Given the studies out there that say a gun in the home is more likely to cause risk to someone in the home, they also don't really care about their children either.
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
The truth
YOUR children aren't as important as Their guns:
Given the studies out there that say a gun in the home is more likely to cause risk to someone in the home, they also don't really care about their children either.
Given the studies out there that say a gun in the home is more likely to cause risk to someone in the home, they also don't really care about their children either.
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Quote of the day
If it ain't in writing, it don't legally exist:
The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject.PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Freedom of movement
This is a right which asserts that a citizen of a state in which that citizen is present has the liberty to travel, reside in, and/or work in any part of a country where one pleases within the limits of respect for the liberty and rights of others, and to leave that Country and return at any time. Some immigrants' rights advocates assert that human beings have a fundamental human right to mobility not only within a country but between nations.
It's probably the only thing I agree with Libertarians. People should be able to live wherever they want.
Never heard of this right? You seem to talk a lot about rights, but somehow you missed this one? I think somebody may have mentioned this right without understanding it, but that would be typical for that person as he doesn't really understand as much as he thinks he does.
Yes, it's actually in the US Constitution, but I could guess that you wouldn't know it since you are too fixated on the misinterpreted portion called the Second Amendment.
This right is found in the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."
It is a right was has been around for a long time. In England, in 1215, the right to travel was mentioned in Article 42 of the Magna Carta:
At one time, passports were not obligatory, but they have become part of the modern world since the 14-18 (First World) War. I think they are kind of fun, but I miss the old blue British Passports which have been replaced by the standardised EU passports.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (AKA the International Bill of Rights) mentions this right in a couple of sections:
Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads:
Of course, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is one of those documents promulgated by the Evil United Nations (which pays at least one blogger here's salary).
Free movement of workers is a fundamental principle of the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Union. It is found in Article 45 of that Treaty which states:
The right of free movement has actually been around for some time (subject to people's ability to pay to move). Scholars have attempted to base a universal "right to move" on several philosophical grounds, including the idea of a common ownership of the earth, a natural right of movement existing prior to the advent of nation states, an ethics of cosmopolitanism, and utilitarian notions of the benefits of immigration to both receiving countries and immigrants.
There are a few reasons that I mention this right. a couple are personal, as one of my passports is up for renewal (I value the right of freedom of movement above all others due to the next reason). I also value the ability to get out of Dodge should whatever place I reside happen to become unlivable: in the case of the US due to pseudopatriots who would plunge their nation into war. That's actually quite a good reason in that people in the US are idiots who, while talking peace, are all too willing to plunge their nation into a war. Fortunately for them, they have been able to stay out of the way for all but a few of their wars.
Unfortunately, they tend to forget the ravages that their nation has suffered because of war.
Anyway, unlike the fictitious or misinterpreted rights I see mentioned here (e.g. "gun rights"), this one is one with serious historic, legal, and ethical bases.
That said, there is one thing that General Patton said which I can agree with and that is:
I am a citizen of the world. I can travel and live where I want.
Thinking about this after I wrote it, that was sort of a flip conclusion, but I do write about a lot of complicated topic and try to simplify them. But, this is one with a lot of ramifications: especially for modern US society. For example, the way that people dislike Hispanic immigration while neglecting that most of the Southwestern United States (at least Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California) were part of Mexico prior to their conquest by war. Like the Palestinians, those people have a right to access to their homelands and travel to visit their families. Similarly, the Native Americans have a right to their homeland under this principle.
As I said, the US has a belligerent streak which has caused it more problems than they realise. And will continue to cause it problems as long as it is not addressed.
[1] European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States
It's probably the only thing I agree with Libertarians. People should be able to live wherever they want.
Never heard of this right? You seem to talk a lot about rights, but somehow you missed this one? I think somebody may have mentioned this right without understanding it, but that would be typical for that person as he doesn't really understand as much as he thinks he does.
Yes, it's actually in the US Constitution, but I could guess that you wouldn't know it since you are too fixated on the misinterpreted portion called the Second Amendment.
This right is found in the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them."
It is a right was has been around for a long time. In England, in 1215, the right to travel was mentioned in Article 42 of the Magna Carta:
It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above.
