1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Realities of Rights

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Chip, Dec 2, 2008.

  1. Chip

    Chip New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lately I've been reading here where writers have designated this or that falsely as a "right", and so, with that in mind ...

    ... Rights have to do with our behavior toward one another.

    There is only one paramount, foundational right: the right to life. This is a state of being right. This right is unalienable, inviolable and absolute, so that only God, who gives this right, can rightly violate this right of another human being.

    From the paramount foundational right to life, there emanates the singular secondary right as a result: the right to physical and psychological security of person. This is an existential right. This right is inviolable except when one is in the act of violating this or the foundational right of another.

    From the paramount foundational right to life with respect to the singular secondary right of security of person, there emanates the singular tertiary right as a result: the right to freedom of action. This is an activity right. This right is situationally relative and may be abridged, limited or revoked for justified circumstances either personally or collectively.

    These are the only three classes of rights that exist. There are no more classes of rights than these.

    Behaviors may be reasonably and customarily classified as belonging to one of these three classes of rights, thus making the behavior a "right".

    For example, the right of the behavior of self-defense is reasonably and customarily classified under the right of security of person, and that makes the behavior of self-defense a right.

    If a person unjustifiably attacks you, threatening your life, you have the right of self-defense to deflect the attack. If the attack is truly life threatening and the attacker is killed in the process, the defender is not liable for violating the attacker's right to life because the attacker was both 1) in the process of violating the defender's foundational right and 2) the defender was executing his secondary level right.

    When rights conflict then appeal is thus made to the level of rights involved. In the preceding example, the attacker had no right to make the life-threatening attack and the defender had every right to defend the threat against his life with equal force if necessary. Thus the decision goes to the defender, and the attacker's right of security of person is suspended during the attack and the attacker's appeal to the tertiary right of "freedom of action" is trumped by the defender's appeal to the overriding secondary right of security of person.

    Behaviors classified as activity rights present a challenge for resolution when rights are in conflict.

    The general rule of resolution is that the foundational right overrides the secondary right which overrides the tertiary right.

    For example, a person wants to own a nuclear bomb. The person claims that owning a nuclear bomb is his freedom of action right. However, that freedom of action is not reasonable and customary, so such is not a right. So whether or not the person will be privileged to own a nuke will depend on the government.

    However, in another example, a person wishes to own a gun for protection. The person claims that owning a gun is his freedom of action right. Such a behavior is also reasonable and customary, so indeed, owning a gun is a right.

    However, freedom of action rights are, by nature, situationally relative, and may be abridged, limited or revoked for justified circumstances, either personally or collectively.

    So although gun ownership is a right, the right may be revoked, for example, if the person is justifiably considered a threat to the right of security of person of another individual or people in general. Justifiably deprived of his right to own a gun, that person must find another way to insure his security of person.

    Resolution between two conflicting freedom of action rights becomes more complicated.

    For example, it is reasonable and customary to allow the right of property owners to build on their land and it is reasonable and customary to allow people the right to drive their cars on the roads.

    But if the roads are congested beyond acceptable function, governments may deny property owner "developers" the right to build homes and business buildings on their property and sell them, as such would create additional cars on the road and contribute to the revoking of the right to drive one's car freely without constriction on the road.

    Ultimately, however, rights in conflict involving freedom of action rights are resolved by appealing backwards to the secondary and foundational rights which always trump freedom of action rights.

    So, for example, though we have freedom of action, if a crime is committed, the criminal may have his freedom of action rights abridged via a stay in the pokey. However, during his stay in prison it is a violation of his right of security of person to be subjected to "beatings" of various natures at Bubba's whim.

    All situational abrogation of rights follows this hierarchical appeal to the three classifications of rights.

    These are the realities of rights.
     
  2. Hobo1

    Hobo1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    703
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Move around
    This begs the question of when "life" begins. I believe life begins once a baby is able to live without any external support (from the mother's womb, or man-made machine). Life ends at the same time - when a human is unable to survive under his/her own power without medical devices.

    Finally, I guess you will agree with me that a human who takes the life of another human has violated God's authority. Therefore God must act through the human justice system by applying the death penalty to the offender.
     
  3. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Then do show me one single 1 month old, or even 1 year old that would survive without any external support.

    For that matter, a baby that is given all the food and milk it needs, without love will simply die in it's bed, without any physical reason.
     
  4. Chip

    Chip New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hey guys, let's save the debate about when a human being begins to live, etc. for another thread.

