Thursday, July 9, 2015

Conflicting Rights and Our Ongoing Discussion

Graybeard said...
The problem is always, always, always when rights collide. I don't have even the tiniest issue with the rights of ""any group" to speak, write, to create art, take photos, make and wave flags, etc." but when when any group demands I do something I don't want to do, that's a whole 'nother question. When it's essentially not just that I accept their right but that I give them special rights, it has crossed the line. When they use their rights to try take away mine, that can't be accepted.

Rights do collide. Or worse, one group of people demands that other people give up their rights for any number of reasons. One fine example being my right to keep and bear arms. It's already badly infringed and continuously under attack by people who would use the law and the force of the government to completely submerge it.

The right would not go away, the government would just forfeit what remains of it's legitimacy, but for most people it would be the same thing. In many states, it is already so onerous a process that legal gun ownership is rare. It won't stop, it will only get worse.

To bring in the rest of the discussion group:

In a free state, there can be no special rights. We take our rights equally. If the cake bakers had said they wouldn't bake a cake because one of the women was wearing a Confederate flag on her t-shirt, how would the press have handled it? It used to be I got to decide who I would buy things from and what I would buy. The businessman got to decide who he would sell to. It is no longer that way and it will not come back. Now I can be forced by law to buy things (healthcare, as a start) and businesses can be forced by law to sell.

Of course rights have responsibilities. The right to vote would logically require a voter to be informed about the issues of the day and the fitness of the candidates for the office they are seeking. We all know that does not take place in anything but a tiny minority of voters.

Yes, there is a drive to continue to radically reshape the culture. It is happening on so many simultaneous fronts that the push for gay marriage is only surprising for the amount of press it received. The culture has already been reshaped, and we have been left behind. The public school system will not produce people like us anymore and in a few decades we will be gone and then soon forgotten. They will take down the monuments, re-write the histories, it is so easy to do when you believe that the ends justify the means. Here's a question, how do you know you're enslaved when the chains are woven in your mind?

I do not harbor any hope that this will end well. The outcome of $20 trillion dollars of debt, 50% of the population receiving public assistance, the collapse of U.S. manufacturing, the ever increasing flood of immigration (legal or not), and the absolute lack of leadership on these issues at the national level makes Burt's prediction optimistic.

The pop quiz? We only have the rights and freedoms we are willing to defend.

And Burkdoggy is absolutely right, I am going edit the last post. He called me out for using "any group" when I rightly should have said any person. Rights belong to individuals. Groups may form for any number of reasons but the groups do not have rights, per se. Only the people, as individuals. I stand corrected.


Mignon510 said...

Another thing to consider is the underlying morality of the society. If the people are immoral, you have what rights that you can (likely
physically) defend against all comers. It is Hobbsean, Nature, red in tooth and claw.


New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

Rights collide? Example?

Actual rights. Not made up ones. Like a 'right' to make you pay for my health insurance

ASM826 said...

Example: One person's right to practice their religion when the tenets of that faith require them to act in such a way that it infringes on the rights of another person.

Precise example: the faith requires that everyone convert and practice the faith or be killed.

In that case, the person's freedom of religion conflicts with my freedom of religion and would have to be limited.

Glen Filthie said...

We have to look at the big picture. Rights do not collide when people are responsible and respect each other. Burning the confederate flag and flying the rainbow over the Whitehouse is neither courteous or respectful. The queers, with the help of a crew of contemptible cultural Marxists and fascists - are redefining definitions, laws, morals and ethics and even flags to facilitate what they do - which is basically empower themselves and profit at the expense of others.

The Bible and a couple other religions understand human game theory. In a nutshell, 'Do unto others' and 'an eye for an eye' apply. If you do not reciprocate the treatment you get from others, there is no incentive for them to treat you well. Being courteous and respectful to militant queers is the wrong thing to do. It will encourage them to even greater abuses of process and rational behaviour, and it will encourage other special interest groups to take advantage of you as well. They will not see your code as moral or ethical, ASM - they will see at as a weakness and they will exploit it. The moslems are doing it almost daily now with fatal results.