At one time, passports were not obligatory, but they have become part of the modern world since the 14-18 (First World) War. I think they are kind of fun, but I miss the old blue British Passports which have been replaced by the standardised EU passports.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (AKA the International Bill of Rights) mentions this right in a couple of sections:
Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads:
- (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
- (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
- (1) Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
- (2) Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
- (3) The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre publique), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
- (4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
Of course, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is one of those documents promulgated by the Evil United Nations (which pays at least one blogger here's salary).
Free movement of workers is a fundamental principle of the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Union. It is found in Article 45 of that Treaty which states:
The right of free movement has actually been around for some time (subject to people's ability to pay to move). Scholars have attempted to base a universal "right to move" on several philosophical grounds, including the idea of a common ownership of the earth, a natural right of movement existing prior to the advent of nation states, an ethics of cosmopolitanism, and utilitarian notions of the benefits of immigration to both receiving countries and immigrants.
There are a few reasons that I mention this right. a couple are personal, as one of my passports is up for renewal (I value the right of freedom of movement above all others due to the next reason). I also value the ability to get out of Dodge should whatever place I reside happen to become unlivable: in the case of the US due to pseudopatriots who would plunge their nation into war. That's actually quite a good reason in that people in the US are idiots who, while talking peace, are all too willing to plunge their nation into a war. Fortunately for them, they have been able to stay out of the way for all but a few of their wars.
Unfortunately, they tend to forget the ravages that their nation has suffered because of war.
Anyway, unlike the fictitious or misinterpreted rights I see mentioned here (e.g. "gun rights"), this one is one with serious historic, legal, and ethical bases.
That said, there is one thing that General Patton said which I can agree with and that is:
The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.Trust me, if you want to start a war, there will be enough people who will be willing to make sure you die for your country.
The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgespa102496.html#MlqijqW63SW5eB2c.99
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgespa102496.html#MlqijqW63SW5eB2c.99
I am a citizen of the world. I can travel and live where I want.
Thinking about this after I wrote it, that was sort of a flip conclusion, but I do write about a lot of complicated topic and try to simplify them. But, this is one with a lot of ramifications: especially for modern US society. For example, the way that people dislike Hispanic immigration while neglecting that most of the Southwestern United States (at least Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California) were part of Mexico prior to their conquest by war. Like the Palestinians, those people have a right to access to their homelands and travel to visit their families. Similarly, the Native Americans have a right to their homeland under this principle.
As I said, the US has a belligerent streak which has caused it more problems than they realise. And will continue to cause it problems as long as it is not addressed.
[1] European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States
Friday, January 17, 2014
At least you have your guns...
Health care isn't a right.The same goes for housing
Voting
Or water
You may be aware of the chemical spill that contaminated a river supplying water to hundreds of thousands of people in West Virginia. Officials say there wasn't much regulation at the site where the spill occurred and that little is known about the chemical that leaked.
On the other hand, US House republicans passed a bill that will gut toxic waste clean up regulations in the United States. H.R. 2279, otherwise known as ‘The Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act’ would basically eliminate the power of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to impose clean up deadlines, following toxic spills like the recent WV spill.
That bill passed on the same day the Chemical spill poisoned the water in West Virginia.
But for some reason, guns are no matter how idiotic that proposition is when you really think about it.
You might want to read about how you are being conned into voting against your interests here--but I doubt you will. It's nicer being conned than realise you've been conned.
I guess it makes it easier to kill yourself when you realise that fact.
Monday, December 16, 2013
What do the Gun-Rights Advocates Mean by "Right?"
The "right" these gun nuts keep talking about is this:
right to life
right to self defense (to protect life)
right to own a particular inanimate object called a gun
This bizarre and wild jump from the second proposition to the third is what they refer to as "the right." It's total made-up bullshit. Furthermore the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with it. They hijacked the amendment for their crazy argument and repeated it a million times until it took on a life of its own. But, it just ain't so. There is no "right" to own guns.
right to life
right to self defense (to protect life)
right to own a particular inanimate object called a gun
This bizarre and wild jump from the second proposition to the third is what they refer to as "the right." It's total made-up bullshit. Furthermore the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with it. They hijacked the amendment for their crazy argument and repeated it a million times until it took on a life of its own. But, it just ain't so. There is no "right" to own guns.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Does this make sense?
Whoever did this forgot "reproductive rights".
