What Constitutes a "Right?"

[goldcatt]

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.

He's even more noob than I am, BGG. My first day posting here I neg repped somebody who's been around her ea while and knows how it operates for barging into a serious discussion and posting cartoons. I got a quick education.
Won't take him long to get one either.
Now, why do you say Federal positions are elected in Federal elections, not Statewide ones?

 

[rubberhead]

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.

Self-defense does not imply killing. If someone is threatening your life without due cause (i.e. you are not threatening their life) then they forfeit their rights and your right to defend your rights is a fundamental part of Freedom for All.

It's funny how you use the word illegal since I was under the impression that we're not referring to any particular system of laws here, but general philosophical principles from which laws are derived. There is definitely a distinction.

 

[Intense]

What really amazes Me right now is the extent that some would go to to discredit or destroy that which they oppose, with no regard for what is Just or True. The End Justifies the Means is a Marxist tool that destroys that which it has power over, that is it's end. The Truth or even Integrity should not be the first casualties in debate. Disingenuous Argument, False Accusation, adding Words, adding meaning without consent, adding sentences, paragraphs, to overwhelm and divert discourse, is pretty cheap and lame.

Our Forefathers, Right or Wrong, tried to adhere to Certain Principles. Today these Principles are Being denied, and a False History taught to Our Children as The Gospel of the State. This is intentional and obstructive because the Truth of the Matter Denies Their Unrighteous claim to Power.

As far back as I can see, Natural Right was Taught by John Locke, We find some of those Principles in "The Declaration of Independence", Memorial and Remonstrance", "The Federalist Papers", and Even "The Preamble of The Constitution Of The United States". John was Pretty big on Christ and the Bible, Yet his View's were very Unique. He believed in God, He Believed also in Man's Ability to Overcome Adversity and Know Liberty.

We are actually being Taught that Outside the Recognition and Consent of Society and Government We have no Rights. What are Human Rights? Are Human Rights what Society Dictates and No More? If Society changes It's mind about a Right, is it like the Right never existed at all? Do you actually need time to think about this to respond? Our Consciences, those Who are on speaking terms with them should know within Reason what is Right and What is Wrong. We are not limited to that, again, We are not in Denial of Civil Law, though Falsely Accused of that, We look to support and Construct Civil Law for the sake of Good will, Through the Consent of the Governed. We Establish as best We can, what is Equitable and Fair.

Some act like there is no Justice or Law unless Society plays a Role. Life goes on while some sit stagnant. You are not the center of creation. Government does not begin to compare to God.

 

[RadiomanATL]

 

[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.

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...

Not a problem gold. We agree that "We The People" have no right to vote in elections that Maggie was speaking of. Even though the respective states may allow their citizenry to vote for President and Congress, that doesn't negate the fact that the office of President and Congress are federal offices. That is what I was speaking to. We agree on the fundamental issue that Maggie brought up. If we disagree on the other, I don't see that as critical.

I think the back and forth disagreement with a lot of people in the thread centers around the belief of positive and negative rights.

 

[goldcatt]

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...

Not a problem gold. We agree that "We The People" have no right to vote in elections that Maggie was speaking of. Even though the respective states may allow their citizenry to vote for President and Congress, that doesn't negate the fact that the office of President and Congress are federal offices. That is what I was speaking to. We agree on the fundamental issue that Maggie brought up. If we disagree on the other, I don't see that as critical.

I think the back and forth disagreement with a lot of people in the thread centers around the belief of positive and negative rights.

I see what you're getting at. I think I misunderstood your previous posts, it seemed youwere not distinguishing between Federal offices and the States being the ones to elect the persons holding them.

There we go agreeing again. This has got to stop.

 

[rubberhead]

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.

I don't like this post!
Here I am complaining again! Thus proving my point in the same condescending tone! It seems I do have the right to complain. Can you prove me wrong? Didn't think so. Nice try telling me off though. I almost cried (laughing so hard)

 

[Liability]

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.

Wow, it's exactly as though you are just sputtering.

You not only fail to speak with precision, confusing the notions of "rights," "liberties" and "freedoms," but you also seem to mis-understand Rawls' work.

Freedom is not subject to being limited by compatibility. Sometimes individual rights run up against each other. Sometimes my rights in some certain regard trump your rights in that same realm. If my freedom to raise crops on my land were limited by your freedom to plant giant solar-collectors on your property -- casting big shadows over our part of the county (i.e. your devices gather solar rays nicely, even if planted on your property, but cast enormous shadows over my farm), then those freedoms have bumped up against each other. The solution is not to deny BOTH of us the right to use our land to do the work we do for a living. The solution (however difficult it may be to derive it) is found by measuring the rights realtive to each other and relative to neutral principles.

Rawls' "A Theory of Justice" was interested in crafting a neutral system. But his system could not achieve "justice" if it tried to resolve that dispute solely on the basis of the compatibility of those respective rights. Your exercise of your rights are not compatible with my exercise of mine; and vice versa. A stalemate outcome is of zero utility.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

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.

