Are rights "absolute?"

[Skorzeny]

Incursion:

You bring up a really interesting question with the issue of "monopoly."

As the bane of any kind of socialism or communism is the "free rider" syndrome and the consequent general decline of productivity across the board, the bane of unadulterated capitalism is monopoly (or oligapoly in a slightly different form).

Given no anti-trust regulation of any kind, firms (in a particular industry, let's say) would be rationally more likely to combine and dominate (price-fix) the market, rather than compete, as the former is more profitable than the latter.

Some argue that eventually even monopolies or oligapolies would be brought down by a new, innovative force in the market. But that assumes that the barrier (or cost) to entry is low. Unfortunately, absent of any anti-trust regulation, the monopoly is likely to set the barrier to entry extremely high, in effect stifling any competition.

That is not to say that the anti-trust regulation needs to be overwhelming, as the case may be in many instances in the US.

Skorzeny

 

[labgrade]

45King,

"Notice that Measures 5 and 6 are contradictory;

The fifth measure of a right: it is absolute. There exist no conditions under which any entity may morally infringe upon another's rights.

The sixth measure of a right: when one does exercise one's right in an irresponsible manner, one automatically forfeits certain of his own rights in so doing."

I don't see these as being contradictory in the least & a major point of my "argument."

Rights areabsolute, & under all conditions.

Your (& others') "fallacy" is the train of thought that no one has the right to infringe upon anothers' (your "irresponsible manner"). At that point, one has gone past when you "have the right," when in fact, no such right exists.

THE whole point of this discussion.

Skorzeny,

Unpopular or not, that's the way I "feel" about it. If we, as a society, would disallow possession or attempt to do same with possible actions, that leads (and has) to so many infringements upon others who have yet to demonstrate that they may, at some future time, act irresponsibly.

Sets the stage for prior restraint which is (should be) against all this country (used to) stand/s for.

Our country was founded on basic tenents of individual freedoms/personal liberties & while it has grown beyond its "first steps" & has evolved into a somewhat troubled adolescent, "we" will gladly curtail these freedoms though mere legislation, or some form of misplaced morality, I believe.

Many of us "strict constitutionists" would scream & kick when another mentions our constitution as a "living document" - one that should evolve with the times. Well, it may be that is what the founders set it up to be. But. It requires a very strict way to do so (3/4 states' legislature + 2/3 both fed-level houses for an amemndment & legal change). With new legislation, we have de facto change/curtailments to our rights (changes to the constitution) with nary a blink of our eyes & some even say, "hey! that's a good idea."

Dyslexic, I say. & very troubling. Our entire concept of what rights are has been shifted to a more nanny-state with each generation. No need to change the constitution, as we have redefined what we think it to mean.

Is anyone ever an "ex-felon?" Perhaps that whole can of worms should be adressed in another thread as it'll probablly take this one OT (sorta), although it's directly wrapped in the same crux.

& a hearty welcome Angel. Thanks for your "stuff."

 

[Double Naught Spy]

While we may feel that certain rights are absolute, the truly are not, and whether they appear to be are not is culturally determined and often society specific. In order to determine what absolute rights you may have, think of it this way. Absolute rights are any rights you have regardless of what borders you cross, what country you are in, what country you are from, regardless of your sex, age, physical condition, ethnic, or racial heritage.

I am afraid the list will be very short.

 

[labgrade]

I'll concede you your point, DNS, but regardless of cultural mores, we still have 'em.

Exercizing them may be more problematic.

 

[Bud Helms]

Don Gwinn: No one has called me on the phrase "Rights are absolute, with this one exception . . . . ."

I think it is a habit with all of us, Don.

Without attribution to the following excerpts, I am struck by the following:

Rights are absolute with this exception; ...

Rights are absolute only if ...

There are no limits on rights, but ...

I agree ... rights are absolute so long as ...

I think ... rights are absolute when exercised in such a way as to ...

... you have the right to use, carry, etc. to all ends as long as ...

One has the right to do as he/she pleases, as long as ...

I am free to act as I wish, as long as ...

Am I the only one to note a trend here?

*********

Castle Bravo: "OF COURSE rights are not absolute. Not as an abstract and certainly not as a practical matter. ..."

