What Constitutes a "Right?"

[goldcatt]

I submit to the court, that gold has already been having fun Verbal repartee is right up your alley.

You got me figured out.

Being coy is not a strength of yours gold.

Why should it be? I'm here to post and play. If I wanted to hide, I'd lurk.
But here you go derailing the thread again.

 

[rubberhead]

Why should it be? I'm here to post and play. If I wanted to hide, I'd lurk.
But here you go derailing the thread again.

Yeah, you guys should really get on AIM if you want to play footsie. Not that I really care, but it is kind of annoying to be drawn back here by activity only to find out that it's two people having what should be a private conversation.

 

[goldcatt]

Why should it be? I'm here to post and play. If I wanted to hide, I'd lurk.
But here you go derailing the thread again.

Yeah, you guys should really get on AIM if you want to play footsie. Not that I really care, but it is kind of annoying to be drawn back here by activity only to find out that it's two people having what should be a private conversation.

Nothing private or footsie-ish about it, but you're right about the thread. Carry on!

 

[trueblue]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

That is a valid question. I think it is well summarized in the document you paraphrased. The greatest right is the right to liberty, which, defined, constitutes the right to choose. Rights are not to be granted by government, rather protected.

On the other hand, in protecting said rights some restrictions must be put in place. I lose the right to choose to kill, for example, in exchange for protection against murderers (thus preserving my life and my ability to continue making choices).

As Americans, we could be more careful in our discussions of rights. Too often, we call entitlements our "rights". Not so. They may be valuable all the same, but we often confuse the two.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

That is a valid question. I think it is well summarized in the document you paraphrased. The greatest right is the right to liberty, which, defined, constitutes the right to choose. Rights are not to be granted by government, rather protected.

On the other hand, in protecting said rights some restrictions must be put in place. I lose the right to choose to kill, for example, in exchange for protection against murderers (thus preserving my life and my ability to continue making choices).

As Americans, we could be more careful in our discussions of rights. Too often, we call entitlements our "rights". Not so. They may be valuable all the same, but we often confuse the two.

There are no restrictions because you never had the right to kill. Killing takes away somebody else's right to their life so how could you possibly have that right in the first place?

 

[Liability]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

That is a valid question. I think it is well summarized in the document you paraphrased. The greatest right is the right to liberty, which, defined, constitutes the right to choose. Rights are not to be granted by government, rather protected.

On the other hand, in protecting said rights some restrictions must be put in place. I lose the right to choose to kill, for example, in exchange for protection against murderers (thus preserving my life and my ability to continue making choices).

As Americans, we could be more careful in our discussions of rights. Too often, we call entitlements our "rights". Not so. They may be valuable all the same, but we often confuse the two.

There are no restrictions because you never had the right to kill. Killing takes away somebody else's right to their life so how could you possibly have that right in the first place?

Easy. If your actions deliberately threaten my life or the lives of innocent others, in self defense I can justifiably take yours.

There are other examples. A right can also, depending on circumstances, be subject to forfeiture. My right to my own liberty may be subject to forfeiture (assuming I get due process and fairness and all that good stuff) if I violate the law. My right to live can also (in a capital case) be subject to forfeiture, too, if I have egregiously violated the relevant law(s) and have gotten due process, etc.

 

[Intense]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

That is a valid question. I think it is well summarized in the document you paraphrased. The greatest right is the right to liberty, which, defined, constitutes the right to choose. Rights are not to be granted by government, rather protected.

On the other hand, in protecting said rights some restrictions must be put in place. I lose the right to choose to kill, for example, in exchange for protection against murderers (thus preserving my life and my ability to continue making choices).

As Americans, we could be more careful in our discussions of rights. Too often, we call entitlements our "rights". Not so. They may be valuable all the same, but we often confuse the two.

Baby step, but you are starting to get it.

 

[Intense]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

That is a valid question. I think it is well summarized in the document you paraphrased. The greatest right is the right to liberty, which, defined, constitutes the right to choose. Rights are not to be granted by government, rather protected.

