It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Reasonable Exercise of Rights: A Proposal

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy

Then you get my point.

Your rights are restricted by mine. That's nothing new. Society has been "infringing" on rights for quite a while now. Right?


No.

I've never had a right to infringe upon you or yours.

My rights actually STOP being rights if they infringe upon you.


My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose. Your nose does not stop me from swinging my fist.

I just cannot hit you.




posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy
Would punching me in the nose make you happy?

Your right to the "pursuit of happiness" is infringed upon by my right to not be punched in the nose by you. Your right is trumped by mine. The law says so.

edit on 8/16/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy
Would punching me in the nose make you happy?

Your right to the "pursuit of happiness" is infringed upon by my right to not be punched in the nose by you. Your right is trumped by mine. The law says so.

Did he not state that his right to swing his fist ended at the tip of your nose?



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: caterpillage

Yes. Thus his happiness was incomplete. He could not fully pursue happiness. That right was infringed upon by my right.

Or have you not been following the conversation?



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy




We're already seeing society impose restrictions to rights.

Society has always imposed restrictions on rights. Your right to the "pursuit of happiness", for example.

Do What You Like! Right? Until it runs up against mine.



Ummm...Precisely...rights are only limited in scope by how your rights impact another individuals rights...

How very Libertarian of you...

Rights are not limited constitutionally by the government...rather they are limited by the common sense nature of personal responsibility inherent in interactions with other individuals...

The only one that can abrogate your rights is you by your own decision making process and by the way you choose to exercise those choices...

The State doesn't curtail your rights...you do...by abiding by common sense and responsible interactions with others and by...not...abiding by such...

The individual makes the choice...the State merely arbitrates when such choices run counter to harmonious interaction with neighbor...stranger...and family member...


That's why I'm a Libertarian...and apparently why your one as well...





YouSir



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 06:29 PM
link   
No thanks to your idea of “reasonable restrictions” to my Constifutional rights. What is the point of living if we are constantly butting up against Government control? Unless I am doing something that physically affects another’s person or property there should be few, if any, restrictions to our personal liberty.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: YouSir

The state says he can't punch me in the nose. No matter how happy it would make him.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: caterpillage
Did he not state that his right to swing his fist ended at the tip of your nose?

That's not how assault and battery works. Threatening someone to the point where they fear for their well-being is assault. You don't have to hit somebody for that to be illegal. Once you hit them, then battery comes into play. But both are illegal.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: YouSir

The state says he can't punch me in the nose. No matter how happy it would make him.



Ummm...stop being obtuse...You know perfectly well what he said...and...that he was in complete agreement with your previous statement...

The state never entered into the conversation because he already stated that he could not punch you in the nose...because of his agreement with you...so your nose is safe...

The State only comes into play if he chooses to abrogate both his and your rights...

You know this...I know this...he knows this...





Yousir



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: caterpillage

Yes. Thus his happiness was incomplete. He could not fully pursue happiness. That right was infringed upon by my right.

Or have you not been following the conversation?




I have been. At times I'll admit I'm a little slow witted, and I see your point.
But, it's kind of a given isn't it? That your right to a pursuit of happiness is limited in when it causes unhappiness to others?
I mean, I know it's not explicitly stated, but it makes sense? Right?
Otherwise, "The pursuit of happiness" could be construed to give us unrestricted ability to do pretty much anything we want.

Kinda like full on anarchy



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: caterpillage

Yes. Thus my taking exception with this statement:

We're already seeing society impose restrictions to rights.

With this statement:

Society has always imposed restrictions on rights.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: caterpillage
Did he not state that his right to swing his fist ended at the tip of your nose?

That's not how assault and battery works. Threatening someone to the point where they fear for their well-being is assault. You don't have to hit somebody for that to be illegal. Once you hit them, then battery comes into play. But both are illegal.


But isn't that discussing law? And law isn't always in agreement with our rights. Not saying it's proper to threaten someone with bodily harm, but that's not the discussion here is it? Or is it? I get dumber every year I've been alive. So hell if I know



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy
Would punching me in the nose make you happy?

Your right to the "pursuit of happiness" is infringed upon by my right to not be punched in the nose by you. Your right is trumped by mine. The law says so.


No.

Because the second my fist hits your nose, it is no longer a right.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

So, your saying that when given the right to pursue happiness, they should have promptly ended at that, as any other further restrictions would contridict the first Right?

Hey, as a side note, are you a fan of Douglas Adams by any chance?



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: YouSir

But, but, but... all rights are rights, right? Shouldn't all rights be treated like all other rights?

TheRedneck



Ummm...the only relational aspect between different enumerated rights is that they are inherent...In like treatment...only that they should only be abridged by the individual exercising the right...and never by the state...

Since none live in a vacuum and coexist with other individuals...personal responsibility to self and others is the arbiter determining the extent of personal rights...

That being said...the one overarching control mechanism is individual choice...and how such impacts other individual's decisions...Further however...this does not give one the right to be offended by any other as personal offense is an individual choice and merely a personal decision to entertain such an emotional state of mind...There is simply no right to seek offense...therefore protestations of hate speech should always fall on deaf ears...


I hope this answers your question...





YouSir



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: kaylaluv

Does that mean Alex Jones gets his social media back?


No restrictions.

No restrictions on CNN or MSNBC either. They can write whatever they want and pretend like it’s the truth. If they want to tell lies to make Trump look bad, so be it.

No restrictions.


They already have that right.


Good and let's make sure Trump can't change that, like he's threatened to. Slander and libel should be the media's right.


Trump doesn't have the power to change that. That would be up to Congress.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: YouSir


Ummm...the only relational aspect between different enumerated rights is that they are inherent...In like treatment...only that they should only be abridged by the individual exercising the right...and never by the state...

That is my point. The fact that an action is a right means it has the same status as any other right. A right is a right... there are no "good rights" or "bad rights" or "sometimes rights." There are only rights. And any time a government is given power to restrict one right, it by definition has the power to restrict all rights.

No government grants rights... rights are inherent simply by virtue of being a human. Governments can only interfere with the exercise of rights. So since there seems to be a major push for government to restrict certain rights, I am simply asking why they then can't restrict others based on the same thinking: reasonable restrictions.

Of course, first I have to get people to even agree on what a right is, apparently. That seems to be difficult.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

That's the problem with a lot of discourse today.

We're arguing off of different understandings of what certain things are and mean to us.

What you consider a right, I consider a right, and what others here consider a right might vary enormously. So in order to even touch on what you're OP was all about, we might have to first spend a lot of time arguing over a simple definition of right that all of us can agree on or if not agree on precisely at least accept for the parameters of this particular discussion.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TheRedneck

That's the problem with a lot of discourse today.

We're arguing off of different understandings of what certain things are and mean to us.

What you consider a right, I consider a right, and what others here consider a right might vary enormously. So in order to even touch on what you're OP was all about, we might have to first spend a lot of time arguing over a simple definition of right that all of us can agree on or if not agree on precisely at least accept for the parameters of this particular discussion.


Yeah this idea that everyone is entitled to their own definitions has #ed up rational conversation immensely. "But this is what it means to me!" Okay, but that's not your job. People smarter than us have already established what these words mean.



posted on Aug, 16 2018 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

I wouldn't even necessarily say people smarter than us.

For the purposes of determining what a right is in the US, you need to understand what the Founders understood it to be. Once you know that, it would follow that is what they're referring to every time the word is referenced in the COTUS.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join