Are rights "absolute?"

[labgrade]

Mea culpa to Mike re the "coma" versus the intended "comma." Sheesh. Musta been in a ... well, never mind ... faster fingers than I intended.

Still, the (most serious & non-insinuating) question remains ..... which right that I legitimately exercize could ever infringe, or affect, upon another? (& no slam intended for your not "getting back quickly," Sir.)

& to segue jimpeel's - in each you listed, I (implied) have extended my "pursuits" beyond those rights enumerated, not?

I can commit any crime I wish, but would not that act violate another's/s' rights? At that time would not I have over-extended my rights? Above & beyond what any thinking person consider to be a "right?"

I do have the right to be "inebriate," if I wish, but, I do not have the right to be such (make/cause/enact actions) that I ever violate those rights of another.

Again then, & at that point, I have passed the limits of my rights to infringe upon those of another.

That is (again) the crux, where mine end & yours begin.

I have the initial right to (do whatever), but do not have the right to further that such so that it infringes upon yours. I never would consider that "a right" in the least.

That a government may preclude any of my rights is beyond the pale by any of my thought processes. They have neither the "right," nor the "real ability." They only have the means to punish after the fact.

Only individuals have rights - entities, & especially governments, do not, nor ever had.

 

[jimpeel]

Note that I said the "whim or enactment of government". The government may enact nearly anything they wish because they have exempted themselves from having to enact that which is Constitutional. They don't have to meet any test of whether what they throw at us is Constitutional or not. They think it is the role of the USSC to make that determination. They simply throw it out there and, if it is not challenged, it is, in their minds, Constitutional.

There a only a few things which make a law Constitutional.

1. The law actually is Constitutional.

2. The people ignore the fact that the law is unconstitutional because they like it or it makes them feel good.

3. The people who would challenge the law simply cannot raise the insanely obscene amounts of money that are required to challenge a clearly unconstitutional law.

4. The USSC refuses to hear the challenges of those who have been able to raise the insanely obscene amounts of money that are required to challenge a clearly unconstitutional law.

5. The law goes unchallenged for so long of a time that the USSC simply considers it "settled law" by its very longevity regardless of its Constitutionality.

Only one of the five ways is an actual Constitutional law. The rest exist through the simple, and getting simpler by the day, (in)act of apathy and the "They'll do what they want anyway. What could I do? I'm just one guy." mentality.

 

[labgrade]

Au contraire, Mr peel, & just a tad OT, if I may be so bold, as any "interpretation thereof" is not "a right."

That the SCOTUS never ruled, nor a right challenged, is not a test of a right - nor should it be.

As you well know, it takes many $s to bring forth a challenge, & that, if they will accept it (that argument) at all.

It is contrarywise to this "argument" as to rights.

We have rights - de facto - & that is not arguable at all. The argument is - are not my (yours & others') rights - absolute?

That "the people," or SCOTUS, et al, recognise these rights, is somewhat beyond The Question - especially in these "modern daze."

I believe, still, that we do, in fact, have absolute rights, that in no way may they be infringed upon.

"Constitutional" has been bastardized, as I mentioned in an earlier post, by merely legislating away our "rights." That "we" have bought into this "fact" in no way relegates that right to obscurity - it merely allows that we have yet to (or will not) fight to regain same.

Ergo, it appears that, after all, I agree with your premise, but still ....

The right remains whether we claim it or not.

Which again, comes back to the fact that we do have these rights & that they are absolute.

'Round 'n 'round we go .....

Anyway. We got 'em. They're absolute.

Molon Labe!

Take that!

 

[FPrice]

Mike...

"No.

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

You fail to make any point here other than to support what I said.

The right is absolute. You have that right. Until YOUR behavior causes society to temporarily or permanently take your freedom to exercise that right from you.

I have the right to carry a concealed firearm in my state. How does exercising that right affect another individual's rights? It is only if i act irresponsibly or criminally with that firearm do I affect any other person's rights.

