reply to post by Xtraeme
A → B doesn't necessarily mean B → A. For instance in a simulation I can setup a bezier curve and use that path as a way to cause an object to
move in relation to another. More to the point I can model a solar system without any need for gravity. Curvature of space just happens to be one way
that a system can perform a similar function. More concretely you're asserting that a decision made in retrospect is the same as one that's
established based on a universally "self evident" concept founded on no preceding basis. This is technically speaking a false analogy.
All of this is just smoke and mirrors in hopes of reaching the end of the magic trick and declaring "viola presto magic". It is not a false analogy.
I have done my best to show you how it is false to say that rights were created in retrospect. Because this is false, it is as false as saying that
gravity was created in retrospect.
I will try to explain this one more time. If rights are a retrospective creation, then they have to follow some set of circumstances that gave cause
to this retrospection. You seem to be in agreement with me that it is criminality that is the relationship between rights. You are putting the cart
before the horse by asserting that rights were created because of criminality. Criminality exists because rights exist and if there were no rights,
then there would be no criminality. This is in terms of law, not legislation, and here is the problem with your stance. Your stance justifies the
absurd proliferation of legislation acts that are on the books today. However, legislation is not law, it is merely evidence of law. If it were law,
the courts would not have the authority of judicial review, which is not expressly granted to the federal courts, but is self evident just the same.
Judicial review is the authority to strike down legislation that is not lawful. That courts do strike down legislation as not lawful only
demonstrates that legislatures are prone to write acts of legislation that are not lawful. However, too many people want to believe that any act of
legislation that comes down the pike is law, and when you make the arguments you make, you are supporting this belief system. The laws of justice can
be no more arbitrary and capricious than the laws of science, and in both cases, when assertions are made as law, but are arbitrary and capricious in
their nature, respect for both science and government wanes dramatically. It does so not because some wise group retrospectively decreed that people
should have little respect for the law when it is arbitrary and capricious, this happens as a natural phenomenon, and observably so.
The rule of law is not the same as the rule by law. The rule of law demands that everyone is equal under the law, and in doing so, it makes law
universal. The rule of law is not an invention of humanity, it is a discovery, just as all laws are. The rule by law, on the other hand, is an
invention of humanity, and it is a justification for tyranny. The quote of yours I posted above tends to read in the same way modern day legalese
reads, as if they are utterances coming from a priest class set. It is language intended to baffle with bull puckey, in lieu of dazzling with
Law is not complicated, it is simple, true, universal, and absolute. The Patriot Act is not simple, true, universal and absolute, it is bull puckey
intended to baffle. The same goes for most legislation that numbers in the thousands of pages, if not all. The legislative acts regarding murder,
theft, rape, trespass, and any other crime that creates a victim are not so artfully written, and they are easy to read and understand. This is as
law should be, not because I say so, nor because some wise people long ago said so, but because it is. If there is a crime, there is a victim. The
so called "victimless crimes" that exist today are not law, but merely acts of legislation. They are attempts at an aggregation of power, and in
attempting to aggregate this power, the system by which civilization operates becomes more and more a closed system, as opposed to an open system, and
just as surely as heat will tend towards entropy in a closed system, so will justice, economics, and even ethics. The priest class lawyer set have
endeavored to mystify the laity with their legalese in hopes of baffling with bull puckey, but ignorance of the law is no excuse, and for anyone who
understands the law, no amount of mystical incantations will frighten the well informed.
You may be able to, by force, silence me, but even if you have legislation behind you supporting this suppression of speech, it is not lawful. Those
who understand law, understand this. Those who buy into your mystical incantations will shrug their shoulders and wonder what has happened to
society, and wonder where their freedoms went.
Self evidence is a proposition that something is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof, or technically a situation where denial
And this is precisely what you have done by asserting that rights are a retrospective act in response to criminality. You are contradicting yourself
by making this assertion. Rights as a retrospective act do nothing at all to prevent, or stop in its track criminality and people still murder, they
still steal, they still rape, and even though the First Amendment makes it perfectly clear that Congress may not pass any law abridging speech, they
still do. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act is a good example, and the Supreme Court in Citizens United struck the portion of that legislation down
which violated the First Amendment. Of course, President Obama, touted as a "Constitutional expert" declared the SCOTUS wrong on this ruling, but in
doing so all he managed to do was reveal his profound contempt for the prohibitory nature of the First Amendment.
