A continuing debate with a couple of readers about absolute
rights grew out of posts on gun rights.
The readers all say in no uncertain terms all rights are absolute. This reply may be deeper than most would like
to read, but there are some very basic reasons why rights are not absolute.
Let’s first define the meaning of absolute and a right. Absolute means that something is always the
same under all conditions. A right is an
action that can be taken by someone. So
an absolute right is something that you can do under all circumstances.
Anytime there is a social contract, which could be as simple
as two people living together, a family or a community, rights are limited and
not absolute. The only way people can
live together is to give up at least the full measure of some rights and others
all together. Even those rights that we
retained under the United States social contract, the Constitution, can have
limitations placed on them to help build a safe and secure environment.
The original Constitution had no guarantee of rights. What the Constitution did, was established a
frame work for electing a government that would write a set of laws. With some limitations on what laws the
federal government could establish, it was left to the elected officials with
support of the people to write laws. If
there was a compelling reason, the elected officials supported by the people,
could limit the actions that people took for the common good.
Not that the
authors of the Constitution and those that supported it in the various states
at the time, didn’t think that rights were important. Many supported the Constitution with a
condition. They wanted amendments added
to guarantee individual rights. After
all they had just tossed out the foreign occupation by a tyrannical government
(a government not elected by a free and open election). But, they also wanted both security and a
working frame work that they could depend on for their personal and
professional lives. The forerunner of
the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, was a disaster. The unrestraint rights that the individual
states had under that charter worked against all the other states. Without the ability to limit the rights of
individuals, institutions and states for the common good, the union was nearly
torn apart.
Even some
libertarians (which generally describe the political beliefs of those that I am
addressing this response) believe that rights can be curtailed and are not
absolute. Morris and Linda Tannehill, in
the book The Market for Liberty, write, "Rights are not inalienable.”
Their theory is that an individual gives up their right if force is used
against another that causes detriment. This
is the point from above and the formation of a social contract. The only difference between libertarians in
this case and federalist at the time of the Constitution was who would require
the individual that committed a crime to be punished.
Communities are in near continuous
debate on the limits of individual rights.
If we are to find the balance between freedom and the protection of others,
the debate must be robust and flourish. But,
to assume that individual rights are absolute and can’t be restricted based on
a compelling reason to prevent harm to another living in the community is
false.
-----
Responsible Community Working Together in Shared Responsibility.
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Friday, April 27, 2012
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
A community should not support a faulted exercise of freedoms
The Michigan branch of Americans for Prosperity received a lot of attention Monday by posting fake evection notices on hundreds of homes Detroit’s Delray district. The words “Eviction Notice” were in very large print on yellow sheets of paper. Americans for Prosperity are against the State of Michigan building a second bridge across the Detroit River. The fake notices claimed that their homes would be taken to make way for the new bridge. This was their attempt to get the attention of the residents in the Delray district.
Businessman Manuel (Matty) Moroun is the owner of the Ambassador Bridge. He is strongly opposed to the state building a new bridge. It would obviously draw traffic and business away from the Ambassador Bridge, where Moroun makes money by charging a toll to use the bridge. He has been running television ads making some very outrageous claims about the cost of the new bridge to the taxpayers of Michigan.
Americans for Prosperity, reported to be a conservative group, is based in Washington, D.C. with offices in many states around the country. The group that peppered Delray with the eviction notices is Michigan based. Scott Hagerstrom is the official spokesperson for the Michigan group. He said that he could not say if Moroun’s company, Detroit International Bridge Company, supported the action. The company did issue a statement that said they didn’t support the tactics of Americans for Prosperity.
Americans for Prosperity have committed a faulted exercise of the freedom of speech and it should not be allowed. Buried deep in the story is an issue that needs to be explored to understand why it should not have been allowed. Hagerstrom said that the membership of Americans for Prosperity is secrete. Even though they are involved in the political process, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in error that membership in such organizations can remain hidden.
A representative democracy doesn’t work that way. That isn’t the way it worked over 200 years ago when we separated from England with the Declaration of Independence. John Hancock did not believe that. A wealthy shipping businessman, he could have had much to lose if the events of the day went wrong. It is clear that every British authority of the time knew who he was because of his business and wealth. But, there in the middle of the document is his signature. Many others also signed the document such as Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, Roger Sherman. They wanted their names displayed on this document to show support for the movement at the time.
A country, a community, cannot be based on hidden agendas and secrete societies. It must be based on open government. If someone, anyone, takes a political stand on the issues they need to come forward to announce their views and sign their name. That provides everyone else with the opportunity to make informed judgments about the issues and the arguments for and against.
To Moroun’s credit, he is staking a sizable portion of his wealth by working against the building of the second bridge, not unlike John Hancock. While his assessments of the issue are suspect, at least he has signed his name to issue. Knowing who he is and what is at stake for him, his family and the Detroit International Bridge Company, we can make a better decision to either support or not support his position.