I don't like this post!
Here I am complaining again! Thus proving my point in the same condescending tone! It seems I do have the right to complain. Can you prove me wrong? Didn't think so. Nice try telling me off though. I almost cried (laughing so hard)

Ask the moderators if you do have the inherent right to complain as you will on a private message board. The fact that you did such again, does not actually bolster your argument that it is some kind of inherent right. It simply means that you have expressed yourself. There is a difference between public and private. While the rules (such as they are) are lenient, one should not confuse a 'right' with being allowed ( at times ) to act a certain way.

The First Amendment does not apply on this board.

 

[rubberhead]

You not only fail to speak with precision, confusing the notions of "rights," "liberties" and "freedoms," but you also seem to mis-understand Rawls' work.

Ok, so what's the difference between a "liberty" and a "freedom". Remember, "rights" are the things that we are defining so we must be careful about throwing that term around (if we are going to speak precisely - I didn't think we were). I would say that a right is a specific manifestation of freedom restricted by compatibility in a situation like the one that you posted.

I don't think you've addressed what I've misunderstood about Rawls, I'd love to hear how that is!

Freedom is not subject to being limited by compatibility.

I didn't want to go any further into Rawls because I didn't want to sound like more of an elitist douchebag, but OK...

Yes, Rawls doesn't talk about the state of nature or natural rights. Instead, all people (past, present, future) are put into the o-so-problematic 'original position' where they have no knowledge of their former selves or their prejudices. Then they are asked to decide upon the principles of justice. Rawls contended that they would choose Freedom for All and the Difference Principle (which I talked about earlier). There are many problems with the formulation of the original position which I will not get into, but I do believe that if you could strip a person of all prejudice and somehow ask humanity as a whole what it wants, the answer would be "equal freedom for all." This is why I call Freedom for All a natural right.

Sometimes individual rights run up against each other.

Yes, this is true. Which is why freedom cannot be absolute for all and still be natural.

Sometimes my rights in some certain regard trump your rights in that same realm. If my freedom to raise crops on my land were limited by your freedom to plant giant solar-collectors on your property -- casting big shadows over our part of the county (i.e. your devices gather solar rays nicely, even if planted on your property, but cast enormous shadows over my farm), then those freedoms have bumped up against each other. The solution is not to deny BOTH of us the right to use our land to do the work we do for a living. The solution (however difficult it may be to derive it) is found by measuring the rights realtive to each other and relative to neutral principles.

First of all, there are no panels that tall and it would be impossible for the panels-no matter how tall-to block the sun year-round all day, but I see your point. This is where the difference principle comes in. The solar panels create wealth for me, but they are to your disadvantage. Therefore, my actions contradict that principle as I understand it. I know that the difference principle mentions the "least advantaged", but that's why I have my own interpretation of the difference principle, which I stated in an earlier post that I'm sure you didn't read:

If one party obtains wealth, then that party must either obtain that wealth through an equal exchange (negotiated by the involved parties) or create that wealth in its entirety.

I hope this resolves the conflict between my rights as a solar panel tycoon and yours as a farmer. That is, I would only be entitled to

(wealth generated by solar panels - wealth lost from your crops)

and the rest would have to be paid to you for that to be an equal exchange.

Rawls' "A Theory of Justice" was interested in crafting a neutral system. But his system could achieve justice if it tried to resolve that dispute solely on the basis of the compatibility of those respective rights. Your exercise of your rights are not compatible with my exercise of mine; and vice versa. A stalemate outcome is of zero utility.

On the contrary, your understanding of Rawls seems to be incomplete. You forgot about the difference principle.

It's not a stalemate. My solar panels kill your crops and you seek compensation. Of course if your crops are feeding you and your family, then I would hope that you would defend them with your life because that would be your right.

 

[trueblue]

Perhaps I used a bad example with the whole killing thing. The underlying point was that we give up some of our rights to belong to a group (like a country). Belonging to the group requires compromise, but in return we get protection, etc.

 

[Intense]

Perhaps I used a bad example with the whole killing thing. The underlying point was that we give up some of our rights to belong to a group (like a country). Belonging to the group requires compromise, but in return we get protection, etc.

I think we get your point TrueBlue, How about considering this angle.

We are born with Free Will, in order to create a society, and for the sake of our children when they are born into the society, we have created a Government which we loan certain powers, for good will, that may in fact inhibit us in some ways. We establish a Government that governs for the most part with the consent of the Governed. We reserve the Right to change those requirements, through Election and Representation and Legislation. Mark Levin uses the term "Structured Liberty" which depicts it well.

 

[Intense]

Perhaps I used a bad example with the whole killing thing. The underlying point was that we give up some of our rights to belong to a group (like a country). Belonging to the group requires compromise, but in return we get protection, etc.

It's just been a rough day on this thread.

 

[rubberhead]

Perhaps I used a bad example with the whole killing thing. The underlying point was that we give up some of our rights to belong to a group (like a country). Belonging to the group requires compromise, but in return we get protection, etc.

