconditional) which is what this thread started out to be about.
 
KMKeller,

I do not see the disconnect that you claim:
So if Mowgli is walking through the jungle and spots a juicy berry, he has no right to pick it and eat it unless another human is there? I don't buy that for a second.
Click to expand...


Do you not understand what is to be in society? If Mowgli is 100% on his own and no one exists or has claims to the lands for hundreds of miles around then yes! Mowgli's rights could be considered absolute. Though he would be the only who thought such if he even gave rights a thought. Why would this be? Because there is no one else around and he would have no real or present need to think about rights, claim rights or exercise rights. When one or more people enter into the picture besides yourself with whom you might possibly interact and claims of property are made (what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours) then rights MUST enter the picture as a means of defining what is his and defending his claim against the possible encroachments of any other person or persons by reason or, failing that, by force as a matter of defense. This would NOT be necessary if other people had not entered the picture.

Chipper
 
Puckey, I think, Chipper, if I understand you correctly.

Just because there's some other folk about doesn't degrade any rights I might have. & frankly, their presence might enhance 'em.

Other than that, I don't know what I'm talking about. ;)
 
Labgrade,

Puckey?!?!? LOL! I haven't heard that word in quite a while!

You are correct:
Just because there's some other folk about doesn't degrade any rights I might have. & frankly, their presence might enhance 'em.
Click to expand...

Your rights are NOT degraded. Your rights ARE enhanced. This is because they become clearly defined. They are NOT negatively restricting limits such as having to seek permission from the state to carry your method of self-defense or to beg for tax-free status to preach the gospel as you understand it. These are the actions of an out-of-control nation-state and a society that is afraid of your liberty.

My rights are limited because they end at your nose. If I have the right to travel, I could take the notion to travel right into your house and right on over to your refrigerator and grab a cold one. Then I could turn around and travel back to your living room and grab the remote and change the channel to something I want to watch and plop down in your easy chair. Somehow, I think that you would be real anxious to show me your firearms collection if I did something like that. Then I would say STOP! I have the right to travel and I would travel right on out the door I came in. Though this is an absurd example, it still illustrates that there are natural limits to rights. My rights do NOT allow me to trespass or transgress against your rights.

Let's say that we meet each other on the street in your hometown. We'll say that I suddenly find you to be the most repulsive person I have ever met. Let's say that I start exercising my right to free speech and start sweaing at you. You decide to simply walk from me thinking that I am some sort of lunatic. Then I start to follow you everywhere swearing and insulting you every step of the way. I follow you to the bank, the grocery store, to your workplace, to your home, evrywhere. All the while I am talking trash to you and telling anyone and everyone around you just exactly what I think of you. Now this goes on daily without ceasing. What can you do? If my rights are absolute, there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop me.

Let's say that instead of following you around to swear and such, I instead choose to go out to the woods where no one is around and proceed to rant and rave about you out there where no one can hear me. Do people still exist? Yes. Is my right to free speech absolute? No. Can I execise my right to free speech as much as I want while here in the woods? Yes. Then where is it that my rights are limited? When amongst other people who also have rights. Then what is the limiting factor on my rights? The rights of other people.

I chose these absurd examples to again illustrate that there ARE natural limits to one's rights. Not legislative limits. Not social limits. Natural limits. This is why I say that IF you live in a vacuum (no other person with whom you will ever make contact with throughout your entire life) then your rights ARE absolute. Then again, if you ARE in a vacuum, why would need rights? There would be NO one else to contest what your rights are. There would exist NO need to have or define rights. A baby that plays alone does not contest what is his. It is only when another baby is brought to the first baby that the contest of claims begins. Whether for a toy, for food, for attention a contest will happen between the two to gain what each wants. This contest never ends throughout all of life.

Chipper
 
Quickly,

Plenty good Chipster, although I am somehow quite out of reasoning lately.

Let me try though.

You never had the right to plop in my easy chair, or to grab a beer from my 'frigerator. That "right" simply never existed in the first place - without my permission.

