Fair or Bigoted Criticism?

[DrmDoc]

He voiced his opinion about a ( hopefully ) peaceful protest, and was within his rights.

 

So, he was within his rights, as a public official, to label participants in a peaceful protest as terrorists? Isn't that just a bit oxymoronic? Also, do you think he would have suffered similar consequences as a private sector employee?

Edited September 18, 2016 by DrmDoc

[MigL]

Stop taking snippets of my post in isolation.

 

You ARE free to do whatever you want, even kill another person.

Even if you're a public official, you don't lose any of your rights.

But then society gets to exercise their rights, and are free to react to your behavior by imprisoning you.

Everyone has rights !

 

 

Or did you nor read the line after the one you quoted ?

[StringJunky]

He voiced his opinion about a ( hopefully ) peaceful protest, and was within his rights.

If he was within his rights, why did he lose his job? If we look at rights as legal decrees of consent, not everybody is given the same permissions; the permissions they have depend on their role in society.

Edited September 18, 2016 by StringJunky

[MigL]

Having a right doesn't absolve you of the consequences of exercising that right.

Because, as I said, other people ( like his superiors ) have rights also.

[swansont]

Stop taking snippets of my post in isolation.

 

You ARE free to do whatever you want, even kill another person.

Even if you're a public official, you don't lose any of your rights.

But then society gets to exercise their rights, and are free to react to your behavior by imprisoning you.

Everyone has rights !

 

Oh, come on. That's got to be one of the most contorted definitions of "free" or "right" I've ever seen. A right is something that the government is expected to defend and protect from infringement. If the government has authority to punish a private citizen for the action, then that freedom doesn't exist.

[MigL]

Does the government have the right to PREVENT you from killing someone ?

If they think you're going to commit a murder can they preemptively incarcerate you ?

 

It may be contorted but, nonetheless, accurate.

[John Cuthber]

Does the government have the right to PREVENT you from killing someone ?

If they think you're going to commit a murder can they preemptively incarcerate you ?

 

It may be contorted but, nonetheless, accurate.

Perhaps, but it's not relevant.

[MigL]

I don't see how it isn't, John.

If nothing is preventing me from doing something, then I have the option of doing it, if I so choose.

But I have to accept the consequences of my choice, which would be other people, or society, exercising their options.

 

Maybe we have differing definitions of 'rights'.

I don't think rights are granted nor protected by the government, otherwise there would be no human rights violations; only those granted by an authoritarian/dictatorial government would be considered 'rights' in an authoritarian/dictatorial country.

Rights are inherent, and should be whatever you wish to do, tempered by the consequences of others' right to respond/react to your actions.

[swansont]

Does the government have the right to PREVENT you from killing someone ?

If they think you're going to commit a murder can they preemptively incarcerate you ?

 

It may be contorted but, nonetheless, accurate.

Yes, contorted. It includes basically everything physically possible, and as a result renders the concept meaningless. You have the "right" to do anything not forbidden by the laws of nature. Wow, what a worthless distinction. You've made it a synonym for capability.

I don't see how it isn't, John.

If nothing is preventing me from doing something, then I have the option of doing it, if I so choose.

But I have to accept the consequences of my choice, which would be other people, or society, exercising their options.

 

Maybe we have differing definitions of 'rights'.

I don't think rights are granted nor protected by the government, otherwise there would be no human rights violations; only those granted by an authoritarian/dictatorial government would be considered 'rights' in an authoritarian/dictatorial country.

Rights are inherent, and should be whatever you wish to do, tempered by the consequences of others' right to respond/react to your actions.

In the US we also don't think rights are granted by the government. But using your definition, there can be no human rights violations. A government is able to suppress speech, so it has that right. You can still speak out, but you'll be jailed, or beaten, or killed. Your rights can't possibly be violated. The very use of the phrase "human rights violations" indicates your definition is incorrect.

[DrmDoc]

Does the government have the right to PREVENT you from killing someone ?

If they think you're going to commit a murder can they preemptively incarcerate you ?

 

It may be contorted but, nonetheless, accurate.

 

I don't know about Ontario, Canada but in the US, yes and yes. Our government, by way of law enforcement officers, has the right to "PREVENT" its citizens from harming other citizens. Furthermore, anyone believed or found to be plotting to commit murder can be incarcerated, which is why we have certain laws that allow us to arrest potential terrorists and terrorist sympathizers.

 

I don't see how it isn't, John.

If nothing is preventing me from doing something, then I have the option of doing it, if I so choose.