On the other hand, in protecting said rights some restrictions must be put in place. I lose the right to choose to kill, for example, in exchange for protection against murderers (thus preserving my life and my ability to continue making choices).

As Americans, we could be more careful in our discussions of rights. Too often, we call entitlements our "rights". Not so. They may be valuable all the same, but we often confuse the two.

There are no restrictions because you never had the right to kill. Killing takes away somebody else's right to their life so how could you possibly have that right in the first place?

There is no Right to Murder.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That is a valid question. I think it is well summarized in the document you paraphrased. The greatest right is the right to liberty, which, defined, constitutes the right to choose. Rights are not to be granted by government, rather protected.

On the other hand, in protecting said rights some restrictions must be put in place. I lose the right to choose to kill, for example, in exchange for protection against murderers (thus preserving my life and my ability to continue making choices).

As Americans, we could be more careful in our discussions of rights. Too often, we call entitlements our "rights". Not so. They may be valuable all the same, but we often confuse the two.

There are no restrictions because you never had the right to kill. Killing takes away somebody else's right to their life so how could you possibly have that right in the first place?

Easy. If your actions deliberately threaten my life or the lives of innocent others, in self defense I can justifiably take yours.

There are other examples. A right can also, depending on circumstances, be subject to forfeiture. My right to my own liberty may be subject to forfeiture (assuming I get due process and fairness and all that good stuff) if I violate the law. My right to live can also (in a capital case) be subject to forfeiture, too, if I have egregiously violated the relevant law(s) and have gotten due process, etc.

I wasn't referring to self-defense, I was referring to murder.

 

[Liability]

That is a valid question. I think it is well summarized in the document you paraphrased. The greatest right is the right to liberty, which, defined, constitutes the right to choose. Rights are not to be granted by government, rather protected.

On the other hand, in protecting said rights some restrictions must be put in place. I lose the right to choose to kill, for example, in exchange for protection against murderers (thus preserving my life and my ability to continue making choices).

As Americans, we could be more careful in our discussions of rights. Too often, we call entitlements our "rights". Not so. They may be valuable all the same, but we often confuse the two.

There are no restrictions because you never had the right to kill. Killing takes away somebody else's right to their life so how could you possibly have that right in the first place?

There is no Right to Murder.

Some people (and this looks to be a group which includes Kevin K) are unable to recognize the absolutely clear distinction between killing and murder.

 

[rubberhead]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

That is a valid question. I think it is well summarized in the document you paraphrased. The greatest right is the right to liberty, which, defined, constitutes the right to choose. Rights are not to be granted by government, rather protected.

On the other hand, in protecting said rights some restrictions must be put in place. I lose the right to choose to kill, for example, in exchange for protection against murderers (thus preserving my life and my ability to continue making choices).

As Americans, we could be more careful in our discussions of rights. Too often, we call entitlements our "rights". Not so. They may be valuable all the same, but we often confuse the two.

There are no restrictions because you never had the right to kill. Killing takes away somebody else's right to their life so how could you possibly have that right in the first place?

Right. This is what I was referring to as Freedom for All. Each person has the right to freedom compatible with an equal amount for each other person. I think that all other rights can be derived from this one, but Rawls also proposed the difference principle (gain for the advantaged must benefit the disadvantaged), which I think is kind of a load. I think that gain for the advantaged must not harm of the disadvantage. I think that is more fair, but it is still kind of covered by Freedom for All.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Why should it be? I'm here to post and play. If I wanted to hide, I'd lurk.
But here you go derailing the thread again.

Yeah, you guys should really get on AIM if you want to play footsie. Not that I really care, but it is kind of annoying to be drawn back here by activity only to find out that it's two people having what should be a private conversation.

I have been participating in the thread. I have addressed the subject matter specifically. If I have a little fun for a few posts, it is not going to kill the thread. I didn't complain when you were posting in a childish manner, even if you were attempting to address the subject matter. I don't need to take any direction from you as to what I should or shouldn't do. If you don't like my posting, maybe you should manually ignore me or put me on ignore via the forum software option. It really is that simple.