I want to agree ... but, even in the abstract?

*********
I retain and have the Right to act in any manner I choose with the understanding that society might remove me or limit my actions if I make the wrong choices unless I possess some form of superior strength to that society. (italics mine)

Then what about crime prevention? Do you support it? The whole concept of crime prevention is based in preserving some right to be safe and embodies the principle of prior restraint.

*******

labgrade: "... In no instance is any "right" spelled out that you can violate those of another. All rights detailed, at the least in the BoRs, are passive in every instance. The only time any "natural right" is active is when another violates your own. ..."

Can any of us here affirm or deny this? It does strike me as an important point. There's something here ...

******

A felon, by his incarceration, paid for his crime.

More importantly, why is he/she forced to relinquish his right to self defense? I think denying a felon that right is part of the "construed" right to be safe for the rest of us.

******

labgrade: "... Many of us "strict constitutionists" would scream & kick when another mentions our constitution as a "living document" - one that should evolve with the times. Well, it may be that is what the founders set it up to be. But. It requires a very strict way to do so (3/4 states' legislature + 2/3 both fed-level houses for an amemndment & legal change). With new legislation, we have de facto change/curtailments to our rights (changes to the constitution) with nary a blink of our eyes & some even say, "hey! that's a good idea." ..." (Italics mine - sensop)

Very good!

*****************************

The right to breathe, to respirate, to exist. The right to self defense. Some rights are absolute. Some "rights" aren't rights at all. I believe that the right to exist is extendable to the right to self defense. Here's an illustration: swing a fist at an unsuspecting person and watch them, at a minimum, blink. More likely they will duck and use a warding-off gesture. Try it with a dumb animal. A dog. Try to hold your breath until you die. The right to exist is part of our cellular existence. It is undeniable. It is absolute. It is not the divine province of humans. It is biological.

I admit to one fallacy in this argument. Try the "swing a fist" test at an infant, or a puppy. It doesn't work as well. I've never felt free to do it on purpose. So, I may not have an infallible argument here.

What say?

 

[RickD]

Which rights are not absolute?

The right to go onto my neighbor's lawn and poop on his lilacs?

I never had a right to do that. Not only is it not an absolute right, it is not a right at all.

 

[bluetoe]

sensop, I'm not sure but I think that whole "prior restraint " thing began as a tool to control prison inmates. Eventually, it spread to the rest of society and its current manifestation as "zero-tolerance" laws.

As far as the "right to be safe" goes I don't quite agree with that right. If safety equals security then it doesn't really exist. Security is an illusion. As an IT student I can tell you that even the best network security measures have hackable flaws. As far as 911 goes that's another example. They (the victims)weren't really safe. They thought they were safe. I guess that's the only way one can really measure "safety". You're only as safe as you feel. Which is probably why anti's NEVER feel safe.

 

[labgrade]

Many who believe rights not to be absolute would counter with "the modern world argument," which basically states, "yes, all well 'n good, but that just can't work in our times, because of .... (& you get to fill in the blank/s here) ... ."

I'll counter that with a "Consider your Rights - Outside The Box 101" thought (or two).

It may be that we, in our "modern time," cannot envision being allowed the "absolute rights" theme because of the way things are. I'd counter that the reason things are today is primary because we have relinquished our ideas that rights are absolute.

Think about that.

Many aspects of those long gone by simpler days have been replaced with "modern living." :barf:

To get slightly off-track here, in the olden days , if a politico tried to pull some fast 'n loose piece of crap legislation, he'd likely get run out of town on a rail (& hopefully w/a complimentary pouter coat of tar 'n feathers).

No longer. You see now, we are "civilized" :barf: & have relegated our authorities & basic rights to those who somehow "know better." & we never even question it ....

What's that Eagles line? "& we live our lives in chains, never knowing we even had the key ... " Sumpin like that anyway ...

 

[bluetoe]

labgrade,
You're "absolutely" right about that (pun intended). I have a friend who just read a book about the evils of suburbia. The author went on to suggest that the problem with suburban sprawl is private-property rights and how the US's fixation on the individual has led to destruction of the environment. Actually, I think the "herd mentality" of too many people have caused this sprawl. When one moves into a subdivision, they all do it. Another casualty for the convenience of "modern living".