    For the sake of this thread, let's agree that in a given matter of rights conflict, the person(s) in question is considered to be alive.


    No, I don't agree that we need to act "on behalf" of God. "Revenge is mine, saith the Lord" -- God will deal directly with the murderer regarding the murderer's violation of the God-given right to life. All we need to do is to lock the person up, for life if need be, out of respect for the right of security of person of everyone else.
     
  5. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    .....And, used to be called An American Tradition....until Cowboy Ronnie decided otherwise....

    *​

     
  6. Mr. Shaman

    Mr. Shaman New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7,829
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Fortunately, a few people have been able to dodge his murderous-tendencies .
     
  7. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,847
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    That link says 124 were exonerated from death row since 1976. The number of executions since 1976 are 1135. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/number-executions-state-and-region-1976 )

    The ratio of exonerated to the total number of executions is 11%. That is a surprising percentage of rectifications of miscarriages of justice. If people really believe that God micromanages the justice system, then you probably have an easy time understanding that He indeed works in strange ways.
     
  8. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    What you ignore is that we simply let other countries take the prisoners now. They do much worse things than we ever did, but I assume you do not care as long as the United States does not do it. This will be the new policy of Obama, same as Clinton's was. Same as every President's was until Bush decided we did not need to outsource it.

    What do you think is happening right now to the Pakistani that was captured in the Indian terror attacks? Do you think he is sitting calmly in jail awaiting a fair trial?
     
  9. foggedinn

    foggedinn New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    335
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We have the right to die, and the right to pay taxes. Everything else is pretty much optional.

    Put another way; we have only those rights which we can defend.

    Solomon put it well. "Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man."
     
  10. Hobo1

    Hobo1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    703
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Move around
    I think this thread has clearly demonstrated that trying to apply deductive logic to develop a universal law regarding a human rights fails. Humans disagree about the meaning of life and the way God acts - that is, people disagree about definitions.

    There are no absolute rights and no absolute moral code in this world. Mankind is left to his own best devices to apply a system of justice to determine right from wrong.
     
  11. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Morals are determined by G-d alone. There is an absolute moral code. Mankind left to his own devices will murder babies and do whatever he chooses with whatever rational he wants.

    To determine right and wrong, read a Bible. It's pretty clear.
     
  12. Mare Tranquillity

    Mare Tranquillity Active Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    So you are saying that a conscious person staying alive in an iron lung due to the effects of polio is actually dead? What about people with pacemakers? Wooden legs? Maybe you should rethink this one, Hobes, mostly I like your posts but this one is over the top.

    Whoa! You are stating what God MUST do? Did you check with God about that? And "through the human justice system by applying the death penalty..." Not only are you telling God what He "must" do, but how He has to do it.

    Sorry, I don't buy it, not even the flogging Pope tells God what He must do.
     
    1 person likes this.
  13. Mare Tranquillity

    Mare Tranquillity Active Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The Bible is the source of authorization for much violence: war, genocide, rape, kidnapping, killing babies, incest, scatology... There are a lot of Scriptures that we don't preach to children for good reason. Like the one about not having Christmas trees.
     
  14. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You are really strange on this issue. Do you not get that the prisoners will simply be released to kill again? Moreover, do you not understand that since we can't take them, they will be captured, or turned over to other governments who will treat them far worse?

    Abdullah Massoud was captured fighting our soldiers, along side the Taliban. He was sent to "Gitmo" (since you can't seem to spell much), and under our torturous care, was fitted with a special prosthetic leg at a cost to tax payers of about $75,000. Darn evil Bush giving terrorist fake legs at our torture center!

    At the request of leftists squealing over "Gitmo" (because I don't want to offend people will correct names), he was released, went back to Afghanistan, and captured a couple of Chinese engineers working for Pakistan's government.

    He did this to embarrass President Pervez Musharraf for cooperating with the America, which just paid for his leg.

    The government stormed the hideout of Abdullah Massoud, and killed him with his $75K "Gitmo" leg, and all his people, and only rescued 1 of the Chinese engineers.

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/22/asia/web.1022taliban.php?page=11

    By the way, just as a personal note, the death of those engineers is on your head Shaman. You and everyone who cried about "Gitmo" are accomplices to their blood. It's on your hands, not mine. You are an accomplice to murder. As nearly all leftists are.

    Now the enemy combatants will be handled by foreign governments who will torture far more than we ever did, you are accomplices to that as well.
     
  15. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Right... so about which verse is against Christmas trees? That's a new one on me.
     
Loading...

Share This Page