Every freedom comes with a responsibility. In this case, the concept of freedom of speech would have supported the fake eviction notices circulated by Americans for Prosperity. But, with that freedom comes a release of the supporters of the organization. Since the membership remains hidden, Americans for Prosperity have committed a faulted exercise of freedom. They were wrong in circulating the fake notices.
-----
Businessman Manuel (Matty) Moroun is the owner of the Ambassador Bridge. He is strongly opposed to the state building a new bridge. It would obviously draw traffic and business away from the Ambassador Bridge, where Moroun makes money by charging a toll to use the bridge. He has been running television ads making some very outrageous claims about the cost of the new bridge to the taxpayers of Michigan.
Americans for Prosperity, reported to be a conservative group, is based in Washington, D.C. with offices in many states around the country. The group that peppered Delray with the eviction notices is Michigan based. Scott Hagerstrom is the official spokesperson for the Michigan group. He said that he could not say if Moroun’s company, Detroit International Bridge Company, supported the action. The company did issue a statement that said they didn’t support the tactics of Americans for Prosperity.
Americans for Prosperity have committed a faulted exercise of the freedom of speech and it should not be allowed. Buried deep in the story is an issue that needs to be explored to understand why it should not have been allowed. Hagerstrom said that the membership of Americans for Prosperity is secrete. Even though they are involved in the political process, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in error that membership in such organizations can remain hidden.
A representative democracy doesn’t work that way. That isn’t the way it worked over 200 years ago when we separated from England with the Declaration of Independence. John Hancock did not believe that. A wealthy shipping businessman, he could have had much to lose if the events of the day went wrong. It is clear that every British authority of the time knew who he was because of his business and wealth. But, there in the middle of the document is his signature. Many others also signed the document such as Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, Roger Sherman. They wanted their names displayed on this document to show support for the movement at the time.
A country, a community, cannot be based on hidden agendas and secrete societies. It must be based on open government. If someone, anyone, takes a political stand on the issues they need to come forward to announce their views and sign their name. That provides everyone else with the opportunity to make informed judgments about the issues and the arguments for and against.
To Moroun’s credit, he is staking a sizable portion of his wealth by working against the building of the second bridge, not unlike John Hancock. While his assessments of the issue are suspect, at least he has signed his name to issue. Knowing who he is and what is at stake for him, his family and the Detroit International Bridge Company, we can make a better decision to either support or not support his position.
Every freedom comes with a responsibility. In this case, the concept of freedom of speech would have supported the fake eviction notices circulated by Americans for Prosperity. But, with that freedom comes a release of the supporters of the organization. Since the membership remains hidden, Americans for Prosperity have committed a faulted exercise of freedom. They were wrong in circulating the fake notices.
-----
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
A common defense is the first purpose of government
As the election cycle approaches, those that are running for office including the presidential suite, will be telling us all the things government should or shouldn’t be doing. If we don’t layout a frame work of the purpose of government in advance, we could be pulled in many directions. We will also shift our own positions a dozen times as we hear good words from each of the candidates at all levels.
In the last post we outlined four primary pillars. They are protecting, educating, innovating and building. Clearly, the first, protecting, was the first reason individuals decided to create a community. Living together in an agricultural setting made individuals and families venerable to outside raiders. If everyone in the community came to the defense of any individual, the outside attacks were less likely.
Life in a community has evolved since that time and the definition of a common defense has expanded. Now there is still the risk of outside invaders. A strong military is needed to protect the territorial boundaries of the country. Not only from other countries with their military but also from their business practices, non military invaders, migration and diaspora.
But threats to the individual and the community come from three other areas. First, there is the criminal threat. This threat comes in big and small packages. It, of course, comes with the common criminal that local law enforcement can tamp down, but also from large organized criminal operations. This needs a national law enforcement agency that can move around the country where ever the threat exists.
Second, there is the threat that develops when there is a lack of standards in business, medical, construction and other industries. By establishing and maintaining common practices and standards, those that are honest can depend on them and those are not can be stopped.
Finally, the last is our own civil rights. This not only includes the encroachment of government on the individual’s liberties, but also those that would like to marginalize individuals that don’t fit a very narrow mainstream definition of behavior. It is just as important to enforce laws that prevent criminal activity as it is to prevent marginalizing individuals whose behavior may not be common, but their actions do not cause any injury or loss to any other individual.
As you can see, defense comes in many forms and at many levels. The ability of a community to defend individuals from many threats is the first priority of government. By creating an environment that allows individuals to freely live their own lives is the healthiest environment for the other three pillars.
More to follow on education, innovation and building.