This is why there are no libertarian nation states and never will be: they cannot function as a cohesive group, and they will fall to any competing and motivated nation state with a common goal and the collective will to defeat them. Darwin and Murphy do not treat organisms that refuse to defend themselves well.

Empires do not fall, they rot from within, one piece at a time. Your founding fathers wouldn't have cared one whit whether gays could use the men's or women's washroom...and the gays would have known better than to get stupid about it. They would not have tolerated for one second, the chimp out in Ferguson where feral blacks burned out lawful citizens to protest the death of a thug. They understood that you have the right to make a living (as opposed to having one given to you by the state) - and you had the right to pursue happiness - but not at the expense of others.

I don't think queers should be abused or beaten up, but they should be spanked for the filthy methods they are using to push their agenda... And shot if they get stupid about it. That last quip is not homophobia, anyone that tries to undermine liberty and freedom deserves a bullet and the queers are no exception.

I am afraid we shall hang separately ASM...but what of it? The result is the same, the only difference in the real world is which of us swings first...!

Have a great weekend fellas.

burt said...

When one person is coerced through the power of The State to perform a service or provide something of value to another, and when the power of The State is used to short-circuit both the democratic process and the free market, The State has now become the slave owner and the individual has become a slave.

There is no other way to define this. None.

I posit that The State has now become the arbiter of whose "happiness" is of higher importance, rather than guaranteeing an environment where each may pursue "happiness" on their own terms.

And, to make matters worse, there are those in American society that enthusiastically support The State when it destroys the lives of those that they disagree with.

They should be careful of what they wish for. They may, indeed, get their wish.

2030. Or sooner.

Old NFO said...

Good one, and on point, thanks!

Paul Bonneau said...

Rights are contentious for a very good reason: they are a religious notion with little connection to reality.

Will Brown said...

Rights are the sole property of individual human beings, and all humans possess rights. It is the exercise of those rights, both individually and in groups, that is the contentious issue.

Human social constructs like nations or religions are all efforts to regulate the exercise of individual's rights in a pluralistic setting utilizing various methods. Again, the contention arises from the degree and partiality of the regulation on the exercise of the rights. Efforts to claim ownership of others rights are merely efforts at regulating expression of those rights.

No claim is being made by me as to the propriety or effectiveness of any particular effort at regulating expression of rights, but it seems less than useful to argue about what isn't occuring (your rights cannot be taken from you) while ignoring the necessity for the existence of what actually is being abised and misappropriated (who gets to exercise their rights, how).

Much like jokes, if you have to explain a quiz the hoped-for effect is largely destroyed. That noted, to the exact degree you are unwilling to defend other's exercise of their rights, you are actively working against the exercise of your own. The resulting mutual loss of freedom is merely the to-be-expected outcome, also often referred to as Bad Luck. To engage in disputation over the existence or ownership of rights is to miss the point of the exercise entirely.

Yes, puns are a terrible personal failing.

Paul Bonneau said...

"That noted, to the exact degree you are unwilling to defend other's exercise of their rights, you are actively working against the exercise of your own. The resulting mutual loss of freedom is merely the to-be-expected outcome, also often referred to as Bad Luck. To engage in disputation over the existence or ownership of rights is to miss the point of the exercise entirely."

So, even if they are non-existent, just memes, our liberty depends on accepting this fiction?

No. There are no rights. There is only self-interest and will and action. The concept of rights has been usurped and turned to the benefit of the ruling class. They are thrilled to have you believe their job is to protect and define what rights you have. That is the modern-day function of rights, just a tool for the ruling class to keep us under their thumb.

Every expression of a right is made stronger and clearer by eliminating any mention of right. What is the stronger statement? "I have a right to bear arms", or "I won't be disarmed."

I realize most people find it impossible to think outside the box.