Are rights "absolute?"
- Thread starter labgrade
- Start date
Are rights "absolute?" Yes, in theory and in the hearts of all good men (people). They are not granted or given. They are ennumerated in the Bill of Rights as limits on the powers of government.
In reality, government can make laws and influence the opinions of the the People (via the media and mis/dis-information campaigns) that do reduce our Rights. When we act within what is concievably our rights, but in contrast to what the government approves, we can find ourselves incarcirated or burned to death in our homes.
When the government comes to your door, for whatever cause (owning the wrong kind of guns or too much ammo, speaking or writing against Them, growing the wrong kind of herb, or because They had the wrong address) with the intention of arresting you there really is little you can do. Even if you use the 100yrd escape tunnel and take it on the run you are still under their control, in that you are no longer to live the way you choose.
I guess when it comes down to it freedom is just another word for "nothin' left to lose".
In reality, government can make laws and influence the opinions of the the People (via the media and mis/dis-information campaigns) that do reduce our Rights. When we act within what is concievably our rights, but in contrast to what the government approves, we can find ourselves incarcirated or burned to death in our homes.
When the government comes to your door, for whatever cause (owning the wrong kind of guns or too much ammo, speaking or writing against Them, growing the wrong kind of herb, or because They had the wrong address) with the intention of arresting you there really is little you can do. Even if you use the 100yrd escape tunnel and take it on the run you are still under their control, in that you are no longer to live the way you choose.
I guess when it comes down to it freedom is just another word for "nothin' left to lose".
Rights are absolute with this exception; they may not be exercised in ways which violate the rights of others. If one of the two people's rights must be violated, then the more important right is allowed to trump the other.
However, Catch 22 states in part "They have the right to do to us anything we can't stop them from doing to us."
However, Catch 22 states in part "They have the right to do to us anything we can't stop them from doing to us."
Nightcrawler
New member
of course...
the BIG debate eternally rages over when your exercising a right interferes with someone ELSE's rights.
*shrug* Such things are the stuff human society is made of, I guess.
the BIG debate eternally rages over when your exercising a right interferes with someone ELSE's rights.
*shrug* Such things are the stuff human society is made of, I guess.
Rights are absolute only if you accept that there is such a thing as objective truth.
Once we wander into the touchy feely world of subjectivism, the happy playground of today's post-modernists, all is lost since my "beliefs" are just as valid as your "beliefs". I could claim a "right" in direct conflict with one of your self-defined "rights" and who is to rightly adjudicate? After much rhetoric, what it boils down to in this system is that "might makes right". Whomever or whatever has the means to subject you to their belief system, that's what becomes "right" under any subjective truth doctrine.
So, here's my shot at a reasoned argument for objective truth:
There is this thing called causality (i.e. action / reaction - the principle of cause and effect.)
Looking at a common causal chain of events: (gun related for the moderators)
I pull a trigger
The hammer of my P229S Sport strikes the firing pin
The firing pin is set into motion and strikes the primer of a chambered round
The primer detonates, igniting the powder charge
The rapid buildup of gasses propels the bullet out of the barrel
The bullet strikes precisely where I was aiming (always, without fail, of course)
The thing about causality is that there always has to be a preceding event to "cause" subsequent events to occur.
Bear with me. I don't mean to wax too philosophical here, there is a point coming...
Looking further back along a causal chain, where does it end (or should I say, start)? Can a causal chain go on to infinity?
By definition, no.
So, let's take this large scale. Where did the universe start? What was the initial event that has "caused" everything we see around us?
The Big Bang?
What caused the Big Bang?
Long story short, this is my argument for the existence of God, the source of objective truth.
Now, see my sig line...
Free will was a gift from God to each individual. Therefore, our liberties directly follow.
What "caused" God, you ask? <shrug> Ask Him when you see Him. I'm sure the answer will be very interesting.
Over the past couple millennia, many authors have tackled this question much, much better than I could dare to; by far not the least of which were our Founding Fathers. Go to Laissez-Faire Books (laissezfairebooks.com) and have a look around for some good reading material.