Anyway, Do the people who talk about the "Second Amendment right" really want us to use guns against the "tyrants" who are taking our rights away?
Does someone like a Mark Kessler want to suggest that we use guns against the forces of oppression?
Anyway, Do the people who talk about the "Second Amendment right" really want us to use guns against the "tyrants" who are taking our rights away?
Does someone like a Mark Kessler want to suggest that we use guns against the forces of oppression?
Friday, November 9, 2012
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Unrestricted Rights
via The Salem News
What we're left with is a discussion about how much restriction is acceptable. Even my ideas about proper gun control, which have never come close to being implemented even in the most restrictive places, would allow for the preservation of the spirit of the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The difference would be that gun owners would be more qualified and more responsible.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Let me be explicit: an “unrestricted right to gun ownership” is not a right. In fact, any “unrestricted right” is not a right. For rights to be genuine, for rights to be effective, for rights to be humane, for rights to be rights, they must be placed into social and political contexts — and that means regulation.Even Justice Scalia, who is no friend to gun control, said in the Heller decision that reasonable restrictions are acceptable. This makes the Second Amendment argument about non-infringement meaningless.
This view of rights emphasizes that they are one of the most important ways that we as a society have sought to honor and protect human dignity — in fact, the protection of human dignity is precisely what rights are for. A high view of dignity will pair rights with responsibilities, individual freedoms with the obligation to ensure that freedoms of others will be respected. If we believe that human dignity requires the right to bear arms, that same foundation of human dignity requires regulations to ensure that this right is appropriately related to all the other rights and responsibilities we bear. Our debate should not be whether regulation, but only which regulation.
What we're left with is a discussion about how much restriction is acceptable. Even my ideas about proper gun control, which have never come close to being implemented even in the most restrictive places, would allow for the preservation of the spirit of the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The difference would be that gun owners would be more qualified and more responsible.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Rights
There is all this talk about claiming rights which are either natural or god given, which is fairly nonsensical since anyone can claim anything as a right. The real hitch is enforcing that right.
Not to mention the idea that a right represents can change with time, such as the Second Amendment of the US Constitution which is supposed to protect the institution of the Militia, but has been perverted to some personal right to firearms outside the context of that right.
I ask does a similar concept of "gun rights" exist in other common law jurisdictions, yet no one can provide an analogue.
Greg points to state constitutions, but State Constitutions can expand upon the right--they cannot subtract from the right.
I decided to look up The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document contains many interesting rights such as
Article 3's Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 24: Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25: (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 27: (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28: Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
But, despite all the wonderful rights I've mentioned "Gun rights" and "a right to armed self-defence" is conspicuously absent.
Why is this? Is it because those rights do not follow the general scheme of the Declaration:
If we go by this document, the US Constitution allows for the rule of law (if it existed in the US) as a buttress to the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights, not arms.The rule of law is fundamental to the western democratic order. Aristotle said more than two thousand years ago, "The rule of law is better than that of any individual." Lord Chief Justice Coke quoting Bracton said in the case of Proclamations (1610) 77 ER 1352
The rule of law in its modern sense owes a great deal to the late Professor AV Dicey. Professor Dicey's writings about the rule of law are of enduring significance.
The essential characteristic of the rule of law are:
i. The supremacy of law, which means that all persons (individuals and government) are subject to law.
ii. A concept of justice which emphasises interpersonal adjudication, law based on standards and the importance of procedures.
iii. Restrictions on the exercise of discretionary power.
iv. The doctrine of judicial precedent.
v. The common law methodology.
vi. Legislation should be prospective and not retrospective.
vii. An independent judiciary.
viii. The exercise by Parliament of the legislative power and restrictions on exercise of legislative power by the executive.
ix. An underlying moral basis for all law.
So, if one claims a right, one needs a source to back up that right and a legal basis for claiming that right. Not to mention for it to truly be effective, that right needs to be enforcable under the legal system.
If we are getting into the Second Amendment, post-Heller, federal and state courts have rejected Second Amendment challenges to a wide variety of firearms laws nationwide. As discussed in Section IV below, the majority of Second Amendment challenges have been raised in criminal cases. These challenges have been largely unsuccessful, as courts have found that the Second Amendment is consistent with numerous federal and state criminal laws. Since the Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald decisions, the nation’s lower courts have been clogged with a substantial volume of Second Amendment litigation, despite the fact that most, if not all, federal, state and local firearms laws do not prevent a responsible, law-abiding citizen from possessing an operable handgun in the home for self-defense, and thus, would satisfy the Supreme Court’s holdings in those cases.
