View RSS Feed

reaper239

Reaper's Corner and Poli-Ticks

Rate this Entry
osiris suggested i post this here so i said, "eh, ok."

so, i recently had this major discussion on the other forums with my friend Osiris regarding gun rights, which then devolved into an argument over the basic nature of rights, and it occurred to me: osi didn't actually have a firm understanding of the nature of rights. now, this isn't anything against osi, he's a smart man with a lot of knowledge to impart, but he does seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding as to the basic nature of human rights. to him, rights are semantic, it's all in the language, but the true nature of rights is something much more.


[CENTER][URL="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iZ6AkwQjPaQ/USTOIw-1OGI/AAAAAAAAAN8/qjyKTN-k9Og/s1600/Poli-Ticks+Article+Banner+rights+primer.jpg"][IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iZ6AkwQjPaQ/USTOIw-1OGI/AAAAAAAAAN8/qjyKTN-k9Og/s320/Poli-Ticks+Article+Banner+rights+primer.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/CENTER]

there are three pillars to western civilization: Judeo-Christian morals, Greco-Roman philosophy, and Anglo-Saxon law. Judeo-Christian morals form the foundations for our freedom. Judaism esteblished the concept of one God, which established the idea of absolute truth. if the is one God to answer to, then there is an ultimate judge, and an arbiter of final justice. God hands down a set of standards for all men to strive for, though none can atain them, and this is the first step in self governance: self accountability. mind that we still keep each other accountable, but it starts with self. i'll discuss this more in depth in my post on perpetuating freedom.


Greco-Roman philosophy established the idea that the world could be understood. this concept was revolutionary in that it removed mystique from the world around us. it fostered curiosity and that things could be known instead of being out of reach. this encourages exploration and innovation and is the source of discovery for the laws of nature. in fact, the very idea of laws of nature arose from Greco-Roman philosophy. i'll be discussing this aspect of western civilization when i discuss American Exceptionalism.


finally, we come to Anglo-Saxon law. Anglo-Saxon law is the basis for human rights, in conjunction with Judeo-Christian morality. Anglo-Saxon law holds that there are certain universal truths about people, for instance no one wants to be killed, and establishes common law, or natural law, to which all are held accountable, and which is above political law (ie government legislation). Judeo-Christian morality portends that this law is handed down from the one true God, and that these laws are absolutely true, and not established by any earthly force.


so, human rights. there are two fundamental rights from which all other rights may be derived or implied: the right to life, and the right to property. the right to life is, of course, your right to live, while your right to property pertains to you're ownership of property. from these we derive the right to liberty, or self determination. for the right to life in it's truest sense, you must have the ability to determine your own quality of life, as any infringement upon that could lead to an early death and so indirectly cause a violation of your right to life. an example of this is north korea where people do not have a right to self determination and are starving to death because their food is being taken, thus constituting a violation of not only the right to life, but the right to property. property directly influences the quality of life and so the right to self determination also protects the right to property.


all rights exist independent of other people. that means that you have your rights regardless of what other people say or do. if those rights are violated, they don't simply go away, they are instead suppressed. this is why slavery had to be abolished. Judeo-Christian morality contends that all men are created by God and are equal at creation, all men are created equal, and therefore, all men have equal rights under common law. slavery is a violation of the right to self determination, and therefore is a violation of human rights.


the right to self determination confers the right to self defense. the right to self defense is the right to defend, with force, ones right to life and right to property. my discussion with osiris was about gun laws, and gun regulation. my position is pro freedom, while his position is for the resriction of people which will, in theory, lead to safety. he claimed a right to protection through legislation and that my right to carry a gun, or determine the use of my property, be secondary to his right to legislate safety. there is no right to legislate safety, because his definition of legislating safety requires imposition on others. it requires action taken against others under threat of force. this is not a right, but tyranny, and tyranny is a violation of rights. osiris argument stands in violation of my right to self determination, and my right to property, and rights cannot violate other rights, this is a basis of common law. i come back to slavery, a person cannot be considered someone elses property because that violates their right to self determination. i can't claim you as property because my right to property cannot infringe upon your right to self determination, and ultimately your right to life.