But I have to accept the consequences of my choice, which would be other people, or society, exercising their options.

 

Maybe we have differing definitions of 'rights'.

I don't think rights are granted nor protected by the government, otherwise there would be no human rights violations; only those granted by an authoritarian/dictatorial government would be considered 'rights' in an authoritarian/dictatorial country.

Rights are inherent, and should be whatever you wish to do, tempered by the consequences of others' right to respond/react to your actions.

 

In a civilized society, citizens do have certain inherent rights set and enforced by government through rule of law. No one has rights beyond those set by rule of law in the society where he or she resides and subsist. Rights without freedom from punishment are not rights, they are wrongs under the laws where punishment is a consequence. For example, North Korean citizens do not have many of the rights you and I enjoy in the west. In N. Korean society the rights we enjoy in the west are limited under their laws. In western society our rights are also limited to the laws set by our government. A violation of human rights is a violation of a set of rights agreed to by a majority of nations or a governing body of nations. Human rights are only inherent under rules of social decency set by a body of nations. If you live in a civilized society, the only inalienable rights you have are those approved by rule of law.

[MigL]

You'd better re-read that Swansont.

Somehow you have gotten the totally opposite meaning.

Rights cannot be what is granted or protected by the government as we have many differing governments in this world.

Some not so nice.

Rights are NOT simply what is granted/protected by the government.

 

Maybe the 'blinders' are preventing you from reading properly.

 

And I suggest you and DrmDoc have a discussion.

You seem to agree that rights are not granted by the government according to your post #34 ( and which I agree with ). While DrmDoc seems to think they are, and inherent rights are a 'fabrication'.

 

edit ( added this last part after DrmDoc's post )

Edited September 18, 2016 by MigL

[StringJunky]

You'd better re-read that Swansont.

Somehow you have gotten the totally opposite meaning.

Rights cannot be what is granted or protected by the government as we have many differing governments in this world.

Some not so nice.

Rights are NOT simply what is granted/protected by the government.

 

Maybe the 'blinders' are preventing you from reading properly.

 

And I suggest you and DrmDoc have a discussion.

You seem to agree that rights are not granted by the government according to your post #34 ( and which I agree with ). While DrmDoc seems to think they are, and inherent rights are a 'fabrication'.

 

edit ( added this last part after DrmDoc's post )

DrmDoc is correct imo.'Inherent' rights make no sense; they are granted not borne. They don't exist until they are granted. Unless some action/behaviour is put under pressure to prohibit it/vilify it there is no need for it to be a right, therefore, it is not decreed as such; people just do it.

Edited September 18, 2016 by StringJunky

[swansont]

You'd better re-read that Swansont.

Somehow you have gotten the totally opposite meaning.

Rights cannot be what is granted or protected by the government as we have many differing governments in this world.

Some not so nice.

Rights are NOT simply what is granted/protected by the government.

 

Maybe the 'blinders' are preventing you from reading properly.

 

And I suggest you and DrmDoc have a discussion.

You seem to agree that rights are not granted by the government according to your post #34 ( and which I agree with ). While DrmDoc seems to think they are, and inherent rights are a 'fabrication'.

 

edit ( added this last part after DrmDoc's post )

In some countries the attitude is that rights are inherent. But in others, this is not the case. You might not agree with them, but the reality is that e.g freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, does not exist everywhere. To argue otherwise is ludicrous.

[Ophiolite]

If they think you're going to commit a murder can they preemptively incarcerate you ?

Yes.

[swansont]

Yes.

 

 

Just think? Absent any evidence?

[imatfaal]

Yes.

 

How?

I cannot think of a legal path other than getting a few doctors to sign off on a sectioning. But the courts would not want that precedent as the legel definition of madness as a defence is very very narrow and would most certainly not cover most people who are planning to murder someone.

 

IPP/Dangerous individual in UK/Canada only applies to already convicted felons - and has already be changed in the UK.

 

Otherwise most of the legislation is lock up pending charge/trial - and the question would be trial for what. Obviously if you are held under the non-jurisdiction of guantanamo then all argument is moot - but that is anomalous and highly criticised. The UK anti-terror legislation is also pretty draconian but not sure there is a way through that.

 

If you were planning a joint enterprise then it would be easy - but just one guy - I don't see how.

[Strange]

I don't think rights are granted nor protected by the government, otherwise there would be no human rights violations; only those granted by an authoritarian/dictatorial government would be considered 'rights' in an authoritarian/dictatorial country.