Ken
Once we wander into the touchy feely world of subjectivism, the happy playground of today's post-modernists, all is lost since my "beliefs" are just as valid as your "beliefs". I could claim a "right" in direct conflict with one of your self-defined "rights" and who is to rightly adjudicate? After much rhetoric, what it boils down to in this system is that "might makes right". Whomever or whatever has the means to subject you to their belief system, that's what becomes "right" under any subjective truth doctrine.
So, here's my shot at a reasoned argument for objective truth:
There is this thing called causality (i.e. action / reaction - the principle of cause and effect.)
Looking at a common causal chain of events: (gun related for the moderators)
I pull a trigger
The hammer of my P229S Sport strikes the firing pin
The firing pin is set into motion and strikes the primer of a chambered round
The primer detonates, igniting the powder charge
The rapid buildup of gasses propels the bullet out of the barrel
The bullet strikes precisely where I was aiming (always, without fail, of course)
The thing about causality is that there always has to be a preceding event to "cause" subsequent events to occur.
Bear with me. I don't mean to wax too philosophical here, there is a point coming...
Looking further back along a causal chain, where does it end (or should I say, start)? Can a causal chain go on to infinity?
By definition, no.
So, let's take this large scale. Where did the universe start? What was the initial event that has "caused" everything we see around us?
The Big Bang?
What caused the Big Bang?
Long story short, this is my argument for the existence of God, the source of objective truth.
Now, see my sig line...
Free will was a gift from God to each individual. Therefore, our liberties directly follow.
What "caused" God, you ask? <shrug> Ask Him when you see Him.
I'm sure the answer will be very interesting.Over the past couple millennia, many authors have tackled this question much, much better than I could dare to; by far not the least of which were our Founding Fathers. Go to Laissez-Faire Books (laissezfairebooks.com) and have a look around for some good reading material.
Ken
I'm with Don. There are no limits on rights, but when you use your rights to violate another's there are, or should be consequences. That is to say, if someone uses their RKBA to try and infringe upon my life then I will use my RKBA and right to self defense to stop them. It can be complex in its interactions, but that is what law is for. To sort out what circumstances constitute a violation of someone's rights and what form of redress shall be available. That, and to limit the powers of government, are the only reason laws should exist. In other words, there are too many laws, which could be a thread in and of itself.
I agree with Don Gwinn that rights are absolute so long as one's practice of such rights do not interfere with that of another. That, I see as the original social contract (in my opinion, perhaps the only social contract).
KenPaul - there IS objective truth (call me a positivist). While perception can seem to be reality for some time, at the end, where the two diverge, one is left with a delusion.
One's acceptance of objective truth need not invoke "God" necessarily - it could be Truth (with a capital T), Nature, God or whatever - so long as it has a permanent, recognizable pattern (like mathematical truth).
I will acknowledge, however, that since we human beings are all imperfect beings (otherwise, we'd be Gods ourselves), none of us is capable of seeing all of that objective truth (or God or Nature). Hence, our vision is flawed and none of us knows what all of the objective truth is.
So, how do we know it's there? Faith - therein lies the origin of religion, science, morality and practically all of human intellectual and spiritual endeavours.
You see, this is what happens when I stay up too late!
Skorzeny
KenPaul - there IS objective truth (call me a positivist). While perception can seem to be reality for some time, at the end, where the two diverge, one is left with a delusion.
One's acceptance of objective truth need not invoke "God" necessarily - it could be Truth (with a capital T), Nature, God or whatever - so long as it has a permanent, recognizable pattern (like mathematical truth).
I will acknowledge, however, that since we human beings are all imperfect beings (otherwise, we'd be Gods ourselves), none of us is capable of seeing all of that objective truth (or God or Nature). Hence, our vision is flawed and none of us knows what all of the objective truth is.
So, how do we know it's there? Faith - therein lies the origin of religion, science, morality and practically all of human intellectual and spiritual endeavours.
You see, this is what happens when I stay up too late!
Skorzeny
A touchy question, indeed.
I consider rights to be absolute in the sense that it is immoral for any entity to infringe upon the rights of another. However, this begs the question of what to do about those who abuse their rights and cause infringements.