Not to mention the idea that a right represents can change with time, such as the Second Amendment of the US Constitution which is supposed to protect the institution of the Militia, but has been perverted to some personal right to firearms outside the context of that right.
I ask does a similar concept of "gun rights" exist in other common law jurisdictions, yet no one can provide an analogue.
Greg points to state constitutions, but State Constitutions can expand upon the right--they cannot subtract from the right.
I decided to look up The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document contains many interesting rights such as
Article 3's Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 24: Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25: (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 27: (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28: Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
But, despite all the wonderful rights I've mentioned "Gun rights" and "a right to armed self-defence" is conspicuously absent.
Why is this? Is it because those rights do not follow the general scheme of the Declaration:
recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
If we go by this document, the US Constitution allows for the rule of law (if it existed in the US) as a buttress to the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights, not arms.The rule of law is fundamental to the western democratic order. Aristotle said more than two thousand years ago, "The rule of law is better than that of any individual." Lord Chief Justice Coke quoting Bracton said in the case of Proclamations (1610) 77 ER 1352
"The King himself ought not to be subject to man, but subject to God and the law, because the law makes him King".
The rule of law in its modern sense owes a great deal to the late Professor AV Dicey. Professor Dicey's writings about the rule of law are of enduring significance.
The essential characteristic of the rule of law are:
i. The supremacy of law, which means that all persons (individuals and government) are subject to law.
ii. A concept of justice which emphasises interpersonal adjudication, law based on standards and the importance of procedures.
iii. Restrictions on the exercise of discretionary power.
iv. The doctrine of judicial precedent.
v. The common law methodology.
vi. Legislation should be prospective and not retrospective.
vii. An independent judiciary.
viii. The exercise by Parliament of the legislative power and restrictions on exercise of legislative power by the executive.
ix. An underlying moral basis for all law.
So, if one claims a right, one needs a source to back up that right and a legal basis for claiming that right. Not to mention for it to truly be effective, that right needs to be enforcable under the legal system.
If we are getting into the Second Amendment, post-Heller, federal and state courts have rejected Second Amendment challenges to a wide variety of firearms laws nationwide. As discussed in Section IV below, the majority of Second Amendment challenges have been raised in criminal cases. These challenges have been largely unsuccessful, as courts have found that the Second Amendment is consistent with numerous federal and state criminal laws. Since the Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald decisions, the nation’s lower courts have been clogged with a substantial volume of Second Amendment litigation, despite the fact that most, if not all, federal, state and local firearms laws do not prevent a responsible, law-abiding citizen from possessing an operable handgun in the home for self-defense, and thus, would satisfy the Supreme Court’s holdings in those cases.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
The Right Wing's Insurrectionist Mindset
Media Matters reports
Bob Owens: "Go To Your Congressman's Office... If You're Willing To Do The Time For The Crime, Have A Swing At Him."
Kurt Hoffman Suggested It's A "Good Thing" That Politicians Who Support Gun Control Perceive "A Personal Threat To Their Own Lives."
Dick Morris: "Those Crazies In Montana Who Say, 'We're Going To Kill ATF Agents Because The U.N.'s Going To Take Over' -- Well, They're Beginning To Have A Case."
Beck: "You're Going To Have To Shoot Them In The Head."
Erick Erickson: "At What Point Do The People ... March Down To Their State Legislator's House, Pull Him Outside, And Beat Him To A Bloody Pulp?"
There's more but you get the idea. Ever since the incredible Mr Adkisson wrote his Manifesto I've been convinced that the blabber-mouth right-wing talkers are partly responsible for what their less-intelligent followers do. These political commenters and righty bloggers are abusing the 1st Amendment. I'm not sure what the answer is, but these people are definitely part of the problem.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
This was covered adequately by our own intrepid reporters, here and here, but the Media Matters folks went on to cite a few other offenders.The federal government has alleged that four Georgia militia members who are accused of plotting to kill federal employees modeled their plan on right-wing blogger Mike Vanderboegh's online novel Absolved, which depicts underground militia fighters who declare war on the federal government over gun control laws and same-sex marriage, leading to a second American revolution. Vanderboegh is not alone in promoting such insurrectionism: several right-wing media figures, including other gun rights bloggers, have suggested the possibility of political violence or revolution as a means of responding to progressive policies.