Your right to hound me in public sure does/is & I guess I'd just have to live with it - although betcha I could come up with some way to counter it. ;)

My play on this whole thing is that I do have absolute rights = to live, to enjoy .... to express myself completely - to have & to hold - things that are explicitly mine.

That I may cause some consternation to others frankly isn't any of my concern.

That I may infringe upon their own "stuff" certainly is. I don't & never did have that right to do so.

I never had the right to infringe upon anothers'.

& that's the real question asked here.

I do believe that my rights are absolute, but I may never infringe upon anothers'.

Live & let live - & so much more within that, huh?

Chip, thanks. I think it a good idea we hook up sometime.

I firmly believe that if we each have complete freedom, well .... there really wouldn't be so much of a need to have any laws at all .... We would be self-convincing & limiting - that's what good guys do.

Except for those yahoos who would bastardize the system. But that's the crux, huh? (but how much of our system do we have to apply to these bad guys?)

I think our founders started this nation out this way & it was screwed from the git-go by those who wanted to get over it.

[/ramblings] yeah, right. ;)

Things I know to be true are absolute.

But, I have many questions.

Both I know to be very true.

:confused:
 
Well, KM, we can agree on one thing based on your above statement, that her right is not absolute (without exception and unconditional) which is what this thread started out to be about.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. Her right IS absolute, her will to enforce it is not. There is a difference.
 
Her right IS absolute, her will to enforce it is not. There is a difference.
Click to expand...
The entire thread, but the above quote in particular, has degraded the meaning of fundamental rights (rights we possess that prevent the government or others from taking action to infringe upon them) to a now convolluted definition of "right" that it's something you're able to do, and now according to the above definition, you have to be willing to enforce your own right. You've defined rights right out of existence with these examples. I'll rely on the Bill of Rights to enumerate my legal rights and the courts to enforce them. Our courts, while not perfect, do a much better job of enforcing our rights than your statement that a Saudi woman be required to enforce her own "rights" whatever they may be.
 
My play on this whole thing is that I do have absolute rights = to live
Click to expand...
labgrade, I respect your persistence, but how can you have an "absolute" (without exception/unconditional) right to life if the government can rightfully take that right away if you're convicted and sentenced to the death penalty? Your right to life is conditional on you not murdering someone, thus it can not be absolute.
 
Yes, rights are absolute if you exist in a social vacuum however, people do not exist in a social vacuum. Therefore your rights must have limits at the point which the exercise of your rights infringes on another person's rights.
Click to expand...
If I choose to not jump up and down, do I still have the right to jump up and down? If I choose to enter into an agrement with which limits the practice or exercise of a particular right, do I still have that right?


I don't agree. Her right IS absolute, her will to enforce it is not. There is a difference.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. ;) As I said on the first page of this thread, “Rights are absolute. Whether you decide to exercise it [them] or not, is not.â€
 
Your right to life is conditional on you not murdering someone, thus it can not be absolute."

Goodness, Beer.

That seems awfully twisted.

Could we agree that I never had a right to murder someone?

My persistence stems from a core belief in some things.

I most certainly never had a "right" to infringe on yours.
 
Lots to think about on this topic. I'v been mulling this over and have come to the realization (I think, correct me if I'm wrong!) that Rights, if existant at all must be absolute or not at all.

i.e., No one can first strike another without violating the NAP or 2nd common law or whatever you want to call it. So when we talk 'absolute rights' were speaking as its a given that no violation (read victim) exists. So if we're in a state of innocence how could anyone else take this innocence to task without violating one or the other of the 2 laws themselves? Once the innocent one has been violated in this manner all bets are off because moral doctrine of defense has been justified.