 

[Bob Locke]

Rights are, most definitely, absolute.

No one can take them from you short of the use of force. But you, through your own actions (or in many cases a lack of action), can forfeit them. If I knowingly and willingly violate the rights of another, then I have given up many (not all, but many) of my own rights. It's not the government's doing, but my own.

 

[Bud Helms]

Bluetoe,

I hope you don't think that I agree with the "right to be safe" or the principle of "prior restraint".

To quote myself: "Then what about crime prevention? Do you support it? The whole concept is based in preserving some right to be safe and embodies the principle of prior restraint."

For the record, I think "crime prevention" programs are the bane of society. The "right to be safe" is what we hear every day on the tube. A "false" right. And they (crime prevention programs) invoke prior restraint, which is unconstsitutional.

The War on Drugs is a fine example. The most notable output of the WOD is the infringement on property rights and free assembly. I predict that this War on Terrorism will yield similar results. The opportunity for abuse is just too available to resist.

Oh please, make me safe! Okay, you are now my property. Uh oh!

 

[MeekAndMild]

Some links on the rights of man.

The French declaration of rights of man of 1789.

Tom Paynes treatise on the rights of man. This has links to the various parts of the essay.

Animal rights versus rights of man

The donald essay on natural rights and natural law

 

[bluetoe]

Sensop,
No, I wasn't sure if you were promoting an argument or making a statement. I wasn't trying to argue with you but the points of your "argument" were unclear and I was just trying to clarify a little.

I agree with you about "crime prevention" laws. They do little to prevent crime but abound with possibilities for abuse.

I think the War on Terrorism will yield worse results than the War on Drugs. The threat of terrorism is greater than that of drugs to most people. If recent polling data is correct then this is certainly true. Therefore, I think these people will gladly fork over ANYTHING the gov't wants as long as it "rids" the world of "terrorism". I've talked to too many people who are convinced we must sacrifice our rights to be safe.

 

[FPrice]

Rights are absolute. They cannot be done away with. They exist.

However, your (the editorial you, not the personal you) ability to exercise these rights depends upon your ability to maintain the social contract of respect for others' rights. In other words, your behavior may lead to the temporary or permanent abrogation of those rights because you cannot be trusted to exercise them with the responsibility inherent in the exercise of said rights.

But when we clear away the smoke and fancy rhetoric being thrown about here, I suspect that the issue is not so much the intellectual issue of rights and their potential loss, but how our government elects to handle the right to keep and bear arms as it applies to criminals.

I do not believe that anyone here would seriously entertain the idea of allowing violent criminals to have access to firearms simply because it is their right. In my opinion, these people have forfeited their right to arms by their behavior.

But once the sentence has been completed and the so-called debt to society has been repaid, at what point should the former criminal regain his rights? Right away? Never? At some point in between when the person demonstrates the ability to live within the social contract?

 

[Waterdog]

So here lies the problem.

When confronted by an authoritive entity, who seeks to deprive an individual of his/her rights
unjustifiably, does the individual fight for this absolute right, or do they accept the outcome of this misjustice.

For instance, The CCW permits are a perfect example of a right being reduced to a privelage
(unjustifiably).

Those whom have accepted the unjustified mandatory permission, sought by the bureacracy
to carry, has IMO lost the RKBA.

And each time someone seeks and recieves PERMISSION to carry, they are eroding my RKBA by setting precedents.

IMO, if we are not demanding these rights, when confronted by a bureacratic entity, seeking to deprive us of these absolute rights, then we never really ever had them in the first place.

The time to debate the issue was over, in 1787.

IMHO

Waterdog

 

[Hippie]

(F PRice) "I do not believe that anyone here would seriously entertain the idea of allowing violent criminals to have access to firearms simply because it is their right. In my opinion, these people have forfeited their right to arms by their behavior.

But once the sentence has been completed and the so-called debt to society has been repaid, at what point should the former criminal regain his rights? Right away? Never? At some point in between when the person demonstrates the ability to live within the social contract?"