rights exist in harmony with one another. your rights exist within the confines of other peoples rights. it's like a bubble, your bubble of rights cannot penetrate other peoples bubble of rights. for instance, stealing is a violation of property. this seems obvious, but let's look at why. property is obtained through barter, something of value is traded for something that is seen to have comparable value. how do you obtain something of value in the first place? you trade the only thing you are inherently born with, your time and efforts, you work for it. after performing a set ammount of labour, you will be compensated with something of predetermined value, today we collect a wage payed in a monetary system which says that one dollar is equal to one unit of the combination of skill, time, and effort. the more skill required for a job, the more time required for a job, the more effort required for a job, the more money a person will seek for compensation in return for completion of that job. this money can be taken and traded for anything you want as it represents labour you have done for someone, which can be used to compensate someone else for labour they have perfomed for you. now, let's assume that you have used your labour to trade for something, say a lamp. now, i come along and want your lamp, so i perform labour of my own to gain money with which to trade for your lamp. that's fair trade. now, let's suppose instead that i break into your home and steal your lamp. i have performed labour, but my labour was not equal to the value of the lamp, and what labour i did was not transfered to you to compensate you for the lamp. i have taken your labour without compensation, i have stolen, and this is why we have a right to property. property equals labour and labour equals time, effort, and skill, three things that are inherently yours. if i want something you have, i must trade my labour for your labour.


rights are fundamental, you are born with them, and no one has the right to violate them. you have the right to defend your rights against violation, and for that you have the right to carry force comparable to force you may encounter against you. it's a fundamental issue of rights.
0 Likes, 0 , 0 , 0

Submit "Reaper's Corner and Poli-Ticks" to Digg Submit "Reaper's Corner and Poli-Ticks" to del.icio.us Submit "Reaper's Corner and Poli-Ticks" to StumbleUpon Submit "Reaper's Corner and Poli-Ticks" to Google

Categories
Uncategorized

Comments

  1. LiamKerrington's Avatar
    Hi there,

    now that this article is available here as well, I will raise the same questions I raised on reaper239's original posting and blog again - slightly corrected though.

    About right of property ...

    In other legal systems, which are based on the corpus iuris civile, i.e. Roman law, on the one and natural law, i.e. the law drawn from the philosophies which sprang from the French Revolution, on the other hand, property is not as free as what you describe here.
    In Germany for example the right of property is regulated in article 14 of the German constitution, the so-called "base law". On the one hand this article provides the guarantee that anyone on German territory has the right of property for anything that belongs to him. But according to the same article the legislative is empowered to "form" what exactly "property" is and in what way "property" may even be limited.

    This leads me to the question, if the anglo-saxon legal systems have something similar to the German rule or if there is a difference between the legal concepts of property in the USA on the one side and the UK on the other?

    This is important for the proper understanding of the legal concepts evolving around property. If the US-American constitution provides the power for the legislative, jurisprudence, or in a broader sense "the State" or "public authorities" in general, to define the scope of property and/ or in what way property may be restricted or directed, then this would put a certain relativity to the freedom or right of property, doesn't it? And wouldn't this then mean that the freedom of men would not be rooted in property as well?

    For the sake of clarification: I don't challenge what reaper239 has written; I just wonder if there are more things to keep in mind, because I simply don't know enough about the Anglo-Saxon legal systems.
    And I don't want to rely on wikipedia-articles too much

    All the best!
    Liam
    0 Likes, 0 , 0 , 0
  2. Osiris's Avatar
    Interesting interpretations, but I 't believe you're imposing context for the sake of supporting your viewpoint, especially be equating my advocacy of the right to freedom for ALL individuals to indentured servitude. That's a grasping of straws if ever I've seen one. You are continuing to argue that I'm encroaching on your rights, while you encroach on my own. Hell, the language you've used supports it in the very definition of self-determination. What you present is your interpretation of that definition. Still, it's an interesting interpretation of rights. The question that I've posed, that you still have yet to answer is:

    What sets the rights of one above another?