The right is absolute in that it cannot be taken away by the mere whim of the state. It can only be denied to you, either through due process of law, OR the criminal act of the state.

 

[45King]

Perhaps it is time for us to define our meaning when we use the word "absolute."

absolute: adj. 1. Perfect in quality or nature, complete. 2. Not mixed; pure; unadulterated. 3. a. Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional. b. Unqualified in extent or degree; total. 4. Not limited by constitutional provisions or other restraints. 5. Unrelated to and independent of anything else. 6. Not to be doubted or questioned; positive; certain.

Note # 3a, "not limited by restricitions or exceptions; unconditional." Are we going to say that it's OK to allow a person their right to liberty if said person murders 14 people, and it can be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt? I understand and agree that said person had no right to commit murder in the first place (initiation of the use of force,) but if the right to liberty is truly an absolute, the fact that he has violated the right to life of 14 other individuals does not change the fact that he still absolutely has the right to remain at liberty. If we decide that by his actions, he should forfeit any or all of his rights for any period of time, then we have established a condition upon that which is, by definition, supposedly "unconditional."

When we use the qualifiers, "if,' "but", "when," etc., we are in fact establishing limits and conditions. Again, see 3a.

What we need to keep in mind is #5, "unrelated to and independent of anything else." Even though each of us is a sovereign entity, we do not live in isolation, nor do we live in a state of empirical perfection. We live in the real world, not a labratory experiment, and this automatically puts some restrictions upon things which, in a perfect state, would be unrestricted.

At the heart of this issue lies the concept of morality; what is righteous, and what is evil. It is my belief that no true right can be exercised in an immoral manner. When one commits an immoral act, one has not exercised a right, but rather has abused power. Abuse of power demands justice, a righting of wrongs, a balancing of the scales, and if one is unwilling to voluntarily balance the scales, then force must be used by some entity to enforce the balancing of the scales.....or else, we let the concept of "justice" die, and live in a world where the only rule is "survival of the most ruthless."

Theoretically, rights are absolute. In reality, rights do have limitations. These limitations, however, have their own inbuilt limits, and an understanding of the nature of rights is essential to being able to determine what are the limitations of rights and the use of power.

 

[ahenry]

Sensop said: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.

In a word, no. Others (as well as yourself) have clarified why, but it is important to note that while Rights are absolute, it is common and good to limit (somewhat) the exercise of them. What was unique about America was the ability to decide what Rights and to whom, a person chose to limit them under. That was unique in the world up to that point. Unfortunately America as a whole has forgotten the guidelines that mankind does not have to have a government to tell it what to do. This has led to untold forfeiture of the practice of a persons Rights. Not the forfeiture of the Right itself, just a voluntary submission to an authority of our own making.

Some links on the rights of man.

I have Payne’s entire book in a word document and would be happy to e-mail it those that would like it...

 

[Bud Helms]

Yes, please email it to me, ahenry.

"No right is boundless. No right is absolute."

If we do not limit rights based on the possibility that a crime will be committed against the law, but on the commission of an offense against the law, then I am happy enough that my rights are unabridged. I believe that it has been pointed out in this thread that the right to carry is not the right to shoot another arbitrarily. But the right to be armed must include some circumstances where it is permitted to shoot another, otherwise, what's the point of carrying?

In that situation, it means that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is absolute. Just because there are restrictions on when and where you may take a life, doesn't mean RKBA is not absolute. Limits on how you may possess and bear those arms do mean that it is not an absolute right, in practice. 'Not saying it's right, that's just the laws in your state.

Remember the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from infringement, not the states. So, there are plenty of unconstitutional infringements to go around (at the federal level). Infringements as we see them at the state level are a legal matter, not yet cut 'n' dried, and may be unconstitutional, once tested against the SCOTUS's interpretation of the Second, in light of the Equal Protection Cause of the 14th Amendment. Big difference. Crime prevention is just the most common excuse the feds (and the states) use to implement their infringements.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Geez, Labgrade, are you SERIOUSLY telling me that you don't see any distinctions here?