 

[Liability]

That is a valid question. I think it is well summarized in the document you paraphrased. The greatest right is the right to liberty, which, defined, constitutes the right to choose. Rights are not to be granted by government, rather protected.

On the other hand, in protecting said rights some restrictions must be put in place. I lose the right to choose to kill, for example, in exchange for protection against murderers (thus preserving my life and my ability to continue making choices).

As Americans, we could be more careful in our discussions of rights. Too often, we call entitlements our "rights". Not so. They may be valuable all the same, but we often confuse the two.

There are no restrictions because you never had the right to kill. Killing takes away somebody else's right to their life so how could you possibly have that right in the first place?

Right. This is what I was referring to as Freedom for All. Each person has the right to freedom compatible with an equal amount for each other person. I think that all other rights can be derived from this one, but Rawls also proposed the difference principle (gain for the advantaged must benefit the disadvantaged), which I think is kind of a load. I think that gain for the advantaged must not harm of the disadvantage. I think that is more fair, but it is still kind of covered by Freedom for All.

Absolute nonsense. Does a pedophile have the freedom to kidnap a child off the street and sodomize her or him? How DARE you restrict that freedom? I mean, hell. YOU have that same freedom, so you cannot restrict his freedom according to that formulation.

Does anybody even WANT to live in a "society" that permits anybody the "freedom" to molest children?

Nobody has the right to commit murder. But some people do that kind of thing, anyway. If you object to having your life summarily terminated by some other person in our society, you have a right to resist and if that resistance causes the would-be murderer to end up dead, you have committed no violation of the law. In that scenario, YOU DO have the right to kill him to prevent him from killing you, which he had no right to do.

 

[rubberhead]

Why should it be? I'm here to post and play. If I wanted to hide, I'd lurk.
But here you go derailing the thread again.

Yeah, you guys should really get on AIM if you want to play footsie. Not that I really care, but it is kind of annoying to be drawn back here by activity only to find out that it's two people having what should be a private conversation.

I have been participating in the thread. I have addressed the subject matter specifically. If I have a little fun for a few posts, it is not going to kill the thread. I didn't complain when you were posting in a childish manner, even if you were attempting to address the subject matter. I don't need to take any direction from you as to what I should or shouldn't do. If you don't like my posting, maybe you should manually ignore me or put me on ignore via the forum software option. It really is that simple.

Here's how simple it is:

I will complain when I feel frustrated because that is my right.

Hey! Look! We're back to the discussion!

By the way, I never got off topic! Check my posts!
Let's move on shall we?

 

[rubberhead]

There are no restrictions because you never had the right to kill. Killing takes away somebody else's right to their life so how could you possibly have that right in the first place?

Right. This is what I was referring to as Freedom for All. Each person has the right to freedom compatible with an equal amount for each other person. I think that all other rights can be derived from this one, but Rawls also proposed the difference principle (gain for the advantaged must benefit the disadvantaged), which I think is kind of a load. I think that gain for the advantaged must not harm of the disadvantage. I think that is more fair, but it is still kind of covered by Freedom for All.

Absolute nonsense. Does a pedophile have the freedom to kidnap a child off the street and sodomize her or him? How DARE you restrict that freedom? I mean, hell. YOU have that same freedom, so you cannot restrict his freedom according to that formulation.

Does anybody even WANT to live in a "society" that permits anybody the "freedom" to molest children?

Nobody has the right to commit murder. But some people do that kind of thing, anyway. If you object to having your life summarily terminated by some other person in our society, you have a right to resist and if that resistance causes the would-be murderer to end up dead, you have committed no violation of the law. In that scenario, YOU DO have the right to kill him to prevent him from killing you, which he had no right to do.

Wow. It's almost as if you didn't read my post. The child has the right to freedom under Freedom for All. Therefore the pedophile would violate the child's freedom, and a murderer would violate the victim's right to freedom (unless the victim wanted to die, but then it's euthanasia which is a whole other hornet's nest). Does this make more sense? I thought I was clear the first 400 times I posted this formulation of Freedom for All on this thread.