-----
In the last post we outlined four primary pillars. They are protecting, educating, innovating and building. Clearly, the first, protecting, was the first reason individuals decided to create a community. Living together in an agricultural setting made individuals and families venerable to outside raiders. If everyone in the community came to the defense of any individual, the outside attacks were less likely.
Life in a community has evolved since that time and the definition of a common defense has expanded. Now there is still the risk of outside invaders. A strong military is needed to protect the territorial boundaries of the country. Not only from other countries with their military but also from their business practices, non military invaders, migration and diaspora.
But threats to the individual and the community come from three other areas. First, there is the criminal threat. This threat comes in big and small packages. It, of course, comes with the common criminal that local law enforcement can tamp down, but also from large organized criminal operations. This needs a national law enforcement agency that can move around the country where ever the threat exists.
Second, there is the threat that develops when there is a lack of standards in business, medical, construction and other industries. By establishing and maintaining common practices and standards, those that are honest can depend on them and those are not can be stopped.
Finally, the last is our own civil rights. This not only includes the encroachment of government on the individual’s liberties, but also those that would like to marginalize individuals that don’t fit a very narrow mainstream definition of behavior. It is just as important to enforce laws that prevent criminal activity as it is to prevent marginalizing individuals whose behavior may not be common, but their actions do not cause any injury or loss to any other individual.
As you can see, defense comes in many forms and at many levels. The ability of a community to defend individuals from many threats is the first priority of government. By creating an environment that allows individuals to freely live their own lives is the healthiest environment for the other three pillars.
More to follow on education, innovation and building.
-----
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Short subjects
• Frivolous lawsuits?
Oh, Dennis, have you ever voted to prevent frivolous lawsuits?
Dennis Kucinich is suing the owner of the House of Representatives’ cafeteria. The congressman and one time presidential hopeful, had a sandwich with what was advertised as pitted olives. Well, one of the olives still had a pit much to the surprise of Kucinich. He is suing for $150,000 in damages.
Don’t the members of congress have a great dental plan?
• Parents need to protect their children
It is important to stop the abusers. It is also important to stop the enablers. The woman in this case needs to go to jail.
A woman, who is not indentified to protect the victims, pleaded guilty to charges of child endangerment and hindering prosecution. Her husband fathered four babies with one of the couples' daughters. If the wife had gone to authorities right away, she could have protect her daughter.
If the father is an abuser, the mother should at least be the defender.
• Keep the news flowing
Reporters would stop informing us about our government if they were afraid of being sued. The Supreme Court understands that. They refused to even hear a case about a media defamation suit against a reporter for accurately reporting the news from court filings.
• Drunk driving in Tennessee
It is very important to get the drunks off the roads forever, but government can’t put someone in jail for an undetermined amount of time. Let’s find another solution. How about in jail for ten years on second time around?
In Tennessee they want to put people that are charged with DUI that have been convicted before behind bars. But, they will be there for as long as a judge believes they are still a danger to the community. The punishment is much to arbitrary.
• Those money grapping politicians! They will do anything for a buck.
Seems that the Hawaiian legislature is going to allowing anyone that will pay $100 to purchase an official copy of President Obama’s birth certificate. While it won’t shut the birthers up, it will raise some money.
-----
Oh, Dennis, have you ever voted to prevent frivolous lawsuits?
Dennis Kucinich is suing the owner of the House of Representatives’ cafeteria. The congressman and one time presidential hopeful, had a sandwich with what was advertised as pitted olives. Well, one of the olives still had a pit much to the surprise of Kucinich. He is suing for $150,000 in damages.
Don’t the members of congress have a great dental plan?
• Parents need to protect their children
It is important to stop the abusers. It is also important to stop the enablers. The woman in this case needs to go to jail.
A woman, who is not indentified to protect the victims, pleaded guilty to charges of child endangerment and hindering prosecution. Her husband fathered four babies with one of the couples' daughters. If the wife had gone to authorities right away, she could have protect her daughter.
If the father is an abuser, the mother should at least be the defender.
• Keep the news flowing
Reporters would stop informing us about our government if they were afraid of being sued. The Supreme Court understands that. They refused to even hear a case about a media defamation suit against a reporter for accurately reporting the news from court filings.
• Drunk driving in Tennessee
It is very important to get the drunks off the roads forever, but government can’t put someone in jail for an undetermined amount of time. Let’s find another solution. How about in jail for ten years on second time around?
In Tennessee they want to put people that are charged with DUI that have been convicted before behind bars. But, they will be there for as long as a judge believes they are still a danger to the community. The punishment is much to arbitrary.
• Those money grapping politicians! They will do anything for a buck.
Seems that the Hawaiian legislature is going to allowing anyone that will pay $100 to purchase an official copy of President Obama’s birth certificate. While it won’t shut the birthers up, it will raise some money.