OK...

Say, for example, I decide to exercise my right to religious freedom by converting to a religion of my ancestors (I'm Welsh).

So far, so good, ancient religions are practiced in the United States and recognized today.

However, because I'm super religious, I feel that the ONLY way to adequately celebrate my religion is to practice it as it was practiced 2,500 years ago, with human sacrifice.

The only problem is, human sacrifice is, according to today's laws, illegal.

Sacrificing someone to my Gods should be my right, because I'm practicing my religious beliefs, but given that it interferes with someone else's given right to life, liberty (I'd have to kidnap them first), and pursuit of happiness (I think they'd be pretty unhappy when they found out what I had planned), my right to religious freedom is no longer absolute.

Should I be allowed that right of religious freedom even if it interferes with another individual's rights?

A more modern example?

I own a large stretch of land, which I decide to strip mine it for a vein of coal. Strip mining is legal there, but has never been practiced before. There are no local laws against it, because it's never been an issue, but I find a seam of coal that is contained solely on my property, so I bring in the heavy construction equipment and start digging.

Only problem is, it's in the middle of a housing development, and the noise, dust, etc., affects my neighbors.

Theoretically, I'm well with in my legal rights to do what I want with my property. Common law property rights have always been held to be pretty absolute by a lot of people.

Yet, as numerous courts have held, my rights to use my property in a legal manner don't extend to the point where they decrease my neighbor's ability to use and enjoy their property.

To go for the example of concealed carry, in many states private property owners have the right, under law, to bar CCW holders from their property.

Whose right is MORE involatile at that point? The person whose right is backed by the US Constitution, or the person whose right is backed by 2,500 years of Common Law?

The application of rights is often, and always has been, a balancing act between the needs of individuals and the society.

For example, the Founding Fathers said that Freedom of Speech was involatile. Yet there are laws that restrict that right, both directly and peripherally.

The Founding Fathers said that Freedom of Religion is absolute in that no laws would be enacted barring free exercise of religion, yet if I want to conduct human sacrifice as part of my rites, I'm prevented from doing so by numerous laws -- essentially my freedom of religion is infringed because I'm prevented from worshiping as I feel it to be necessary.

If the Founding Fathers had truly recognized rights as being immutable, they would not have written the Constitution (why would it be needed it an individual's rights are paramount in the first place?) nor would they have passed any laws at all.

Yet we have a Constitition that lays out protections for basic rights, and we also have laws that on their face infringe on those rights in many fundamental ways.

Why is that?

It is, as I said before, because no right is absolute.

Not even the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If those three fundamental human rights were absolute, why did the Founding Fathers pass laws establishing prison sentences for some crimes, and the death penalty for others?

 

[Mike Irwin]

Frosty,

I was, actually, only addressing the ORIGINAL posting, which questioned if rights are absolute or not.

I've yet to read through the many tortured discussions on the subject.

Reading some of the definitions of "absolute rights," though, has been not unlike watching Bill Clinton define sex.

"Well, sex is this, but only under these circumstances, which means that what I did wasn't sex as I perceived it to be."

The pertinent definition of absolute is "having no restriction, exception, or qualification."

There's no "except in case of..." or "but only while..."

Held against that litmus definition, the right to carry in many states is not, as some have said, absolute.

In Virginia, I can't carry into a Church while worship services are going on, and I can't carry on school property at any time, day, night, or in the summer.

If I cut across a corner of school property while carrying a gun, I've broken the law. My right to carry is restricted in that circumstance, hence it's not an absolute right.

 

[ahenry]

Mike, Seeker, et al.

There is a difficult problem (one I philosophically find insurmountable) when one holds to the precept that a Right is either not absolute, or that an “absolute” Right doesn’t exist when it conflicts with the Rights of another.

