What is your political philosophy?

[GenSeneca]

they are outside the realm of federal jurisdiction and therefore moot in this discussion.

I'm not following your train of thought here.... You said our Rights were enumerated in the Constitution, suggesting that any Right not expressly enumerated was a privilege and therefore subject to expansion, limitation, or even revokation - at the whim of government. I pointed out that the Constitution, which enumerates some of our Rights, also points out there are other Rights retained by the people which are not enumerated in the Constitution. Your response is that these other, non-enumerated Rights, are somehow moot because they fall outside the realm of federal jurisdiction is entirely false (not even our enumerated Rights have been protected against encroachment at the hands of the federal government) and therefore it's a confusing resposne.

For me it's as simple as; You have a Right to do anything that does not violate the Rights of others. What is your measure?

 

[dogtowner]

I'm not following your train of thought here.... You said our Rights were enumerated in the Constitution,

correct

suggesting that any Right not expressly enumerated was a privilege and therefore subject to expansion, limitation, or even revokation - at the whim of government.

you might suggest that, I didn't.

I pointed out that the Constitution, which enumerates some of our Rights, also points out there are other Rights retained by the people which are not enumerated in the Constitution. Your response is that these other, non-enumerated Rights, are somehow moot because they fall outside the realm of federal jurisdiction is entirely false (not even our enumerated Rights have been protected against encroachment at the hands of the federal government) and therefore it's a confusing resposne.

Rights being discussed have to represent federal ones as we all live different places. I don't pretend to k know what your state has done on the subject though you may well know what mine has done..

For me it's as simple as; You have a Right to do anything that does not violate the Rights of others. What is your measure?

Thats a good libertarian yardstick and valid in the whole. I might re-word it to say 'does not infringe on the life, liberty or property of another' to make moot the discussion of what is a right and in what jurisdictional context. For example "Civil Rights" are not rights per the Constitution (in most cases) but rather laws that expand things based on public sentiment. For another example not permitting marriage until a given age (state determined based on local mores). And the like.

Like I said, "rights" has come to be used in contexts not appropriate.

 

[GenSeneca]

I might re-word it to say 'does not infringe on the life, liberty or property of another' to make moot the discussion of what is a right and in what jurisdictional context.

Infringe: To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate.​

Then semantics aside, you seem to agree: If an action 'does not infringe on the life, liberty or property of another', then you consider the action to be a Right.

How does a gay, or polygamist, marriage 'infringe on the life, liberty, or property' of another?

At it's core marriage is a social contract between two or more people, not conceptually different from any other contractual agreement. Individual's do have a Right to enter into contracts with whomever they choose, it is part of the Individual Right of Freedom of Association. Laws that require individuals get permission from, or be licensed by, the state before entering into any contract is a violation of that Right.

 

[dogtowner]

Infringe: To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate.​

Then semantics aside, you seem to agree: If an action 'does not infringe on the life, liberty or property of another', then you consider the action to be a Right.

no I do not. incorrect use of the term "right". its the defining line between actions that are legal and illegal (or should be).

How does a gay, or polygamist, marriage 'infringe on the life, liberty, or property' of another?

not germane we're talking about setting societal boundaries much as age of consent, age of majority, who can operate a motor vehicle and when, things that do not pertain to actions of one or another.

At it's core marriage is a social contract between two or more people, not conceptually different from any other contractual agreement. Individual's do have a Right to enter into contracts with whomever they choose, it is part of the Individual Right of Freedom of Association. Laws that require individuals get permission from, or be licensed by, the state before entering into any contract is a violation of that Right.

its not permission beyond restrictions on gene pool and age (see list above), its recording of the fact. its akin to recording your will or AMD or deed on your property.

and its a legal contract in terms of the civil side of things, social on thereligious side. there are requirements (vows) duration (til death) and it bears many other legal meanings.

 

[GenSeneca]

no I do not. incorrect use of the term "right". its the defining line between actions that are legal and illegal (or should be).

It sounds like you believe the legal status of an action has some bearing on whether or not the action in question can be considered a Right. If that is the case, then it is you who is not using the term Right correctly.