    My right to live in a gun free environment versus your right to bear arms. I'm glad that you've done your homework, but you're still not answering the question, instead furthering the semantics. As I've said already, it's a really good debate, and the thread raises interesting question, as does the blog. Good work, bro . . . expect some rep coming your way for it.
    0 Likes, 0 , 0 , 0
  3. REZombie's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Osiris


    What sets the rights of one above another?

    My right to live in a gun free environment versus your right to bear arms.
    Which Amendment states the right to live in a gun free environment outside of ones own property?
    0 Likes, 0 , 0 , 0
  4. Osiris's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by REZombie
    Which Amendment states the right to live in a gun free environment outside of ones own property?
    Did you miss the part where we discussed human rights, or the part where we invoked the right to liberty, and self-determination? This is global, not based in the American Constitution; since this is inclusive of more than a single territory or country. So, Article Three of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
    0 Likes, 0 , 0 , 0
  5. LiamKerrington's Avatar
    Maybe I should read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ... Haven't done this yet ...
    0 Likes, 0 , 0 , 0
  6. Osiris's Avatar
    Everyone should.
    0 Likes, 0 , 0 , 0
  7. REZombie's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Osiris
    Did you miss the part where we discussed human rights, or the part where we invoked the right to liberty, and self-determination? This is global, not based in the American Constitution; since this is inclusive of more than a single territory or country. So, Article Three of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
    Sorry, missed the other discussion i guess.... i wasn't going global, i was speaking of USA constitutional rights. Not a big supporter of the UN, so honestly cant say much to any of their declarations.
    0 Likes, 0 , 0 , 0
  8. LiamKerrington's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Osiris
    Everyone should.
    It may seem odd that I, since I study law, have not yet done so. But the answer to this is fairly simple: In the German system or hierarchy of legal code the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is considered to be below the German constitution. The hierarchy from top to down looks like this:

    1. Constitution (base law)
    2. laws provided by the legislative of the Federal Republic of Germany and law of the nations (i.e. treaties between the FGR and other nations or international organizations)*
    3. regulations of Federal Agencys
    4. the 16 constitutions of the sixteens states on the territory of the FRG
    5. laws provided by the legislative of the sixteen states
    6. regulations of state agencies
    7. by-laws of the municipalis

    * Here, I think, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would be situated in the German legal system, but ...

    In the articles 1 through 19 the German base-law proides the freedoms and rights of the people. And here things become interesting. On the one hand: These rights and freedoms - afaik - were oriented along the lines of the Universal Decleration of Human Rights; but the legal understanding is not transferred into German law as well. On the other hand: The freedoms and rights provided by the base-law are to be interpreted in the light of European Law; and Europe itself provides two different legal sources for rights and freedoms for individuals - the European Charta of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights; the latter one is based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which means: after all the German constitution and especially the rights and freedoms for the individual people are Human Rights - in general and but ...

    As you see: Things are quite confusing down here in Germany. Although the rights and freedoms provided in our constitution basically are comparable with what is provided in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but the question for me now is: Are there any differences? And this is the task I have to pass, I guess ...

    Exciting.
    0 Likes, 0 , 0 , 0
  9. Osiris's Avatar
    It does raise interesting notions about justification, doesn't it? There are no clear lines in the sand, if there were there would never be any debate over rights, which there are--ad nauseam. Still, it's a fantastic way to push the boundaries of one's ideology.
    0 Likes, 0 , 0 , 0
  10. LiamKerrington's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Osiris
    It does raise interesting notions about justification, doesn't it? There are no clear lines in the sand, if there were there would never be any debate over rights, which there are--ad nauseam. Still, it's a fantastic way to push the boundaries of one's ideology.
    Yeah, this is kind of odd. And it becomes more interesting:

    Most rights and freedom based on the German constitution are conditionally, which means: most freedoms can be limited by law or by actions based on law, while they are also limited by the freedoms of each person. And to make things more complicated: Even those conditions are under restriction of commensurability.
    In much simpler words: All three branches - the legislative, executive, and judicial - may limit or restrict your freedoms or rights based on law or through law (the latter by the legislative only), while each action is limited in itself to prevent arbitrariness.