Summarily, we could say 'Dont tread on me'. This doctrine makes perfect sense. This is not a blank check to because you're Able to do anything, so anything goes, its a given (still) that your behaviour will not even inadvertantly violate anyone else in any way. So keeping that in light, how could any color of law apply to this individual at all, that is innocent of violation? It could not and the innocents rights still exist at the same time. For the 'law' to throw even the first statute at you is an immediate and complete destruction of your rights. To say; "you can 'have the right to _________ if you pay a fee and take the permit..." is total hogwash and bullpucky! This is eminent domain my friends, and is in total opposition to the 2 common laws and any shred of rights that you may possess. Remember, the innocent man with rights has still not violated anyone and this is the only justification that one could rightly give for resistance to the eminent domain machine that exists.

For the legislative establishment to ask people to abide by what they say is right is to subtly ask if they can paint the background in our portrait of liberty (life). (A little leaven leaveneth the whole loaf). There is no conditional rights. Thats the deception! You either have rights or you dont. They keep saying "You'll still have your picture of freedom..." as they paint more of the background. Closer...closer....If you fall for this you have already lost and will soon be painted out of the picture. There is zero room for compromise if rights are to exist. If you are willing to prove that your rights exist by defending them with your life, then that would make them pretty darn absolute in my book. Anything else would be deceptive and distractive from the real issue. So we get to choose, citizen or slave? Bottom line.

Philosophically speaking, of course. :scrutiny: :)
 
For the legislative establishment to ask people to abide by what they say is right is to subtly ask if they can paint the background in our portrait of liberty (life). (A little leaven leaveneth the whole loaf). There is no conditional rights. Thats the deception! You either have rights or you dont. They keep saying "You'll still have your picture of freedom..." as they paint more of the background. Closer...closer....If you fall for this you have already lost and will soon be painted out of the picture.
Click to expand...

:confused: :confused: :confused:
 
Could we agree that I never had a right to murder someone?
Click to expand...
Yes, we can agree. But you also have a right to life, UNLESS you murder someone. That, on its face is an exception to the right to life, meaning that the right to life cannot be absolute. An "absolute" right by definition cannot be subject to conditions, exceptions, or restrictions; it must be unconditional. I don't see why that's so hard for some people to understand.
 
What dont you understand about my post you quoted?
Click to expand...
The entire post.

Honestly, I've followed your other posts, but the last one just left me scratching my head. . .It looks like you're trying to get some kind of funky metaphorical thing going, but it just doesn't get your message across. . . to me anyway. :(
 
Oh. Yeah I hear ya. Sorry if it was a little metaphorical but its kinda hard to discuss this stuff sometimes and be specific about anything cause all the thin skinned ones take offense and start tryin to pick apart the details while losing sight of the big picture (issue). Plus ramblin dont make anything any clearer either.;)

I fail to understand why "some things you shouldnt say", or if you do your 'out of line'. Some things need to be discussed and we should be able to rise above perceived emotional content and keep with the implied doctrine for sake of discussion lest knowledge and wisdom be lost and Oleg's hard work for nothing.

If I were to say; LEO's have no right to releive me of my gun cause I KNOW I have commited no offense...I'm an LEO basher. If I said I try to hold myself to the law of (gasp) God, then I'm intolerant of others beliefs.:rolleyes: We all cant be right.

The big picture is freedom and liberty. They say if we can paint in one law back here in the background that life will be better. They keep painting in new laws to the point that any picture of freedom or liberty is getting mighty hard to distinguish. Guess what? It isnt any better. Its worse. Letting us pay money and sign ourselves into their oppressively conditional subjection is an abomination to the integrity of mankind and nothing less than organized slavery!
What? Put me on the good guy list for a fee? Arent they supposed to be taking the willful violators out of society for us? Oh, they're cycling them back onto the street for their cause. They aint doin their job! The have a copy of the syllabus (Constitution). Clear cut breach of contract. (not the leo's fault, not the legislator's fault, they say its our fault for voting.) I dont buy it. This is NOT a democracy its a republic that originally answered to a higher law than the present administration. So it being my fault supposedly then it shouldnt suprise anyone if I rose above their slavery proposal with a public declaration of non recognizance of statutory law. I am the people, and I answer to God first my conscience second.

Philisophically speaking mr alaphabet man! :neener:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top