Bob Owens: "Go To Your Congressman's Office... If You're Willing To Do The Time For The Crime, Have A Swing At Him."
Kurt Hoffman Suggested It's A "Good Thing" That Politicians Who Support Gun Control Perceive "A Personal Threat To Their Own Lives."
Dick Morris: "Those Crazies In Montana Who Say, 'We're Going To Kill ATF Agents Because The U.N.'s Going To Take Over' -- Well, They're Beginning To Have A Case."
Beck: "You're Going To Have To Shoot Them In The Head."
Erick Erickson: "At What Point Do The People ... March Down To Their State Legislator's House, Pull Him Outside, And Beat Him To A Bloody Pulp?"
There's more but you get the idea. Ever since the incredible Mr Adkisson wrote his Manifesto I've been convinced that the blabber-mouth right-wing talkers are partly responsible for what their less-intelligent followers do. These political commenters and righty bloggers are abusing the 1st Amendment. I'm not sure what the answer is, but these people are definitely part of the problem.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Rights?
Sort of a repost from my blog:
I wanted to do this post after I found my copy of the Bulletin, an English language journal from Brussels, that has an article called "So you think you have rights". The basic gist of it was that Belgium had a very different take on rights compared to Anglo-American. I'll post a scan of that cover when I find it.
A personal example, which I have mentioned before, was of the Mormon Missionaries who were arrested by the Belgian police since the Police weren't sure what exactly Mormon missionaries did. Of course, this was well before the film "Orgazmo" was released (sorry, I had to put that in). Anyway, Belgian law allows for the police to arrest someone for 48 hours and hold them just to check them out. The Mormons were fed a baguette and a litre of coffee every 4 hours. Something which doesn't happen in the USA. These poor buggers are suffering since they can't drink coffee and don't understand why the police can just pull them off the street for no reason.
Personally, I thought it would be a good idea to use the Cinquantinare as a shortcut home from a meeting only to be accounsted by half the Brussels police. I stood still and answered their questions since I was only going home. I handed them my passport when they asked for my ID, which meant they had the only cop who spoke English tell me "it was very dangerous to be in the park at night". I was tempted to respond that there were enough cops there that the park should have been pretty safe. I was told to go back the way I came.
The gist of this is that I hear a lot of talk from Americans about rights of all kinds, civic, individual, collective, god given, pre-exisiting, natural, human, and so on, but what the fuck does that really mean in practise?
Rights are entitlements or permissions, usually of a legal or moral nature. Rights are of vital importance in the fields of law and ethics.
The declaration of a right is an act comparable to law-giving, in the way that kings gave law. It is essentially a command or decree: do this, don't do that. Implicitly, the law is intended for enforcement, and is assumed to create an entitlement to enforce it. So declarations of rights are 'rule', in the political science sense. Declarations of rights are therefore fundamentally political acts, acts of policy. Anyone who issues and enforces declarations of rights is exercising political power. As you would expect, it is normally governments, and inter-governmental organisations, which issue the declarations. It is not an activity of oppressed individuals, as suggested by the propaganda.
Some people in history have indeed claimed rights - but most have had their rights declared for them by others. They are not allowed to renounce these 'declared rights'. The idea that a person must accept all rights declared for them, clearly contradicts the idea of political freedom. The human-rights tradition includes no element of consent. It is these aspects, which make the doctrine of human rights a license for oppression. Generally, rights have the following characteristics:
* a right is declared by one person or organisation, for another person
* usually, a right is declared by one person or organisation, for all human beings
* the consent of the other person or persons is not necessary, for the right to be declared
* there are certain actions (or restraint from certain actions) which constitute 'respect' of the right
* these actions (or restraint from action) may legitimately be taken
* there is usually a moral duty to take these actions (or restrain from certain action)
* the person with the 'right' has no moral grounds to oppose this action of respecting - even if they have not consented to the right in the first place
* therefore there are certain actions which may legitimately be taken against another, since they fulfil a moral obligation to respect a right, and these actions do not constitute a harm
* since there is a moral obligation to these actions, they are not wrong, even if consent for them is explicitly refused, and even if the person affected considers them a harm
Those are far-reaching claims by the rights theorists, and the human rights lobby. It is obvious, even from this summary, that the logic of rights interferes with the principle of moral autonomy.