This seems to me a bit illogical. If Johnny the convict is to dangerous to be trusted with a weapon, why was he released?? Since there doesn't seem to be any shortage of firearms on the black market no law is going to stop anyone, "dangerous felon" or not from aquireing a means to do harm. The only thing this law does is create a lucrative black market. Secondly, present law doesn't just strip rights from violent offenders...it goes well beyond and the list keeps getting larger. Thirdly, the present laws deny the families of the said offenders from self defense or hunting..since there cant even be firearms in their place of dwelling. I for one am not willing to endanger a whole family for one persons prior record. Fourth...with personal knowledge of the ins and outs of our current legal system, there are many that are forced to take deals on guilty pleas and small fines instead of spending the big bucks on a lawyer to get a more lenient ruling, or the whole case thrown out as it should be at times. I find it laughable that OJ Simpson can own/buy weapons and my little brother ( who sold and ounce of pot to the wrong person in 1972) can't.
As far as stripping anyone of rights..the BoR due say due process needs to be adhered to. IN my mind, though I'm not a legal scholar..seems to me this means its up to the State to prove, with some sort of hearing ( in extreme cases) that a person must live the rest of his/her life without the same 'rights' as others. This alot different than what is currently being done.
As far as demonstating the ability to live within the "social contract"...the modern day equivalent of that is getting a pardon. That is right costly and hard to do for most folks. (friends of Bill Clinton excluded of course) These effectively discriminates against the "economically challenged" and denies another right..that of "equal protection under the law".
Had the framers envisioned todays laughable excuses for stripping rights my bet is they would have gone into a bit more detail.

 

[MeekAndMild]

I do not believe that anyone here would seriously entertain the idea of allowing violent criminals to have access to firearms simply because it is their right. In my opinion, these people have forfeited their right to arms by their behavior.

But once the sentence has been completed and the so-called debt to society has been repaid, at what point should the former criminal regain his rights? Right away? Never? At some point in between when the person demonstrates the ability to live within the social contract?

According to the Articles of Confederation, which as far as I know are still the basis for the development of the United States, there are specific exceptions to the privilages of US citizenship. Paupers, vagabonds and fugatives are specificly excepted. Also this document makes mention of "free" persons, implying that slaves do not have the complete civil rights of free citizens.

I won't go into all the stuff that has been written about slavery except the
thirteenth amendment and to point out that this does not prohibit slavery as punishment for a crime.

I would conjecture that the true state of affairs is the present statutes impose a condition of slavery on felons and persons convicted of crimes of domestic violence and also mentally ill persons, alcoholics et cetera. The removal of civil rights would then be one of the key public demonstrations of the person's enslaved status.

Your questions might then be better reframed to ask whether the slaves created by these laws have any moral obligation to follow them or do they have the contrariwise obligation to seek an end to their slavery? Also perhaps the question could be asked do we as free citizens have moral obligations to either prevent them from exercising free rights or contrariwise to help them? Finally we could ask that if the goernment imposes conditions of slavery on some persons is it neccessaarily a bad thing and if not then why is private slavery bad? Or vice versa.

 

[Mike Irwin]

No.

No right is "absolute," especially if exercising that right will affect another individual's rights.

Even the Founding Fathers recognized that.

 

[labgrade]

OK. I'll bite, Mike. (do note the coma )

Which actual right, when exercized, would legitimately, violate that of another?

I seriously cannot think of a single instance where one exercizing their (actual) rights (not some ginned-up sputum such as the "right not to be burned by a hot cup o' Mac's java") could violate those of another.

I see all of our rights as either passive or to prevent another entity (mostly the guvmint) from violating ours through implied & expict prevention of theirs actions.

While exercizing my rights, I am in no way violating those of any other & cannot until I have overstepped the boundaries of my rights. At that point, I am likely a criminal (to some extent).

Serious question up above.

Any example/s we could hash out?

 

[jimpeel]

The rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were enumerated in the Declaration of Independence but any of these can be taken at the whim or enactment of government.

The right to life can be forfeit for capital crimes or treason.

The right to liberty can be taken for the commission of certain crimes.

The right to the pursuit of happiness through inebriation with drugs can be taken by depriving you of the aforementioned liberty and even the aforementioned life in some cases.