 

Surely, rights such as "free speech" are granted and protected by the constitution, the government and the courts. They don't come from nowhere. A group of people thought they would be sensible rights to grant the population and so enshrined it in the law of the land.

 

Not all countries have the same rights or to the same extent. There are things the USA does that would be considered a violation of rights in other places. In the best case, the law coincides with the rights that the majority of people think they should have. But there will always be some people who think they should have more rights than society at large thinks is fair, and those people will feel their rights are being violated. Even if other people don't think it is a right.

[swansont]

 

Surely, rights such as "free speech" are granted and protected by the constitution

 

 

Protected, yes. Granted, no. "We the people" ordained and established the constitution.

 

Madison's original proposal that (in part) became the bill of rights says

"First. That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration that all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Crafting_amendments

 

The constitution is written in that spirit. It explains the power that the people grant the government in order to govern, and limitations on that power. Granting rights is not one of the powers the government has.

[Strange]

 

 

Protected, yes. Granted, no. "We the people" ordained and established the constitution.

 

OK. The protected vs granted distinction is good.

 

Does that mean that "We [you] the people" granted the rights and then wrote that down in the constitution so that the government (and courts, etc) would have to protect them?

 

Was "we the people" just those who wrote the constitution or was it ratified by some sort of popular vote?

[zapatos]

 

 

Granting rights is not one of the powers the government has.

Given that government legislators can pass amendments, I think that is a matter of interpretation. It is true that the people vote in the legislators, but the legislators don't necessarily act as their constituents wish.

 

OK. The protected vs granted distinction is good.

 

Does that mean that "We [you] the people" granted the rights and then wrote that down in the constitution so that the government (and courts, etc) would have to protect them?

 

Was "we the people" just those who wrote the constitution or was it ratified by some sort of popular vote?

 

 

 

Beyond the legal requirements for ratification, the state conventions fulfilled other purposes. The Constitution had been produced in strictest secrecy during the Philadelphia convention. The ratifying conventions served the necessary function of informing the public of the provisions of the proposed new government. They also served as forums for proponents and opponents to articulate their ideas before the citizenry. Significantly, state conventions, not Congress, were the agents of ratification. This approach insured that the Constitution's authority came from representatives of the people specifically elected for the purpose of approving or disapproving the charter, resulting in a more accurate reflection of the will of the electorate. Also, by bypassing debate in the state legislatures, the Constitution avoided disabling amendments that states, jealous of yielding authority to a national government, would likely have attached.

 

 

http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/constitution-day/ratification.html

[StringJunky]

 

 

Protected, yes. Granted, no. "We the people" ordained and established the constitution.

 

Madison's original proposal that (in part) became the bill of rights says

"First. That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration that all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Crafting_amendments

 

The constitution is written in that spirit. It explains the power that the people grant the government in order to govern, and limitations on that power. Granting rights is not one of the powers the government has.

Wherever they they are granted from, even autonomously by 'the people', they are still granted. The idea expressed that threy are 'just there' is mistaken.

[zapatos]

Wherever they they are granted from, even autonomously by 'the people', they are still granted. The idea expressed that threy are 'just there' is mistaken.

I agree. To me the idea that rights are "just there" sounds too much like they were granted by a benevolent being.

[StringJunky]

I agree. To me the idea that rights are "just there" sounds too much like they were granted by a benevolent being.

Yes, it's a bit god-like isn't it. It's understandable though, given that much of Western morality has religious roots and people forget that or never thought about its origins; they get the mistaken sense that these rights are naturally there, like the colour of ones eyes.

Edited September 19, 2016 by StringJunky

[Delta1212]

I think it's culturally important to consider our rights as things that exist independently of the government, since it's easier to justify taking them away if you're in the mindset that what rights you have is up to the government to decide rather than something that needs to be defended against being infringed upon by the government.

 

But like pretty much all of the stories we tell ourselves about how the world works, it obviously isn't objectively true. Rights don't really exist. They aren't physical things. But the story is still important because human behavior is shaped by the stories we choose to tell each other.

[MigL]

Why can't rights just be there ?

Why do you think they have to be granted by someone, and if not the government then it must be God ( ?).

 

Everyone has free will and can exercise that will.

All the government, or Constitution, does, is specify which of those actions will have repercussions, and which won't.

And, of course, different governments have different standards for repercussions.

 

And no, DrmDoc and Ophiolite, no government can prevent you from committing a murder.

And if they have proof that you've conspired to commit a murder, that is already a criminal offense, and punishable.

But they can't prevent your thinking about it, and spontaneously carrying it out.

They can only make you face the consequences of your actions