Formally, what happens when a right is declared? The standard answer is: it creates a moral duty to respect it. But that is not all that happens. A right, once its existence is recognised, effectively divides all possible human actions into three categories: actions which respect that right, violations of the right, and actions which are neutral with respect to that right. Declaring a right is a declaration of a desired course of action, not necessarily action by the holders of the right. Implicitly, the declaration of a right promotes and legitimises actions to enforce that right.
Any harm to others can be justified by claiming that it is intended to respect certain 'rights', even if the victim does not know of their existence. Likewise, the right can be misinterpreted from what was originally intended to cause social harm. This is the case with the Second Amendment, which was originally intended to guarantee a Swiss style military to prevent a large standing army.
Somehow, that original intent has been perverted to prevent any regulation of firearms. A right to armed self-defence has been found where it is not explicitly present in the text. Thus a misinterpretation of the Second Amendment works against the original intent of the text, security of the free state.
Rights are not universal, they are not even 'western' or 'European'. Rights are clearly political in their nature. They are created by humans, not god, and specific humans for a specific reason. It is not in itself good to respect a right. Every right is itself subject to ethical assessment, to moral judgment. It can be wrong to respect a right, even a right that has been allegedly consented.
Even more interesting is the case when rights conflict: for example property rights and the current interpretation of "the right to keep and bear arms". If a property owner disagrees with the use of firearms, say gun free zones in Universities or on Secure Installations, should the "right to keep and bear arms" trump the property owner's right to keep firearms from their property?
Or does the First Amendment right prevail over the Second Amendment right?
Likewise, if the current interpretation of the Second Amendment right leads to societal costs in the form of additional police hours at mass shooting sites, the cost of treating victims of mass shootings and so on, should that right be respected? Should those who claim that right be bear the societal costs in the form of increased taxation? Take Chris Rock's example:
Would it make more sense to just tax the fuck out of bullets and reloading supplies while not bothering with firearms in "deference to the Second Amendment right"?
The basic point I am making is that the US tends to make a great deal of rights. These rights impose the value system where they originate: the European liberal tradition, in particular Anglo-American liberalism. One finds that rights are not as much of an issue in other countries as they are in the United States.
I wanted to do this post after I found my copy of the Bulletin, an English language journal from Brussels, that has an article called "So you think you have rights". The basic gist of it was that Belgium had a very different take on rights compared to Anglo-American. I'll post a scan of that cover when I find it.
A personal example, which I have mentioned before, was of the Mormon Missionaries who were arrested by the Belgian police since the Police weren't sure what exactly Mormon missionaries did. Of course, this was well before the film "Orgazmo" was released (sorry, I had to put that in). Anyway, Belgian law allows for the police to arrest someone for 48 hours and hold them just to check them out. The Mormons were fed a baguette and a litre of coffee every 4 hours. Something which doesn't happen in the USA. These poor buggers are suffering since they can't drink coffee and don't understand why the police can just pull them off the street for no reason.
Personally, I thought it would be a good idea to use the Cinquantinare as a shortcut home from a meeting only to be accounsted by half the Brussels police. I stood still and answered their questions since I was only going home. I handed them my passport when they asked for my ID, which meant they had the only cop who spoke English tell me "it was very dangerous to be in the park at night". I was tempted to respond that there were enough cops there that the park should have been pretty safe. I was told to go back the way I came.
The gist of this is that I hear a lot of talk from Americans about rights of all kinds, civic, individual, collective, god given, pre-exisiting, natural, human, and so on, but what the fuck does that really mean in practise?
Rights are entitlements or permissions, usually of a legal or moral nature. Rights are of vital importance in the fields of law and ethics.
The declaration of a right is an act comparable to law-giving, in the way that kings gave law. It is essentially a command or decree: do this, don't do that. Implicitly, the law is intended for enforcement, and is assumed to create an entitlement to enforce it. So declarations of rights are 'rule', in the political science sense. Declarations of rights are therefore fundamentally political acts, acts of policy. Anyone who issues and enforces declarations of rights is exercising political power. As you would expect, it is normally governments, and inter-governmental organisations, which issue the declarations. It is not an activity of oppressed individuals, as suggested by the propaganda.