Exactly. I understood this point perfectly. I believe that the most accurate way to define the "sweet spot" of individual liberty is where everyone has equal freedom. This is what I called Freedom for All although academic honesty requires me to admit that I originally got the idea from Rawls. Put simply:

You can do anything that doesn't stop anyone else from having the same freedom as you.

This implies:

You can't force anyone to do something that they don't want to do.
(You would be doing something that is incompatible with someone's liberty)

When you say protection, I think what you mean is that we get protection of the freedom that is compatible with everyone else having the same freedom, right? If so, then we agree completely.

 

[rubberhead]

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.

I don't like this post!
Here I am complaining again! Thus proving my point in the same condescending tone! It seems I do have the right to complain. Can you prove me wrong? Didn't think so. Nice try telling me off though. I almost cried (laughing so hard)

Ask the moderators if you do have the inherent right to complain as you will on a private message board. The fact that you did such again, does not actually bolster your argument that it is some kind of inherent right. It simply means that you have expressed yourself. There is a difference between public and private. While the rules (such as they are) are lenient, one should not confuse a 'right' with being allowed ( at times ) to act a certain way.

The First Amendment does not apply on this board.

I would say it's a de facto right. I mean, there are no rules against me complaining on a thread about irrelevant posting, so it is my right by default. I agree that the only rights that I have here are the ones that are implied by the user agreement. That is, those things that do not violate the rules are my right. I don't think complaining about irrelevant posts (especially in a relevant way, as I have tried to do) violates any of the terms of use, therefore it is my right. Does that make sense to you? I'm not saying that my right comes from the constitution. It is not abridged by the constitution, nor is it abridged by the terms of use of this site, therefore it is my right and yours as well.

 

[Intense]

Perhaps I used a bad example with the whole killing thing. The underlying point was that we give up some of our rights to belong to a group (like a country). Belonging to the group requires compromise, but in return we get protection, etc.

Exactly. I understood this point perfectly. I believe that the most accurate way to define the "sweet spot" of individual liberty is where everyone has equal freedom. This is what I called Freedom for All although academic honesty requires me to admit that I originally got the idea from Rawls. Put simply:

You can do anything that doesn't stop anyone else from having the same freedom as you.

This implies:

You can't force anyone to do something that they don't want to do.
(You would be doing something that is incompatible with someone's liberty)

When you say protection, I think what you mean is that we get protection of the freedom that is compatible with everyone else having the same freedom, right? If so, then we agree completely.

What You choose to do is not measured by what others do, but measured by what you are capable of, by success. Liberty is not measured by what others do or choose not to do. Liberty has boundaries, do you really want to add artificial ones based on that premise?

 

[rubberhead]

Perhaps I used a bad example with the whole killing thing. The underlying point was that we give up some of our rights to belong to a group (like a country). Belonging to the group requires compromise, but in return we get protection, etc.

Exactly. I understood this point perfectly. I believe that the most accurate way to define the "sweet spot" of individual liberty is where everyone has equal freedom. This is what I called Freedom for All although academic honesty requires me to admit that I originally got the idea from Rawls. Put simply:

You can do anything that doesn't stop anyone else from having the same freedom as you.

This implies:

You can't force anyone to do something that they don't want to do.
(You would be doing something that is incompatible with someone's liberty)

When you say protection, I think what you mean is that we get protection of the freedom that is compatible with everyone else having the same freedom, right? If so, then we agree completely.

What You choose to do is not measured by what others do, but measured by what you are capable of, by success. Liberty is not measured by what others do or choose not to do. Liberty has boundaries, do you really want to add artificial ones based on that premise?

I don't think that it is an artificial boundary. I think that my liberty is naturally limited by others' liberty. That is, even if I am capable of restricting someone's liberty, I don't have the natural right to do so.

 

[rubberhead]

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.

He's even more noob than I am, BGG. My first day posting here I neg repped somebody who's been around her ea while and knows how it operates for barging into a serious discussion and posting cartoons. I got a quick education.
Won't take him long to get one either.
Now, why do you say Federal positions are elected in Federal elections, not Statewide ones?

what does neg rep mean? I'm guessing negatively represent.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

He's even more noob than I am, BGG. My first day posting here I neg repped somebody who's been around her ea while and knows how it operates for barging into a serious discussion and posting cartoons. I got a quick education.
Won't take him long to get one either.
Now, why do you say Federal positions are elected in Federal elections, not Statewide ones?

what does neg rep mean? I'm guessing negatively represent.

Negative reputation.
I'd explain, but that would be off-topic.

 

[rubberhead]

He's even more noob than I am, BGG. My first day posting here I neg repped somebody who's been around her ea while and knows how it operates for barging into a serious discussion and posting cartoons. I got a quick education.
Won't take him long to get one either.
Now, why do you say Federal positions are elected in Federal elections, not Statewide ones?

what does neg rep mean? I'm guessing negatively represent.

Negative reputation.
I'd explain, but that would be off-topic.

it's your right to be off-topic just as it is mine to complain about such transgressions of forum etiquette. It's wonderful how these two rights do not conflict, isn't it?