That people have the right to defend themselves is known to be true and its meaning is understood without proof. The same is true in regards to
speech. People do not need to prove they have the right to speech, they just know they do. This is why you will find members in this thread that
qualify their calls for a chill on speech with the assertion that they are "all for freedom of speech", because they know it to be true that all
people have this right. No one is questioning this right exists, and the real debate is how it exists. Your stance is that it is a retrospective
invention of humanity and that some other people some where at some time granted you this "privilege". My stance is that it exists for the same
reason gravity exists, it exists because it is central to a properly functioning system.
If we hold the idea of "freedom of speech" up to this mantle and ask, "If free speech isn't afforded by law what would be the result?" I imagine we'd
arrive at an argument somewhat similar to Ghandi's "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" rephrased as "if no one is free to speak then
everyone can be made to be mute."
Instead of getting lost up in the aether with your imagination, why not try coming down here to the planet Earth and observing the phenomenon of free
speech. Do you honestly believe shushing a newborn infant wailing and crying will convince that infant it does not have the right to his or her
speech? That child is communicating something and you can either listen to that communication or ignore it and shush in vain. That child need not
prove a damn thing when it comes to their freedom of speech, and will wail and cry until their needs have been met, or the tire out and give up. Once
that child reaches the age of 16 years of age, do you think you as a stern parental figure can convince that child they do not have a right to speech?
You may be able to, by threat of force or coercion, convince that child to mind their tongue, but anyone who has had a 16 year old teenager knows
full well that at some point, even threat of force or coercion is not going to keep that child from speaking freely. No amount of legislation to the
contrary will change this.
So it's not self-evident by definition...
Yes, it is.
...but something that we as a people would like to accept as self-evident. A truly self-evident statement is, "I'm alive."
"I'm alive" is speech, and if a person chooses to make such a declaration, try and convince him that the only reason he can is because some one long
ago granted him the "privilege" to make the statement. See how far you get with that one.
The concept of "freedom of speech" isn't quite on the level of being a contradiction when one negates the statement (p ∧ ¬p).
What are you doing, trying to disprove the self evident nature of speech? Can you not see the self contradiction in that? Why are you trying to
disprove that which needs no proof?
A closer truth to an unalienable right ‒ afforded to us by nature itself ‒ is, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." Or as Sartre put
it, "Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. ... Man will only attain existence when he is what he purposes to be. To choose between
this or that is at the same time to affirm the value of that which is chosen."
Oh, I see. So, if I choose to be a tyrant, then this would be a closer truth than an unalienable right. Hmmmm, you are backing yourself into a
corner here, and the side you are choosing is not by any stretch of the imagination a heroic side, and easily lends itself to villainy.
This is why I agree with the phrasing that it should be an unalienable right not some temporal right afforded us by government. The point of
contention isn't that this should be the case, but rather the "unalienableness" of it. I see it as violable though I wish this weren't the case.
You do understand that violable is that which can be violated, don't you? This means that there is no criminality as all rights are violable. You
have placed all faith in legislative acts, instead of recognizing that if someone were to threaten the life of your children that you would act to
defend them, regardless of what legislation has to say about it. At least, I would like to think you would. Not all people would, but then, not all
people act lawfully, some act criminally.
Just because rights are trampled upon does not make them violable any more than jumping off of a cliff makes gravity violable. There are consequences
to these actions. Your argument is not an argument for freedom, it is an argument for governmental control, and freedom rarely flourishes under
Also, for the sake of future discussions, the quotes here aren't used to diminish the contents, but are instead used as a way to call attention to a
segment of text that happens to be the focus of the conversation.
Then perhaps you might consider using the bold or italic feature instead, as those features come much closer to accomplishing your intention
grammatically speaking than placing quotation marks around them do.
Brilliant phrasing ‒ I agree wholeheartedly. This is a general theme where the negative is what's visible and the positive is something that's
emergent as a result of the negative. So again the inalienable right is established post observation not pre-, making it by definition "not self
evident" (otherwise we would have had justice to start) but this isn't to contradict the necessariness of the right.
No, it is not unalienable rights that is established post observation, it is justice that it is established post observation. Justice is not self
evident, it is a causative act established by people when confronted with the absence of justice. The absence of justice becomes evident when self
evident rights are disparaged or infringed upon. People who do not lock their doors do so because the right to their property, and the understanding
that theft is criminal is self evident. People begin locking their doors as a post observation after being a victim of theft...unless they are
thieves, as thieves always lock their doors.
Not exactly. You wrote, "You want to dismiss their evident nature by pointing to the self evident nature of criminality, but criminality does not
preexist unalienable rights, quite the contrary, rights preexist criminality." This isn't the same as "should have" preexisted the self evident nature
Okay, point taken. In the future I will be more diligent in placing significance on each and every word. Hopefully I have done that with this
edit on 3-3-2011 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)