Some people in history have indeed claimed rights - but most have had their rights declared for them by others. They are not allowed to renounce these 'declared rights'. The idea that a person must accept all rights declared for them, clearly contradicts the idea of political freedom. The human-rights tradition includes no element of consent. It is these aspects, which make the doctrine of human rights a license for oppression. Generally, rights have the following characteristics:
* a right is declared by one person or organisation, for another person
* usually, a right is declared by one person or organisation, for all human beings
* the consent of the other person or persons is not necessary, for the right to be declared
* there are certain actions (or restraint from certain actions) which constitute 'respect' of the right
* these actions (or restraint from action) may legitimately be taken
* there is usually a moral duty to take these actions (or restrain from certain action)
* the person with the 'right' has no moral grounds to oppose this action of respecting - even if they have not consented to the right in the first place
* therefore there are certain actions which may legitimately be taken against another, since they fulfil a moral obligation to respect a right, and these actions do not constitute a harm
* since there is a moral obligation to these actions, they are not wrong, even if consent for them is explicitly refused, and even if the person affected considers them a harm
Those are far-reaching claims by the rights theorists, and the human rights lobby. It is obvious, even from this summary, that the logic of rights interferes with the principle of moral autonomy.
Formally, what happens when a right is declared? The standard answer is: it creates a moral duty to respect it. But that is not all that happens. A right, once its existence is recognised, effectively divides all possible human actions into three categories: actions which respect that right, violations of the right, and actions which are neutral with respect to that right. Declaring a right is a declaration of a desired course of action, not necessarily action by the holders of the right. Implicitly, the declaration of a right promotes and legitimises actions to enforce that right.
Any harm to others can be justified by claiming that it is intended to respect certain 'rights', even if the victim does not know of their existence. Likewise, the right can be misinterpreted from what was originally intended to cause social harm. This is the case with the Second Amendment, which was originally intended to guarantee a Swiss style military to prevent a large standing army.
Somehow, that original intent has been perverted to prevent any regulation of firearms. A right to armed self-defence has been found where it is not explicitly present in the text. Thus a misinterpretation of the Second Amendment works against the original intent of the text, security of the free state.
Rights are not universal, they are not even 'western' or 'European'. Rights are clearly political in their nature. They are created by humans, not god, and specific humans for a specific reason. It is not in itself good to respect a right. Every right is itself subject to ethical assessment, to moral judgment. It can be wrong to respect a right, even a right that has been allegedly consented.
Even more interesting is the case when rights conflict: for example property rights and the current interpretation of "the right to keep and bear arms". If a property owner disagrees with the use of firearms, say gun free zones in Universities or on Secure Installations, should the "right to keep and bear arms" trump the property owner's right to keep firearms from their property?
Or does the First Amendment right prevail over the Second Amendment right?
Likewise, if the current interpretation of the Second Amendment right leads to societal costs in the form of additional police hours at mass shooting sites, the cost of treating victims of mass shootings and so on, should that right be respected? Should those who claim that right be bear the societal costs in the form of increased taxation? Take Chris Rock's example:
Would it make more sense to just tax the fuck out of bullets and reloading supplies while not bothering with firearms in "deference to the Second Amendment right"?
The basic point I am making is that the US tends to make a great deal of rights. These rights impose the value system where they originate: the European liberal tradition, in particular Anglo-American liberalism. One finds that rights are not as much of an issue in other countries as they are in the United States.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
More Laci on Rights
I wonder how the gun spinners will respond to this one. I know they can, so let's hear it, boys. Just because you say you need certain inanimate objects in order to do proper self-defense, does that make it so?One of the more bizarre comments that medieval peasants did have rights, the fact that they did not know about these rights and were unable to exercise them did not matter, the right existed.
The problem with that is that is it seems an absurdity. The point of a right is to be able to exercise that right, The fact that a right is claimed, or even exists, which is unable to be exercised makes it irrelevant.
For example, Dred Scott v. Sandford pointed out that slaves were property and were unable to exercise rights. In fact, slavery is the big bugaboo in the inalienable right argument: after all, can someone consent to be a slave?
Please leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)