Rights exist regardless of their legal status. Rights cannot be created or destroyed but they are capable of being respected or violated. In regards to the Law, it will either respect Rights or violate them, laws cannot create or destroy Rights.

Whether an action is legal or illegal is immaterial to the question of whether or not it is a Right. Any action that is contingent upon it's legal staus is a Legal Privilege. Any Right that is subject to limitations, beyond those of violating the Rights of others, is being violated by the restrictions placed on it.

not germane we're talking about setting societal boundaries...

We have been discussing Rights. After all, I did not ask for your measure on 'societal boundaries' nor have I offered my own.

its not permission beyond restrictions on gene pool and age (see list above), its recording of the fact. its akin to recording your will or AMD or deed on your property.

and its a legal contract in terms of the civil side of things, social on thereligious side. there are requirements (vows) duration (til death) and it bears many other legal meanings.

Again, Rights are not contingent on Law, Legal Privileges are.

 

[dogtowner]

It sounds like you believe the legal status of an action has some bearing on whether or not the action in question can be considered a Right. If that is the case, then it is you who is not using the term Right correctly.

Rights exist regardless of their legal status. Rights cannot be created or destroyed but they are capable of being respected or violated. In regards to the Law, it will either respect Rights or violate them, laws cannot create or destroy Rights.

Whether an action is legal or illegal is immaterial to the question of whether or not it is a Right. Any action that is contingent upon it's legal staus is a Legal Privilege. Any Right that is subject to limitations, beyond those of violating the Rights of others, is being violated by the restrictions placed on it.

as we live in a country theoretically governed by a constitution that sought to establish the rights to be protected at the federal level. some sense of a more theoretical nature are all well and good but its not applicable here in this country.

We have been discussing Rights. After all, I did not ask for your measure on 'societal boundaries' nor have I offered my own.

we have been attempting to discuss rights but we do not agree on what rights are.

Again, Rights are not contingent on Law, Legal Privileges are.

rights serve as the justification for law.

 

[Alias]

My political philosophy.

 

[GenSeneca]

as we live in a country theoretically governed by a constitution that sought to establish the rights to be protected at the federal level.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...​

​

Our Rights were not created by the Constitution, they have always existed regardless of their legal status. Rights cannot be created, nor can they be destroyed, and as it pertains to the role of government, laws can either be used to secure our Rights or be used to violate them. When confronted with specific examples of how government is either violating the Rights of some individuals, or simply allowing their Rights to be violated, you cite 'societal boundaries' as justification. Our Declaration states that our Government was formed to "secure" our Rights, not to violate them, or allow their violation, according to 'societal boundaries'.

some sense of a more theoretical nature are all well and good but its not applicable here in this country.

Individual Rights are not theoretical, they exist regardless of your perception of them. I am curious though... If you do not consider discussing the concept of Rights to be applicable to a conversation about Rights... What do you believe IS applicable?

we have been attempting to discuss rights but we do not agree on what rights are.

I think I've been pretty clear on what I believe Rights are, what limitations can be placed on Rights without violating them, and how to distinguish a Right from a Legal Privilege. However, I still have no idea what you think a Right is, I believe you think 'society' is given carte blanche to limit or deny Rights as it sees fit (by law), and I also have no idea how you distinguish between a Right and a Legal Privilege.

rights serve as the justification for law.

Without knowing what it is you think Rights actually are, that statement lacks necessary context.

 

[dogtowner]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...​

​

Our Rights were not created by the Constitution, they have always existed regardless of their legal status. Rights cannot be created, nor can they be destroyed, and as it pertains to the role of government, laws can either be used to secure our Rights or be used to violate them. When confronted with specific examples of how government is either violating the Rights of some individuals, or simply allowing their Rights to be violated, you cite 'societal boundaries' as justification. Our Declaration states that our Government was formed to "secure" our Rights, not to violate them, or allow their violation, according to 'societal boundaries'.

you view them as rights, I do not

Individual Rights are not theoretical, they exist regardless of your perception of them. I am curious though... If you do not consider discussing the concept of Rights to be applicable to a conversation about Rights... What do you believe IS applicable?

because rights that will be defended are defined in the Constitution of where I live.