The “limitation” on a Right is being bounced back and forth. Some seem to think that ones Right ends when force against another is required to exercise that Right. Does that idea hold water? I don’t believe it does. Let me explain why. It is crucial to the foundation of our entire system of government that it is understood from where government gains its power. Where does government derive its power and authority? It derives them from the consent of the governed. It is neither by nature of its existence, nor by its military might that it has the power to wage war, imprison another, tax its citizenry, or regulate anything. It is what an individual can do from one person to another with both their consent on a grand scale, or nation to nation. A collection of wills and a collection of abilities give it the power to act on a scale that any one person would be unable to do. That said, does the government have the right to imprison another? The authority that government has to do so comes from the consent that the people as a whole have to remove certain people from society once they have done certain things. We have defined, by means of a social contract in the form of laws and constitutions, that one persons Right to act in a certain manner (that is considered undesirable) will be punished by various means. What if someone decides that he no longer desires to be a part of that contract? Does he have that Right? Yes; further he can decide to absolve the whole thing, which is why government is given the power to chase him down and hand out the proper punishment. Does that man have the Right to attempt to do so however? Let me ask you, did our Forefathers have the Right to act in the way that they did (i.e. the Boston Tea Party, Lexington and Concord, etc) prior to their Declaration of Independence with Great Britain? We all would agree that indeed they did. Why? Did Great Britain have the Right to fight back prior to the Declaration of Independence? Both entities had the Right to act as they did. How can to opposing Rights exist? Because they, and all humans, have the Right to act in any manner they choose, even when those actions are in conflict. Until our Forefathers set forth their reasons for absolving the existing social contract they were under, Great Britain was within their Rights to attempt to force compliance with an agreement that had been tacitly agreed to by both parties. The only way a Right can be limited is by voluntary submission by one to another. The Right does not go away, nor is it less than an absolute Right.

 

[ahenry]

In Virginia, I can't carry into a Church while worship services are going on, and I can't carry on school property at any time, day, night, or in the summer. If I cut across a corner of school property while carrying a gun, I've broken the law. My right to carry is restricted in that circumstance, hence it's not an absolute right.

Mike, I disagree. Your Right to carry is still absolute, but you agree to not act in a certain way. Just like you have the Right to say obscene things on TFL, but you voluntarily agree to not say certain things. Just because you have agreed to not act in a certain manner in no way means you can no longer do so. You still have the Right.

 

[B9mmHP]

Are rights "abosolute?"

Yes they are,but they will only be absolute if we make them so.

Our rights are being taken away as I write this by our local,state and federal governments. They are conspiring to take away all of our freedoms. But little do they know they will also loose their freedoms as well, that they cherish so much.

Most all of you have given good examples of our rights given to us by the Constitution,BoR.etc. But with all the new laws that will come down, what will our rights be?

The only two that I can think of is thought, that 45King mentioned.( that cant be policed )
The rest of our rights will be legislated (sp) away, except or right to die for the rest of our rights that was granted to us by the BoR, and if that scares you the s#!t out of you it should.

Sorry to be such a pissamist, but we need to get a grip on reality, because it is looking at you right in the face and it ain`t going away. More and more laws are being inacted that take away all kinds of our rights, even the littlest law that dont seem like much is an infringment.

Good topic Labgrade

 

[jimpeel]

labgrade

When did you start writing in prose?

You wrote:

That the SCOTUS never ruled, nor a right challenged, is not a test of a right - nor should it be.

Note that I was speaking to laws that abrogate rights. Some are Constitutional, some are not. The Constitution is clear on what rights may be abridged such as for treason. When speaking to these types of laws, I enumerated several ways that these laws become "Constitutional" (note the quotes) as this is how the system now works. I then elaborated on those with my ending paragraph which read

Only one of the five ways is an actual Constitutional law. The rest exist through the simple, and getting simpler by the day, (in)act of apathy and the "They'll do what they want anyway. What could I do? I'm just one guy." mentality.