    Even such general basic rights like freedom of action or right of property may be limited. A few examples:

    - put someone in jail or custody; forbid someone to enter a certain location; forbid usage of certain products (example: selling of serious medications, drugs, usage of cells while driving a car ...); ...
    - compulsory enforcement; condemnation; collecting evidence; ...

    Just to name a few things ... Similar things you find on freedom of speech (insults are not covered by the basic right), religion (not every rite or ritual is covered by and thus under the protection of the base right), freedom to choose an occupation or foundation of a business (immoral activities or businesses supporting administrative offenses are not protected by the constitution) ... And there are much more things you can think of.

    The challenge to ones mind is: In the end everything boils down to the question who decides what is wrong or right. So, who is it?

    In theory things might come down to what is described in the concepts reaper239 has mentioned. And yet there is kind of an instance that still meets certain decision - with what jurisdiction or justification and with what kind of acceptance does someone or a legal body decide?

    In Germany things are "pretty simple", thus still kind of a Gordian knot: the constitution not only establishes the fundamental or basic rights of people and citizens living on the territory of Germany, but it also provides many rules about the three branches of the legislative, executive, and judicial; and these rules also include how these branches get empowered and are allowed to modify the basic rights.
    In the case of Germany the 'constitutional theory' comes to the conclusion that in the end the power of those branches roots in the election of the legislative by the people; the people transfer all the legislative power to the legislative branch. Thus any decision (law, action) by the legislative branch is a decision by the people itself; the executive is voted by the legislative, and the judicial is empowered by the legislative and the executive branch; therefore anything any of those three branches does can be rooted back to the people and is therefore considered to be an act based on the will of the people. (I simplified a lot; I hope you don't mind the haziness on things, which are much more complicated ...)

    But does the 'constitutional theory' depict the reality? More then just sometimes you get the impression that the decision-makers in any of the three branches behave like a certain, neo-nobility-like elite with no connection to the people at all. Thus remains the question: Is it a fair assumption that any decision made in the three branches is based on the will of the people; do therefore the people decide what is right or wrong? Or is the reality much different and do decisions about right or wrong develop only within certain elites?
    And how do the answers to these two questions relate to the fundamental human rights or at least the two fundamental prinicples of freedom of action and right to property?

    All the best!
    Liam
    0 Likes, 0 , 0 , 0
    Updated Feb 22nd, 2013 at 01:59 AM by LiamKerrington
  11. scbubba's Avatar
    Great discussion here and in the forums on this. Good work folks.

    Just to add a little something here. As reaper points out, the basic "rights" have to stem from somewhere. May believe that it is from a Creator (god/gods/God). In the ancient and not so ancient past, most cultures were pretty homogenous in their beliefs so they had very similar opinions/thoughts on what constitutes right and wrong.

    That's not really the case now. Just in America alone you can walk into just about any building and find people that differ (in some way) on just about any right that you want to talk about. And with the shrinking globe, we have more cultures and belief system coming in contact every day.

    This dilutes the concept of a common set of agreed upon rights. So we have some one or ones that become the arbiters of the rights people have and when those rights can/cannot be abridged.

    In many cases, this is done by a body of elected people representing the population fairly so that the majority opinion is allowed to dictate most of how this is done with controls in place to protect the minority.

    In other cases, it is done at the whim of a despot who is really only interested in himself.

    Either way, the "hierarchy" of rights is being set: whether at a international, national, regional, local, or hyper-local scale.

    So, in an attempt to answer Osiris' question "What sets the rights of one above another?" I would have to say that the governmental rules that you either choose to live under or are forced to live under sets this hierarchy of rights.