I think I've been pretty clear on what I believe Rights are, what limitations can be placed on Rights without violating them, and how to distinguish a Right from a Legal Privilege. However, I still have no idea what you think a Right is, I believe you think 'society' is given carte blanche to limit or deny Rights as it sees fit (by law), and I also have no idea how you distinguish between a Right and a Legal Privilege.

yes, you have. as have I.

Without knowing what it is you think Rights actually are, that statement lacks necessary context.

stated several times upstream. that you and I view this differently seems to be preventing you from acknowledging this.

 

[GenSeneca]

because rights that will be defended are defined in the Constitution of where I live.

Again, not all of our Rights are defined in the Constitution. The last time I pointed this out you declined to comment on those other Rights, perhaps you would like to comment on them now. Since these Rights are not enumerated, how do we determine all the 'other' Rights that have been endowed on us by our creator?

yes, you have. as have I...stated several times upstream. that you and I view this differently seems to be preventing you from acknowledging this.

I get that we percieve the concept of Rights differently but it is your perception of Rights that I am having trouble understanding. I honestly cannot decipher your thought process on this, it simply doesn't make sense to me, but I do want to understand your viewpoint.

At one point I thought you agreed an action that 'does not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of others' can be considered a Right but you seemed to quickly reverse yourself by then suggesting that Rights are determined as 'the defining line between actions that are legal and illegal'.

The legal status of an action has no bearing on whether or not it is a Right. If you believe legal status is essential to the question of whether or not something is a Right, then you are not talking about Rights at all but instead are confusing Legal Privileges for Rights. So let's try this...

How do you determine whether or not something is a Right?
What limitations can be placed on Rights?
What differentiates Rights from Legal Privileges?

Please, be a good sport, answer them as directly and as succintly as possible. Please don't simply claim to have already answered because, as I've pointed out, I am having difficulty fully understanding your perception of Rights and I think straight forward answers to those few questions will go a long way to helping me understand.

 

[dogtowner]

Again, not all of our Rights are defined in the Constitution. The last time I pointed this out you declined to comment on those other Rights, perhaps you would like to comment on them now. Since these Rights are not enumerated, how do we determine all the 'other' Rights that have been endowed on us by our creator?

I get that we percieve the concept of Rights differently but it is your perception of Rights that I am having trouble understanding. I honestly cannot decipher your thought process on this, it simply doesn't make sense to me, but I do want to understand your viewpoint.

At one point I thought you agreed an action that 'does not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of others' can be considered a Right but you seemed to quickly reverse yourself by then suggesting that Rights are determined as 'the defining line between actions that are legal and illegal'.

The legal status of an action has no bearing on whether or not it is a Right. If you believe legal status is essential to the question of whether or not something is a Right, then you are not talking about Rights at all but instead are confusing Legal Privileges for Rights. So let's try this...

How do you determine whether or not something is a Right?
What limitations can be placed on Rights?
What differentiates Rights from Legal Privileges?

Please, be a good sport, answer them as directly and as succintly as possible. Please don't simply claim to have already answered because, as I've pointed out, I am having difficulty fully understanding your perception of Rights and I think straight forward answers to those few questions will go a long way to helping me understand.

Lets try this tack...

#1
There can be one set of rights that the Dog would apply that the Dog's government would pledge to protect and defend and there can be another set of rights that the government where the Dog lives has agreed to protect and defend and these can be different.

You described a libertarian's view of rights and I, from a personal perspective, would be OK with. That view of rights does not match in full with the rights that this government has agreed to protect and defend. Its not that I'm backtracking but rather differentiating from.

#2
None. Though admittedly the federal government does limit them. They also inexplicable expand them but I'd rather not pursue that tangent here.

#3
Rights are a) enumerated if we're talking about the reality of the USA b) defined in some other way (be it libertarian or what have you). Anything not pertaining to these are legal matters.

Hopefully this is sufficiently straightforward.

 

[steveox]

Heres my My political philosophy.
WAR!

Capitol Punishment

Doctor in jail for performing abortions.

Cut Taxes.

But Tax Religion