I wasn't defending that system; nor was I saying that it was correct. I was attempting to illustrate the mindset of those who create the laws in concert with my previous post and both posts have to be taken in concert, and context, to be valid. The mindset of these "lawmakers" is aided and abetted by a willing apathy on the part of the American populace.

As you might say: "Forsooth it to say that this point was that which I sought to impart upon thee".

 

[labgrade]

Mike,

In your first instance of freedom of religion/human sacrifice, I'd say that you don't have a right to murder another, no matter if for fun, negligent discharge of a firearm (bat, knife, etc.), or for religious reasons. Note I said murder, which I believe a human sacrifice to be - no matter what a belief. I'd guess that if the sacrifice was all for it, who's to say? Nutty as I'd think ....

Your example of property rights is a better one & I dunno.

Re CCW on private property is easy for me. You don't have the right to carry on private property if the owner says no - never existed in the first place, so that "right" isn't being infringed on.

The reason I started this thread is to try to solidify (if you will) my own thinking on this subject. Wasn't really certain what I thought about it from the onset - & still not.

Figured to kick it around real good to get a better feel of it, is all.

Appreciate the pretty good discussion, y'all.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Your Right to carry is still absolute"

Sorry, Ahenry, but that's wrong.

IF my right to carry WERE absolute, there would be no restrictions on Church/School carry for legal purposes.

If it WERE absolute, I would be able to, if arrested, make an affirmative pleading based on the Second Amendment, and be successful. It's been tried in courts, and has failed.

The "right" is abridged, so therefore it's not absolute.

I'm reminded of the old line attributed to Franklin, "Calling an Ox a Bull certainly makes him proud, but doesn't restore to him what nature gave him." (paraphrased to all hell and back)

 

[Mike Irwin]

Labgrade,

"In your first instance of freedom of religion/human sacrifice, I'd say that you don't have a right to murder another, no matter if for
fun, negligent discharge of a firearm (bat, knife, etc.), or for religious reasons. Note I said murder, which I believe a human sacrifice to be - no matter what a belief. I'd guess that if the sacrifice was all for it, who's to say? Nutty as I'd think ...."

Why not?

Whether it's murder or not shouldn't be the issue. The issue should be whether my ABSOLUTE rights to practice the tenets of my religious beliefs are dimished or not.

If rights are absolute, why should that right be any different than any other? Why should my absolute right to practice my religion be diminished because someone else claims the absolute right to live?

That's the rub now, isn't it.

The balancing act between one person's rights vs. another person's rights brings nuances to play that diminish and destroy the concept of absolutism.

If you have to craft exceptions (such as an individual CHOOSING to follow the restrictions placed on rights in the name of public safety, etc.) then the "right" is no longer absolute. It's conditional on the good will of the populace.

 

[labgrade]

Mike,

My argument on this (particular instance) regards rights being "absolute" is that one never had the right to ever kill someone (unjustifyably). That is murder, & wrap it up as whatever (a religious belief, etc.) = still murder. Doubtful one could make a rational argument that murder is a right. Again, the crux of my argument here. "You" (any person) never had that right to begin with, so it never could have been violated/curtailed/whatever.


Regards your last reply to Ahenry,

That a/the court/s made a ruling one way or another is no measure of an absolute. The courts are as political as any other entity & won't be holding my breath for any relief there.

Many an instance where a ruling was handed down that said "no right is absolute & in the interest of public safety .... " yada, yada.

Perhaps you would agree that the ruling was not based upon any serious consideration as to rights, but moreso regards to a political bent - their own belief/agenda on how things should be - rather than actual innate "rights of man." Many a time I (& I'm certain, "we") would argue a ruling of a court.

As a parent, I have sometimes told my kids, "because I said so." For whatever reasonings I may have had, didn't necessarily make me right. Same-same ....

Far as any RKBA "restrictions" on public domain property, I believe them to be an infringement. Yes, the right is still there & absolute, but has been bastardized by rulings. Being arrested for an illegitimate law does not necessarily mean that the right does not exist.

& BTW, if an ox is a male, calling him a bull is certainly accurate.