    In the one model, if you don't like the way it works there is usually a mechanism that allows you to try and affect change in the current code. In the other model, not so much.

    So, in most places in the USA today, your right to live in a gun free environment has been set lower than my right to lawfully carry a firearm on my person in public. The number of areas like this (again in the USA) is growing and so far this all falls within the legal system the citizenry have decided on.

    So "What sets the rights of one above another?" People do. Should they? That's a loaded question because it goes right back to the diverse and differing sets of beliefs and morality in the world today.

    On a personal level, I'm more inclined to allow much more freedom for individuals and have less control by governmental bodies. The government should have a more narrow scope of control and the individual a wider one. The drawback is that, just I mentioned above, this pretty much only works completely when everyone agrees on the same right and wrong things.

    But it can work to a greater degree with the judicious election of representatives and governing officials. Something that seems to be happening less and less often, unfortunately....
    0 Likes, 0 , 1 , 0
  12. reaper239's Avatar
    [QUOTE=Osiris;bt1136][COLOR=#008080]Interesting interpretations, but I 't believe you're imposing context for the sake of supporting your viewpoint, especially be equating my advocacy of the right to freedom for ALL individuals to indentured servitude. That's a grasping of straws if ever I've seen one. You are continuing to argue that I'm encroaching on your rights, while you encroach on my own. Hell, the language you've used supports it in the very definition of self-determination. What you present is your interpretation of that definition. Still, it's an interesting interpretation of rights. The question that I've posed, that you still have yet to answer is:

    What sets the rights of one above another?

    My right to live in a gun free environment versus your right to bear arms. I'm glad that you've done your homework, but you're still not answering the question, instead furthering the semantics. As I've said already, it's a really good debate, and the thread raises interesting question, as does the blog. Good work, bro . . . expect some rep coming your way for it.
    [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

    ok, so what you're asking me is why your right to infringe on my rights is less important than my rights you seek to infringe upon? come on dude, that's like saying my right to live in an environment without cars is supreme to your right to own a car. a car is more likely to kill you than a gun. so, let's turn this discussion on it's head, i believe in a world without computers, i believe computers are evil and should not be allowed in public, therefore all laptops and other computing devices must be banned from public. it's my right after all, so why is your right to have your ipod or laptop in public supreme to my right to live in a world without those things.
    0 Likes, 0 , 0 , 0
  13. LiamKerrington's Avatar
    The method solving the collision of contrary rights is - at least in the legal theory of Germany's constitution - the so-called "practical concordance", which is used to balance conflicting rights. Since all involved rights have the same weight or importance, each of them has to step back accordingly. Since you cannot break it down so easily in general - why would someone owning and using guns have to stop using guns on his range, because somewhere else people live that don't own or like guns, or why would a gun-hater has to accept someone carrying guns on his own property? -, you have to think in "cases", if you like. That is where the principles of "common sense" come in very handy. This may mean that whatever authority may rule that certain things are or are not allowed in certain areas - for example, which is heavily debated, gun-free zones in schools or other buildings of public services (I wonder: in court rooms, even in the USA, carrying guns is forbidde, right?).

    This debate boils down to the arguments provided here and in any other similar discussions: Criminals most likely won't follow the rules; and the people normally carrying or at least owning guns would be kind of helpless if they meet criminals in such regulated areas (or if it is generally forbidden to carry guns), which also means that their means of self-defense is highly limited; and how quickly would police-forces react to 911-calls, and how quickly can people call for help, before lives are taken?

    The question for me is: Can situations like these provide a solid base for the broad discussion about general acceptance/ allowance or prohibition of guns? For me in Germany this is simple: We have the right of property, but our constitution does not provide anything regarding ownership and usage of weapons; also the gun-laws here are very tight and strict, which makes things easy for "me" in this moment: We don't have a debate like this, because in Germany there is no comparable fundamental conflict of interests or rights, like what you seem to have in the USA. I fully understand and grab the scope of your discussion; and I admit that I have some sympathy for the pro-gun arguments, although I have no clear depiction why this is so. I guess the main reason for this sympathy is that you actually have a stand-alone right for having guns in your constitution.