When we send someone to prison for committing a crime, we have suspended (temporarily or perhaps permanently) his/her right to liberty and pursuit of happiness. If rights are indeed absolute, then it would be immoral to infringe upon this individual's rights by imprisoning him, even though he may well deserve it.
I think that it is best to say that rights are absolute when exercised in such a way as to not infringe upon another's rights. With rights come responsibility, the bearing of the consequences of one's actions. As long as one exercises one's rights in a responsible manner, causing no harm or loss to another, those rights are absolute and inviolate.
Freedom is a consequence of the exercising of rights.
I consider rights to be absolute in the sense that it is immoral for any entity to infringe upon the rights of another. However, this begs the question of what to do about those who abuse their rights and cause infringements.
When we send someone to prison for committing a crime, we have suspended (temporarily or perhaps permanently) his/her right to liberty and pursuit of happiness. If rights are indeed absolute, then it would be immoral to infringe upon this individual's rights by imprisoning him, even though he may well deserve it.
I think that it is best to say that rights are absolute when exercised in such a way as to not infringe upon another's rights. With rights come responsibility, the bearing of the consequences of one's actions. As long as one exercises one's rights in a responsible manner, causing no harm or loss to another, those rights are absolute and inviolate.
Freedom is a consequence of the exercising of rights.
KenPaul--you are confusing two separate issues.
1. How do we define what is a right and what is not? (The question you were working on above.)
2. Once we decide what is a right, how far does it extend? Is it, by virtue of being a "right," absolute?
The existence of objective truth does not invalidate the "rights are absolute" theory. The point you are arguing is that some people will define things as "rights" which clearly would not be rights by objective standards. That is true; we see it done every day. However, the fact that someone claims a false right (I heard someone spout about their right to a good income the other day) does not in any way affect the scope of "true rights" (like the right to preserve one's life or to think and speak as one pleases.)
Nightcrawler, you have, of course, hit upon the hard part. But, hey, I did the easy part for you!
No one has called me on the phrase "Rights are absolute, with this one exception . . . . ."
1. How do we define what is a right and what is not? (The question you were working on above.)
2. Once we decide what is a right, how far does it extend? Is it, by virtue of being a "right," absolute?
The existence of objective truth does not invalidate the "rights are absolute" theory. The point you are arguing is that some people will define things as "rights" which clearly would not be rights by objective standards. That is true; we see it done every day. However, the fact that someone claims a false right (I heard someone spout about their right to a good income the other day) does not in any way affect the scope of "true rights" (like the right to preserve one's life or to think and speak as one pleases.)
Nightcrawler, you have, of course, hit upon the hard part. But, hey, I did the easy part for you!
No one has called me on the phrase "Rights are absolute, with this one exception . . . . ."
Christopher II
New member
Not only are rights absolute, but true rights (as opposed to KenPaul's excellect description of Post-modern subjective pseudo-rights,) never come into conflict. If two "rights" ever conflict, a bit of investigation will invaribly reveal that one (or both) of the rights is an invalid right that requires the use of force to be expressed.
Taken to its logical conclusion, there are only three (maybe four) true rights. All other rights (the RKBA among them) are subsets of the three big ones.
I'm not going to attempt to explain what/where rights come from; as far as I'm concerned, my rights come from my ability to articulate them.
- Chris
Taken to its logical conclusion, there are only three (maybe four) true rights. All other rights (the RKBA among them) are subsets of the three big ones.
I'm not going to attempt to explain what/where rights come from; as far as I'm concerned, my rights come from my ability to articulate them.
- Chris
I am going to disagree with Don a little bit here. Rights by definition are absolute, further they do not “end at someone else’s nose” as the expression goes. In order to create a functioning society, individuals agreed to restrict certain rights, or stop the “exercise” of a right just prior to a conflict with another person. Perhaps put more correctly, members of society allow an agreed upon authority to enjoy the complete practice of certain rights and to enjoy the power of acting on an individuals behalf when another acts against him with the understanding that that authority can act against him were the roles reversed. Each member of society tacitly agrees to abide by these curtailments, or potential curtailments, on their rights but they do not, actually they cannot, loose those rights. They only agree to abide by the authority’s action on their behalf in the exercise of those rights. Unfortunately, in order to provide an effective authority in a society, that authority must be provided with some form of teeth, meaning that taking back the full use of all rights usually has a steep price.