May be that we have gone to the point of parsing words/phrases to the point it's becoming more a word game than any other - & again, perhaps that's exactly where this needs to go.

I do thank you for your counters & as said before, my reason for the post to begin with. For myself, the arguments are better than anything else to help understand some of my own beliefs.

jimpeel,

Not snubbing you. Just didn't have the wherewithall on this post to go back & take a look at the histories of your posts/replies. I'll buy into what you said.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"That a/the court/s made a ruling one way or another is no measure of an absolute."

Oh wow. I can't believe that anyone could actually say that with a straight face. Sort of, "YOU HAVE THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO DO THIS, BUT YOU CAN'T DO THIS BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO DO IT!"

The very fact that a court abridges the right in the first place means that it's no longer absolute. Return, if you will, to the definition of what constitutes absolute. The definition doesn't include "with the following exceptions...no CCW carry on school grounds, no carry in churches, no carrying in establishments that serve alcohol, no carry at sporting events, no carry, no CCW in public buildings, no CCW in cities with popultations over 100,000, no CCW if your sheriff doesn't like you, etc."

"Perhaps you would agree that the ruling was not based upon any serious consideration as to rights, but moreso regards to a political bent - their own belief/agenda on how things should be..."

And that makes ANY difference how?

It doesn't.

We still have the dichotomy of what constitutes an "absolute right" vs. a "limited right."

Isn't that the very case, in fact, with making murder illegal, even if it infringes on what someone else believes to be their absolute right to religious freedom under the First Amendment?

Human sacrifice is only illegal because some members of our society BELIEVE that it should be illegal, based on their own concept of Judaeo-Christian theology/morality? Other cultures/societies obviously had no problems with human sacrifice as a religious expression, so what gives the current dominant socio/political control group the right to demand an end to human sacrifice as a religious expression?

All rights are, in fact, political/social/moral inventions of a person or a society, not the dynamic manifestation of existence. Rights are only as absolute as society ALLOWS them to be, and given that society places restrictions on all rights, whether for political, social, economic, or moral reasons, means that no right enjoyed today is an absolute right.

And although I REALLY hesitate to say this, for fear of this discussion absolute exploding, isn't this very topic being played out right now in the ongoing debate over abortion -- a question of individual rights vs. societally prescribed morality?

And isn't this, in fact, one HUGE political issue?

The only difference is really in degress of perception -- the right of the woman to choose the best course of action for herself, vs. the religious/moral beliefs of another segment of society.

Even the supposed "right" to an abortion in the United States is under fire, constantly under assault.

If, as stated by the Supreme Court, it is the right of a woman to seek an abortion, how then can any restrictions be placed on the how, when, why, and where?

The how is simple, it's because absolute rights are rarely rights, and they're hardly absolute.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"BTW, if an ox is a male, calling him a bull is certainly accurate."

Uhm... Don't know in what farm region you grew up, but if you had Oxen, and couldn't figure out why the cows weren't getting pregnant, I'd be more than happy to tell you where you went wrong...

An ox is to a bull what Bill Clinton was to a real president.

 

[45King]

Mike, I find your "human sacrifice" example to be interesting. I don't see why human sacrifice for religious reasons should be illegal IF the person being sacrificed does so of their own free will, knowing the full ramifications.

However, the right to life is the primary right. Without the acknowledgement that each person's life is his or her own to do with as he or she pleases, NONE of the other rights have any meaning.

There is an absolute to rights-rights may only be exercised morally in such a way as to not infringe upon the rights of another. If one infringes upon the rights of another, one has abused one's rights and exercised power instead.
.
.
.
.
As to what any gov't does, well....it became clear to me a long time ago that gov't exists exclusively for the reason of imposing the will of one group of people upon other groups of people. Since this is a violation of the right to life of all involved, gov't is, IMHO, an inherently evil and immoral institution. It would be pointless and out of touch with reality to expect anything good from an entity which is inherently evil and immoral.