American Constitution Losing Appeal

Page 5 of 6 [ 96 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

09 Feb 2012, 6:08 pm

Ayn Rand is the perfect example of a shallow thinker who should have read more philosophy.

It's as if it has never occurred to her that there is more than one way for a thing to exist. "Rights exist!" she exclaims, as if she has dug up some Rights on an archaeological expedition. For her next trick, she will prove that the number 3 exists by finding it at the bottom of a well.

Rights exist, and rights are things that are granted by legal systems. There is no contradiction here.

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

09 Feb 2012, 6:11 pm

abacacus wrote:

JWC wrote:

abacacus wrote:

The issue with Rands argument is that she is operating on the premise that people*have* intrinsic rights.

We have only one intrinsic right, the right to try to survive. Nothing else is granted just by being born human, and to pretend otherwise is foolish.

Isn't that the same thing that Rand says here:

Quote:

There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action...

Vaguely, aside from the fact that no corollaries or consequences exist. We have that one right, and that is the only right granted to us by nature/god/whatever you want to call it.

So there are no limits upon the actions we are allowed to take in order to survive?

abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

09 Feb 2012, 6:13 pm

JWC wrote:

So there are no limits upon the actions we are allowed to take in order to survive?

In our base state, no. No limits at all. Murder, thievery, it's all fair game. Looking at history should tell you that.

Thankfully I believe we are evolving past that.

_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

09 Feb 2012, 6:21 pm

abacacus wrote:

JWC wrote:

So there are no limits upon the actions we are allowed to take in order to survive?

In our base state, no. No limits at all. Murder, thievery, it's all fair game. Looking at history should tell you that.

Thankfully I believe we are evolving past that.

But are we in our "base state", or are we living in an advanced, industrialized society? Isn't part of evolving past that the recognition of what actions are necessary and allowable to maintain our continued survival in our "evolved state"?

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

09 Feb 2012, 6:27 pm

Declension wrote:

By definition a right must exist at all times and in all places. If a legal system were to grant a right, then it could not have existed before the legal system granted it. But if there was a time before it was a right, it doesn't meet the definition of a right; hence it is not a right. So, yes, by the very definition of what a right is, it is a contradiction to say the a right can be 'granted'.

Declension
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

09 Feb 2012, 6:38 pm

JWC wrote:

By definition a right must exist at all times and in all places.

By your definition. That's very convenient, isn't it?

Here's something to get you thinking. Happiness exists, doesn't it? There is such a thing as happiness, right?

Well, has happiness existed at all times and in all places? I'm not asking whether there have been happy things at all times and all places. I'm asking whether the concept of happiness has always existed.

The number 3 exists, right? Well, if there were only two things in the universe, would the number 3 still exist?

Declension
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

09 Feb 2012, 6:47 pm

The point I'm trying to make is:

The number 3, happiness, and human rights all have something in common.

They're nouns, but they're not actually objects. They're actually properties of objects.

There is no object called "happiness". However, there is an property, "being happy", that can be applied to people.

There is no object called "the number 3". However, there is a property, "having three things in it", that can be applied to collections of objects.

There is no object called "the right to free speech". However, there is a property, "having the right to free speech", that can be applied to legal systems.

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

09 Feb 2012, 6:48 pm

ruveyn wrote:

If we ever started from scratch I would not give a plugged nickle for our Right to Free Speech and even less for our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. A New Constitution would be a master-piece of neo-Fascist Liberalism. The State would be ueber alles and it would be firmly stated so in writing. A new Constitution would leave us with half the liberties we enjoy now and which have been eroding for the last hundred years.

We would end up with an explicitly Politically Correct Constitution and be the worse off for it.

ruveyn

I think you are being somewhat overdramatic. But you have somewhat boxed yourself into a corner, because if you specifically reject the "living tree" approach to constitutional interpretation, then you are going to have to accept that you need to go back to the well, and revisit your text more often than not. If the courts did not have the power to adapt the interpretation of the constitution to fit emerging circumstances, then your nation would not have the economic standing that it does today. Government has, of necessity, stepped into fields where no field existed in 1789. Are you seriously suggesting that a constitutional amendment ought properly to have been passed before the US Department of Transportation or the Federal Communications Commission was created?

_________________
--James

snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

09 Feb 2012, 6:57 pm

We are losing our rights to fears that are blown way out of proportion. Some fears, I wouldn't doubt, were engineered.

abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

09 Feb 2012, 7:08 pm

JWC wrote:

abacacus wrote:

JWC wrote:

So there are no limits upon the actions we are allowed to take in order to survive?

In our base state, no. No limits at all. Murder, thievery, it's all fair game. Looking at history should tell you that.

Thankfully I believe we are evolving past that.

That's the thing, we do live in a slightly more civilized world, hence most countries have bills of rights... but those rights can be removed. Our right to attempt survival cannot.

_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.

CoMF
Deinonychus

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

09 Feb 2012, 7:20 pm

JWC wrote:

What do you believe is the source of your rights?

I am. They're intrinsic to me as an individual.

abacacus wrote:

That's the thing, we do live in a slightly more civilized world, hence most countries have bills of rights... but those rights can be removed. Our right to attempt survival cannot.

No, the access to those rights can be removed. At least in theory, anyway. "The Law" isn't something that can change free will. It can attempt to make it conform to what its framers intended, but only you have the power to change it.

abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

09 Feb 2012, 7:27 pm

CoMF wrote:

abacacus wrote:

That's the thing, we do live in a slightly more civilized world, hence most countries have bills of rights... but those rights can be removed. Our right to attempt survival cannot.

Not so. I can remove all of your rights very easily, by killing you or removing you from your country (and holding you in a Third World location).

Simple. Your rights are then gone. Completely.

_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.

CoMF
Deinonychus

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

09 Feb 2012, 7:40 pm

abacacus wrote:

Not so. I can remove all of your rights very easily, by killing you or removing you from your country (and holding you in a Third World location).

Simple. Your rights are then gone. Completely.

You do realize you've just inadvertently proven my point, right?

abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

09 Feb 2012, 7:43 pm

CoMF wrote:

abacacus wrote:

Not so. I can remove all of your rights very easily, by killing you or removing you from your country (and holding you in a Third World location).

Simple. Your rights are then gone. Completely.

You do realize you've just inadvertently proven my point, right?

Maybe so, but the end result is the same. Your rights are gone.

_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Feb 2012, 7:47 pm

visagrunt wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

I think you are being somewhat overdramatic. But you have somewhat boxed yourself into a corner, because if you specifically reject the "living tree" approach to constitutional interpretation,

I believe in amendments, not twisting language like a pretzel. If the Constitution is deficient or flawed then amend it or abolish it.

Ideally we should have a new Constitution every 30 years. That way every living soul will have had a hand (direct or indirect) in forging the Constitution under which he lives. That takes care of your "living tree". Replant it in every generation.

ruveyn

CoMF
Deinonychus

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

09 Feb 2012, 8:15 pm

abacacus wrote:

Maybe so, but the end result is the same. Your rights are gone.

Practically speaking, yes. I concede that.

Page 5 of 6 [ 96 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

American Constitution Losing Appeal Post Reply New Topic

American Constitution Losing Appeal