 

[Liability]

There are no restrictions because you never had the right to kill. Killing takes away somebody else's right to their life so how could you possibly have that right in the first place?

Easy. If your actions deliberately threaten my life or the lives of innocent others, in self defense I can justifiably take yours.

There are other examples. A right can also, depending on circumstances, be subject to forfeiture. My right to my own liberty may be subject to forfeiture (assuming I get due process and fairness and all that good stuff) if I violate the law. My right to live can also (in a capital case) be subject to forfeiture, too, if I have egregiously violated the relevant law(s) and have gotten due process, etc.

I wasn't referring to self-defense, I was referring to murder.

If you meant murder, that makes a bit more sense. But you didn't write "murder." You wrote "kill." It was that to which I had responded.

 

[goldcatt]

Why should it be? I'm here to post and play. If I wanted to hide, I'd lurk.
But here you go derailing the thread again.

Yeah, you guys should really get on AIM if you want to play footsie. Not that I really care, but it is kind of annoying to be drawn back here by activity only to find out that it's two people having what should be a private conversation.

I have been participating in the thread. I have addressed the subject matter specifically. If I have a little fun for a few posts, it is not going to kill the thread. I didn't complain when you were posting in a childish manner, even if you were attempting to address the subject matter. I don't need to take any direction from you as to what I should or shouldn't do. If you don't like my posting, maybe you should manually ignore me or put me on ignore via the forum software option. It really is that simple.

Whoops, sorry BGG. I just noticed should have said "we", not "you".
Nothing wrong with having a little fun in the middle of the discussion, but I agree it can be annoying if it goes on for more than a few posts. I doubt anybody would even notice, however, if there hadn't been a general lull in the conversation. A few posts on a very public but somewhat inside joke is no big deal.
Now about that whole "semantics" thing...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Easy. If your actions deliberately threaten my life or the lives of innocent others, in self defense I can justifiably take yours.

There are other examples. A right can also, depending on circumstances, be subject to forfeiture. My right to my own liberty may be subject to forfeiture (assuming I get due process and fairness and all that good stuff) if I violate the law. My right to live can also (in a capital case) be subject to forfeiture, too, if I have egregiously violated the relevant law(s) and have gotten due process, etc.

I wasn't referring to self-defense, I was referring to murder.

If you meant murder, that makes a bit more sense. But you didn't write "murder." You wrote "kill." It was that to which I had responded.

I used the word "kill" because the person I quoted said they "lose the right to choose to kill." The word "kill" in our conversation was used in reference to murder, not self defense. Obviously you have the right to defend yourself.

 

[Liability]

I wasn't referring to self-defense, I was referring to murder.

If you meant murder, that makes a bit more sense. But you didn't write "murder." You wrote "kill." It was that to which I had responded.

I used the word "kill" because the person I quoted said they "lose the right to choose to kill." The word "kill" in our conversation was used in reference to murder, not self defense. Obviously you have the right to defend yourself.

I have a right to choose to kill someone who is trying to kill me or some other innocent person.

Not all decisions to take a human life are illegal.

Yes, it IS obvious that we all have a right to self-defense.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Yeah, you guys should really get on AIM if you want to play footsie. Not that I really care, but it is kind of annoying to be drawn back here by activity only to find out that it's two people having what should be a private conversation.

I have been participating in the thread. I have addressed the subject matter specifically. If I have a little fun for a few posts, it is not going to kill the thread. I didn't complain when you were posting in a childish manner, even if you were attempting to address the subject matter. I don't need to take any direction from you as to what I should or shouldn't do. If you don't like my posting, maybe you should manually ignore me or put me on ignore via the forum software option. It really is that simple.

Here's how simple it is:

I will complain when I feel frustrated because that is my right.

Hey! Look! We're back to the discussion!

By the way, I never got off topic! Check my posts!
Let's move on shall we?

If you want to get technical, you have no inherent rights on a private message board. That includes the so called right to complain, when you feel frustrated on here.

I have addressed the subject of the thread tearing down your bad analogy in the process.

You can keep your condescending acerbic tone. I don't need any of that.

Moving right along.