Fair or Bigoted Criticism?

[Phi for All]

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 ( ?).

 

I'm thinking it's because nothing else is going to accord you those rights automatically. Tell the bear in your fishing stream you have the inalienable right to fish on public land.

[CharonY]

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

 

Could you define how you would define a "right" in this context? And how would you distinguish between the "ability" of someone to do something and the "right" for someone to do something?

 

 

[swansont]

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.

 

 

But that's how the founding fathers treated them. They are natural rights. "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" in the Declaration of Independence, for example.

[zapatos]

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 ( ?).

 

Why can't rights be where? If they aren't on a piece of paper or somewhere similar, and if they aren't being enforced, in what way do they truly exist?

Edited September 19, 2016 by zapatos

[StringJunky]

 

 

But that's how the founding fathers treated them. They are natural rights. "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" in the Declaration of Independence, for example.

That's what I'm saying: the story behind their evolution is religious. You and I know their emergence and establishment was arbitrary, whether one attributes them to a higher power or not.

Edited September 19, 2016 by StringJunky

[swansont]

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.

 

 

Fair enough,; it is both state and federal legislators. The federal government can't amend on their own. It is not one of their powers.

 

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?

 

 

The constitution was ratified by the states, as laid out in section VII.

[MigL]

I would define a right as free will.

Everyone has it.

But there are also repercussions with exercising that free will.

Society, and our governments, have decided that some of those actions are detrimental to society, and so try to discourage some actions, by exercising their collective right to punish you.

The fact that actions have consequences is discouragement, it is not prevention.

If the bear in the stream where you're fishing exercises his right to be a bear, and mauls you, that is a consequence of your actions. It is certainly not prevention.

The bear will never hold up a sign stating that you're not allowed to fish in his steam.

[DrmDoc]

 

 

Just think? Absent any evidence?

 

Perhaps not without direct, tangible evidence, but most certainly for causes or suspicions rooted in perceived behavior not directly related to a crime.

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

I agree with what CharonY comments suggest, having an ability to do a thing isn't the same as having the right to do a thing. You have the ability to do whatever you want, but you don't have the right due to limits set by law where you reside.

Edited September 19, 2016 by DrmDoc

[zapatos]

I would define a right as free will.

Which is fine. But then we are talking about something other than what most people think of as Rights, and certainly not a Right from the perspective of what you see in Constitutions.

[Phi for All]

If the bear in the stream where you're fishing exercises his right to be a bear, and mauls you, that is a consequence of your actions. It is certainly not prevention.

The bear will never hold up a sign stating that you're not allowed to fish in his steam.

 

But when you try to assert any right, it's only meaningful if that right is being granted to you. You may think you have the right to breathe my air when you come to my house, but if I disagree, then you need someone to enforce your rights. They won't just come automagically if I put on my mask and cut off the air.

 

Besides, I think the concept of the People granting certain rights to everybody just because they're human citizens is stronger than some kind of automatic privileges. It forces both parties to acknowledge the importance.

[Strange]

Why can't rights just be there ?

 

 

Because, presumably, if that were the case, everyone would agree on them. They don't.

[swansont]

 

Besides, I think the concept of the People granting certain rights to everybody just because they're human citizens is stronger than some kind of automatic privileges. It forces both parties to acknowledge the importance.

 

 

I think of it as recognition rather than granting, but at some point that distinction dissolves. People can take rights away, or recognize that something is not a right. We end up at the same place.

 

 

Because, presumably, if that were the case, everyone would agree on them. They don't.

 

 

At least part of that is because at some point they conflict with each other. Rights have to have limits, and where that line gets drawn is a question.

[Strange]

At least part of that is because at some point they conflict with each other. Rights have to have limits, and where that line gets drawn is a question.

 

 

Good point. And that is why they need to be formalised in a constitution. And so they need to be protected not just because someone (a government?) might want to remove them but because they may conflict with someone else's right.

[Ophiolite]

 

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.

I was basing my monosyllabic response on the following logic (colloquial variety).

 

If we think someone if going to commit a murder, then we have some evidence pointing in this direction, or we shouldn't be in crime prevention. If we have evidence pointing in that direction it may well be sufficient to justify a charge. Pending trial on that charge they can be locked up.

[StringJunky]

I was basing my monosyllabic response on the following logic (colloquial variety).

 

If we think someone if going to commit a murder, then we have some evidence pointing in this direction, or we shouldn't be in crime prevention. If we have evidence pointing in that direction it may well be sufficient to justify a charge. Pending trial on that charge they can be locked up.

In English law, the evidence needs to be substantial:

 

 

In order for a person to be found guilty of attempted murder the government must prove: First, acting deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life, the person attempted to kill someone; and the person did something that was a substantial step toward committing the crime. [Mere preparation is not a substantial step toward committing a crime.]

 

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m052.htm

Edited September 20, 2016 by StringJunky

[Ophiolite]

In English law, the evidence needs to be substantial:

 

That's good news. I can move forward with my plans then.

[StringJunky]

That's good news. I can move forward with my plans then.

[imatfaal]

That's good news. I can move forward with my plans then.

 

Scots Law may be different though.*

 

"That's it Officers - you can move in now"

 

* Homicide is the one thing I can actually remember a difference between England/Wales/NI and Scotland - the famous Scots verdict of Murder Not Proven

[MigL]

Authorities can only prevent you from committing murder if you've already committed the crime of planning it.

If you're just walking down the street and kill the first Scotsman you meet, there is no way to prevent that.

 

And everyone does agree to rights 'just being there' Strange. At least in the case of their own rights.

Its everyone else's rights that are questioned.

[Strange]

And everyone does agree to rights 'just being there' Strange.

 

 

Well, obviously not "everyone". There is at least one person in the world who doesn't think that. It seems unlikely I am unique.

 

And, the fact that those people who think their rights are "just out there" disagree on what those rights should be suggests that they aren't "out there" but are a personal concept.

[Ophiolite]

If you're just walking down the street and kill the first Scotsman you meet, there is no way to prevent that.

But that is a self correcting situation, especially if the Scot is from Glasgow.

 

And everyone does agree to rights 'just being there' Strange. At least in the case of their own rights.

Its everyone else's rights that are questioned.

Since rights are a consequence of value judgements there is no way in which they can "just be there". Assertions to the contrary are illogical, Captain.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Ophiolite

[DrmDoc]

Authorities can only prevent you from committing murder if you've already committed the crime of planning it.

If you're just walking down the street and kill the first Scotsman you meet, there is no way to prevent that.

 

And everyone does agree to rights 'just being there' Strange. At least in the case of their own rights.

Its everyone else's rights that are questioned.

 

As CharonY post inferred, you're construing an ability as a right. In clearer terms, I may have the ability to own a gun but I do not have the right to own said gun without a license. Having an ability doesn't confer rights. Having an ability to take a life, for example, doesn't confer the right to do so. Definitively, there are no rights conferred without rule of law. I understand your perception that people are born with certain freedoms but that is just an illusion and believing otherwise is self-deception.

Edited September 21, 2016 by DrmDoc

[CharonY]

But that is a self correcting situation, especially if the Scot is from Glasgow.

 

 

 

From what I understand the only safe way to kill a Scot from Glasgow (without dying yourself) is alcohol poisoning. But that could take a few years and will leave you very poor.

Source: had a colleague from Glasgow

[MigL]

What a way to go.

Death by Cardhu or Lagavulin.

[imatfaal]

What a way to go.

Death by Cardhu or Lagavulin.

 

More likely to be Buckie