    On the other hand I was raised in the belief of considering guns as one of many sources of evil; and I thank my parents as well as my people for this. And although we have some gun-based criminal actions in Germany, they are very rare in comparison with many other crimes being comitted. As long as you are not a sportsman in marksmanship, a police-officer, or a soldier, most of the time you don't get in touch with guns. This makes guns, their ownership and usage kind of alien to me and literally almost anyone else in Germany, which automatically raises a certain excitement and - the German Angst empowered - concerns about them and the people having guns. This is very weird.

    One thing remains for sure: If there are a gun and its ammo, this leaves the opportunity for the one person holding them to shoot the gun. The question is: What is his intention to do so? I may react to what I see - like I could avoid someone with a gun - if there is enough room. But I cannot look into the person's head. In 99,9% this may be no problem at all, since the person might be at least as far law-abiding as it is required not to shoot other people without cause (like self-defense). But in the 0,1% of cases he may raise the gun, point the muzzle at me and then release the bullet firing at me. Even if I have a gun myself, would I be quick enough to stop him before he pulls the trigger or to avoid his shot by jumping behind a cover? I am not certain about it. And actually I would imagine to freeze in the moment of realization that my life is next to its ending, because I would not fathom the whole understanding of the situation - i.e. I'd be shocked.

    Therefore the whole discussion about freedom in or control of gun-ownership and -usage boils down to a risk-assessment, right? And this also leads to the question, how heavily even small risks are the justification for the general limitation of rights, right?

    This really is a very challenging questing.
    0 Likes, 0 , 0 , 0
  14. Witch_Doctor's Avatar
    Wow! Where do I begin?
    0 Likes, 0 , 0 , 0
  15. LiamKerrington's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Witch_Doctor
    Wow! Where do I begin?
    You have plenty of opportunity, I guess ...
    0 Likes, 0 , 0 , 0
  16. Osiris's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by reaper239
    ok, so what you're asking me is why your right to infringe on my rights is less important than my rights you seek to infringe upon? come on dude, that's like saying my right to live in an environment without cars is supreme to your right to own a car. a car is more likely to kill you than a gun. so, let's turn this discussion on it's head, i believe in a world without computers, i believe computers are evil and should not be allowed in public, therefore all laptops and other computing devices must be banned from public. it's my right after all, so why is your right to have your ipod or laptop in public supreme to my right to live in a world without those things.
    It seems that you only view your rights as being measurable. That's just ignorance, and inability to see things in a broader spectrum. But keep on keepin' on, man.
    0 Likes, 0 , 0 , 0
  17. Osiris's Avatar
    It really has the potential to become a shitstorm of stupidity. The argument stems from someone's inability to answer a single question (which I answer in the thread that sparked this blog). Running around in circles with semantic arguments isn't getting him anywhere. It's just skirting the issue at the heart of it.
    0 Likes, 0 , 0 , 0
  18. Solanine's Avatar
    You miss the point entirely reaper. All good citizens should take action to maintain their rights but at the same time you must consider the responsibilities that come with them. You cannot accept rights without accepting that all others have those same rights. If you expect the right to own whatever property you see fit eg guns you must also accept my right to own nuclear weapons, chemical warfare agents and the like. If you and the majority don't accept my right to property the surely you cannot refuse the majorities when they decide its not acceptable for you to own guns. At the end of the day a rights first society doesn't work because it allows no room for compromise. Without compromise we return to a state in which strength rules and return to out primitive roots.

    Your arguments are highly persuasive and have caused me to question myself in the past reaper but are ultimately flawed.

    I'm plenty happy to continue discussing this but only in a debate between two people. Most threads get out of hand and disintegrate into a chaos of TLDR posts.
    0 Likes, 0 , 0 , 0