CastleBravo
New member
OF COURSE rights are not absolute. Not as an abstract and certainly not as a practical matter. In order for societies to exist, limits must be put on rights under certain circumstances based on mental capacity and past behavior.
All rights, in fact, are and must be conditional. The classic example is crime. If you commit murder, what punishment can you be subjected to if your rights to life, liberty & the persuit of happiness are absolute? Since your rights are absolute, the answer its "none." If freedom of the press is absolute, then we can't prevent them from publishing the plans for the hydrogen bomb. If freedom of religion is absolute, then cannibalist cults cannot be prevented from eating the flesh of babies in their "sacraments." Oops.
To say that rights are absolute is an absurdity, an unreal fabrication. The best that is possible is to by default grant all "fundamental" rights to all citizens, and make their removal only possible on a case-by-case basis by due process of law, with the only vaible grounds being commission of severe crimes or gross mental incapacity. That was pretty much the objective of the Constitution, and what we have been muddling through ever since.
All rights, in fact, are and must be conditional. The classic example is crime. If you commit murder, what punishment can you be subjected to if your rights to life, liberty & the persuit of happiness are absolute? Since your rights are absolute, the answer its "none." If freedom of the press is absolute, then we can't prevent them from publishing the plans for the hydrogen bomb. If freedom of religion is absolute, then cannibalist cults cannot be prevented from eating the flesh of babies in their "sacraments." Oops.
To say that rights are absolute is an absurdity, an unreal fabrication. The best that is possible is to by default grant all "fundamental" rights to all citizens, and make their removal only possible on a case-by-case basis by due process of law, with the only vaible grounds being commission of severe crimes or gross mental incapacity. That was pretty much the objective of the Constitution, and what we have been muddling through ever since.
Since I have no right to violate another's rights, then I had no right to do whatever it was I did. So, your statement does not make sense.
Are rights absolute? Sir William Blackstone said in his "Commentaries on the English Common Law" that the "right to self defense was absolute," and that "the right to keep and bear arms is an auxilliary to that right." The Framers were big fans of Blackstone, as you know.
Rights are absolute.
The much-touted, "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" argument against the 1st, is a fallacy from its concept & I believe, by those who either wish to (for reason) limit orhave no true concept of what rights are.
You can yell fire! in that theater - if there is a fire. & you would be doing all a service by doing so.
If no fire, you would be quite likely recklessly endangering all therein. Which you have no right to do.
As with possession of firearms (RKBA), you have the right to use, carry, etc. to all ends as long as you do not endanger those around you. Self defense is an immediate & just use of that right, whereas firing into the air is not.
tcsd1236's "There are limits on all rights, to varying degrees."
I would very much like to further explore this train of thought as I believe that there are no, zip, zero, nada restrictions - to any degree - of rights.
What would be an example of a limitation?
The much-touted, "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" argument against the 1st, is a fallacy from its concept & I believe, by those who either wish to (for reason) limit orhave no true concept of what rights are.
You can yell fire! in that theater - if there is a fire. & you would be doing all a service by doing so.
If no fire, you would be quite likely recklessly endangering all therein. Which you have no right to do.
As with possession of firearms (RKBA), you have the right to use, carry, etc. to all ends as long as you do not endanger those around you. Self defense is an immediate & just use of that right, whereas firing into the air is not.
tcsd1236's "There are limits on all rights, to varying degrees."
I would very much like to further explore this train of thought as I believe that there are no, zip, zero, nada restrictions - to any degree - of rights.
What would be an example of a limitation?
We're going to get nowhere here simply because we're using four or five different definitions of what constitutes a right. I am inclined to agree that I made a mistake. Technically speaking, a right should be defined narrowly enough so that it is not a right to a given action in all circumstances but the right to a given objective. Maybe that isn't clear; what I mean is that, for instance, there must exist a right to self-defense. Self-defense can never conflict with the right of another; it is absolute. Justified in all cases. However, I was thinking in terms of the right to take a particular action, like punching someone in the nose. You have no right to punch an innocent man in the nose, but then, that isn't self-defense, is it?