-----
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Gun rights should be the same every where
In New Jersey, a man from Utah man, Greg Revell, was traveling through a New Jersey airport on his way to somewhere else. In his baggage he had an unloaded hand gun. He told the airport security where he was coming from about the weapon when he checked his bags. He was allowed to check his bags and was just changing planes in New Jersey. His connecting flight was cancelled, so he retrieved his bags and spent the night at a hotel. The next morning he arrives at the airport and does the honest thing and tells airport police about his gun. He is then arrested and spends ten days in jail.
The Supreme Court will decide on Wednesday to hear his case.
If the Fourteenth amendment did anything, it made this one country. Until the amendment was ratified, each state operated nearly independently of all other states and of the federal government. At the time, 36 states had 36 different sets of laws. Some states went as far to not just violate the rights of individuals, but to take them completely away. The Supreme Court supported the right of states to take such action because the Constitution, according to the court, applied only to the Federal government and not to the states. If it hadn’t been for the Civil War and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, they may never have been given back.
It was the intent of the Fourteenth amendment to ensure that the rights of any person in the country was the same as any other person. That just as the Federal government must respect the rights of people so must each state. This passed all the way to local governments because they were set up by states.
Gun ownership is a right as documented in the Constitution. Reasonable regulations can be adopted to ensure that the ownership and use of a gun doesn’t harm anyone, but it can’t be denied. But, there are fifty three different sets of regulations in the country about gun ownership. That includes all fifty states, D.C and Costa Rica. Perhaps more it you count other protected lands and other jurisdictions.
It sounds like Greg Revell hales from a state that allows him to own and carry a gun. After all, if he was not legal, why would he say anything to airport police. Also, Revell was allowed to check his luggage with the gun in the baggage in Utah. The gun didn’t get him into trouble until he spent the night in New Jersey. Of course, that one night turned into ten and now a gun charge on his record.
It is time we federalize gun laws to protect the rights of people that own guns in every state. We are no longer fifty states (or 36 at the time of the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment) that operate independently of each other. The rights of every person in this country should be protect from the patch work of laws that may or may not allow an individual who is legal in one state to be legal in another.
Like immigration and plenty of other issues, gun laws needed to be apply to all in the country and not just each state. It is time to move in that direction so we can all live without fear of our rights.
-----
The Supreme Court will decide on Wednesday to hear his case.
If the Fourteenth amendment did anything, it made this one country. Until the amendment was ratified, each state operated nearly independently of all other states and of the federal government. At the time, 36 states had 36 different sets of laws. Some states went as far to not just violate the rights of individuals, but to take them completely away. The Supreme Court supported the right of states to take such action because the Constitution, according to the court, applied only to the Federal government and not to the states. If it hadn’t been for the Civil War and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, they may never have been given back.
It was the intent of the Fourteenth amendment to ensure that the rights of any person in the country was the same as any other person. That just as the Federal government must respect the rights of people so must each state. This passed all the way to local governments because they were set up by states.
Gun ownership is a right as documented in the Constitution. Reasonable regulations can be adopted to ensure that the ownership and use of a gun doesn’t harm anyone, but it can’t be denied. But, there are fifty three different sets of regulations in the country about gun ownership. That includes all fifty states, D.C and Costa Rica. Perhaps more it you count other protected lands and other jurisdictions.
It sounds like Greg Revell hales from a state that allows him to own and carry a gun. After all, if he was not legal, why would he say anything to airport police. Also, Revell was allowed to check his luggage with the gun in the baggage in Utah. The gun didn’t get him into trouble until he spent the night in New Jersey. Of course, that one night turned into ten and now a gun charge on his record.
It is time we federalize gun laws to protect the rights of people that own guns in every state. We are no longer fifty states (or 36 at the time of the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment) that operate independently of each other. The rights of every person in this country should be protect from the patch work of laws that may or may not allow an individual who is legal in one state to be legal in another.
Like immigration and plenty of other issues, gun laws needed to be apply to all in the country and not just each state. It is time to move in that direction so we can all live without fear of our rights.
-----
Saturday, April 24, 2010
How Many Rights
The questions from Thursday was, How many rights are guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States?
While the Bill of Rights guarantee that the citizens have many rights, just because many are listed doesn’t mean that is the full and complete list.
James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay were concerned about listing guaranteed rights for fear that people would think it was a complete list of rights.
They added the Ninth Amendment to let people know that there were other rights that are retained by the people, but not listed.
The answer: innumerable.
While the Bill of Rights guarantee that the citizens have many rights, just because many are listed doesn’t mean that is the full and complete list.
James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay were concerned about listing guaranteed rights for fear that people would think it was a complete list of rights.
They added the Ninth Amendment to let people know that there were other rights that are retained by the people, but not listed.
The answer: innumerable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)