Mea culpa.
Mea culpa.
Don,
Your "we're going to get nowhere here" is the worst post I have ever seen you make. The exploration itself will help to define what we think (& know) as a result. It's a culmination of these type "arguments" that do clarify - & the very reason behind such topics. (gentle poke at the arm & a wink)
& of course you are right on target with your "poke 'em in the nose" analogy.
No, you don't have a right to poke 'em in the nose unless that poke is in response to & regards your own (or others') self defense.
That is when your rights are absolute (to poke 'em) & they have extended their own "right" beyond what really is.
No mea culpa accepted, because it wasn't required.
The whole idea of this post was an offshoot of a coupla other threads which touched on this "rights" thing.
Some believe that rights are easily limited. I disagree wholeheartedly due to the premise (as you, Don, did point out) that once we extend our rights beyond a "decent civility" (if you will), we are beyond what is "our right."
A very serious discussion needed here, I think, to seriously explore what it is we "feel" are our "rights."
Your "we're going to get nowhere here" is the worst post I have ever seen you make. The exploration itself will help to define what we think (& know) as a result. It's a culmination of these type "arguments" that do clarify - & the very reason behind such topics. (gentle poke at the arm & a wink)
& of course you are right on target with your "poke 'em in the nose" analogy.
No, you don't have a right to poke 'em in the nose unless that poke is in response to & regards your own (or others') self defense.
That is when your rights are absolute (to poke 'em) & they have extended their own "right" beyond what really is.
No mea culpa accepted, because it wasn't required.
The whole idea of this post was an offshoot of a coupla other threads which touched on this "rights" thing.
Some believe that rights are easily limited. I disagree wholeheartedly due to the premise (as you, Don, did point out) that once we extend our rights beyond a "decent civility" (if you will), we are beyond what is "our right."
A very serious discussion needed here, I think, to seriously explore what it is we "feel" are our "rights."
yankytrash
New member
Alright, I'd like to pick up on lab's last post, as that seems to be less complicated of the roads this conversation can take - the Bill of Rights.
Would you say I endanger those around me if I own new HK21 full-automatic with all the original H&K parts?
This one's easy.
Would you say I endanger those around me if I own new HK21 full-automatic with all the original H&K parts?
Rights are, as far as I'm concerned, absolute.
Any individual has the right to life, liberty, and the fruits of their labor (said another way, property.)
One has the right to do as he/she pleases, as long as they do not initiate force.
I have the right to make as much money as I like, provided that I am not doing it by robbing you.
In essence, I am free to act as I wish, as long as my actions do not hamper your enjoyment of the same rights.
Once a person initiates force against another, he/she has shown that they are incapable of acting in a rational manner, and that they are incapable of handling the responsibilities that go with those rights. Therefore, they forfeit those rights, and are punished accordingly.
For a really interesting look at the rights of the individual, I recommend Ayn Rand's 'The Virtue of Selfishness.' It's kind of a dry reading, but on an interesting topic.
Obviously these ideas can be very easily applied to things like murder, robbery, etc.
What I would be curious about, is how does one apply them to somewhat less drastic circumstances, such as a neighbor with a really loud stereo?
Any individual has the right to life, liberty, and the fruits of their labor (said another way, property.)
One has the right to do as he/she pleases, as long as they do not initiate force.
I have the right to make as much money as I like, provided that I am not doing it by robbing you.
In essence, I am free to act as I wish, as long as my actions do not hamper your enjoyment of the same rights.
Once a person initiates force against another, he/she has shown that they are incapable of acting in a rational manner, and that they are incapable of handling the responsibilities that go with those rights. Therefore, they forfeit those rights, and are punished accordingly.
For a really interesting look at the rights of the individual, I recommend Ayn Rand's 'The Virtue of Selfishness.' It's kind of a dry reading, but on an interesting topic.
Obviously these ideas can be very easily applied to things like murder, robbery, etc.
What I would be curious about, is how does one apply them to somewhat less drastic circumstances, such as a neighbor with a really loud stereo?