govt power vs. individual rights

[Perd Hapley]

Tell me if I have this right, in theory.

We citizens, individuals, have rights.  Our government has the power we give it.  So govt can do only what we tell it do, but we can do whatever we want, so long as we respect the rights of others.  This is simplistic, but I think it suffices to get my meaning across.

Therefore it would be silly to say, "The government has a right to do thus and so."  Rather, the government has the duty and/or the power to do certain things, but can't be said to have a right to do anything.  

Further, an individual or a group of individuals (like an evil corporation) has much more liberty to do as it wishes than a govt.  I can carry any gun I want, however I want (in theory) while a soldier or police officer can carry only what is authorized.  So, a cop has a duty or power to scrutinize my weapon-carrying if there is probable cause to believe I am acting illegally but I have a moral right to carry, while he is only acting on the instructions of a govt.  Naturally, he has the same rights I do when he puts on civilian clothes.

How's that sound?

[Art Eatman]

Close enough.

The problems tend to be from the emotions/character of those who either get into politics or work for government.  The entire mindset sees government power as a "right" and sees ithe use of this power as being in the realm of "ought to do".  That is, a view that they're supposed to create an orderly universe in which round pegs fit in round holes.

Lotsa people have sharp edges.  This creates conflict.

That's why I keep talking about getting involved in politics, trying to help find candidates who have at least some idea of the little-ell libertarian view of the world and government.  I'm talking about getting to know the local power structure people who work within all parties--not just the party you favor.  It's pretty much pointless to bitch about ordinances or laws after they're passed.

And any agency in any level of government--whether administrative or enforcement--can always find people who are happy and willing to exercise government's force.

Art

[Guest]

... So govt can do only what we tell it (to) do, ...How's that sound?

That's what we citizens have been taught to believe.

 Anyone with two eyes and a brain can see that it is we who are told what to do by the state.

 OTOH, if a majority of citizens strongly objected to the current state, it couldn't exist. Obviously, most are quite happy with it - even here on APS.

[The Rabbi]

What is the difference between a right and a power?

[Perd Hapley]

Good question, gentle sir.

I would say that a right is something inherent in the individual, which he must be allowed to exercise, while powers describe someone's capabilities, what he is capable of doing.

Rights are a moral concept, while power is more a matter of fact.

[Stickjockey]

I think that in a governmental sense, a power is more of an authority given to a body, while a right is, as Fistful said, inherent as a condition of an individual's existence.

Right:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
(Declaration of Independence)

Power:

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
(Constitution, Article 1)

So "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" are ours simply because we exist, while "all legislative Powers granted herein" belong to congress because we (through the Constitution) say they do.

Unfortunately, mercedesrules has a good point.

[The Rabbi]

I would say that a right is something inherent in the individual, which he must be allowed to exercise, while powers describe someone's capabilities, what he is capable of doing.

Rights are a moral concept, while power is more a matter of fact.

What is the source of this "right"?  When you say "must be allowed to exercise" do you mean at all times and in all situations?
I agree that rights are a moral concept.

We have had numerous discussions here over time on this.  My position is that "rights" are simply what society says they are.  There are no inherent rights in any person.  No one has succesfully argued against this (my favorite from one poster here was "just trust me on this.").  Most "arguments" take the ipse dixit form of "the Founders thought so."  Yes they did.  That doesnt make it correct.

[Perd Hapley]

 When you say "must be allowed to exercise" do you mean at all times and in all situations?

You must be allowed to exercise your rights at any time and in any situation in which you have rights.  To use the old stand-by, you have a right to shout "Fire!" while standing in a vacant lot, but you don't have a right to do so in the proverbial crowded theater.  It's not that your right is denied or that your right is overridden by the concern for public safety.  It is that you don't have such a right to begin with.  

To use another old stand-by, you have a right to swing your arm when it only connects with air, with the wall of your house, or with the face of someone who is attacking you unjustly.  However, the law prohibits punching an innocent person.  Your rights aren't denied here, because you don't have a right to swing your arm where it will connect with my face.

 

I agree that rights are a moral concept....What is the source of this "right"?....We have had numerous discussions here over time on this.  My position is that "rights" are simply what society says they are.  There are no inherent rights in any person.

Very glad to discuss this.  A few years ago, when pondering the subject, I decided it was wrong to attribute to God (at least the Christian God) the concept of human rights, when He hadn't mentioned it.  Rights, I thought, are just a social convention we use to explain what free people ought to be allowed to do.  On further reflection, though, I must conclude that this concept assumes a morality of whatever kind.  

Rights must be inherent, though, or the concept is meaningless.  I think what you are saying Rabbi, is that you don't believe in human rights, you believe in majority rule.

[m1911owner]

"All legislative Powers herein grantedshall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
(Constitution, Article 1)

StickJockey, I agree.  There is another emphasis which I also find interesting:

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
(Constitution, Article 1)

It seems to me that We the People created a very specific process for creating federal laws.  All federal laws.  This process is designed with some faily high hurdles--A law has to be passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and be signed by the President, all of whom are elected officeholders.

This process by which we have the FCC, OSHA, EPA, and other alphabet-soup agencies creating laws (which they call "regulations", but the the jail cell is just as real if you violate their "regulations"), is clearly in violation of Article I, section 1.

Yes, I can hear the screams already: "But having a power means having the ability to delegate that power."  But this is clearly not the case.  There's that pesky word "All" again.  "All" means "all".  And when the Constitution intends for a power to be delegated, it says so.  The power to delegate some of the powers of the Supreme Court to inferior courts is explicitly defined.  The power of the President of the United States to delegate some of his powers to cabinet officers and military officers is also discussed.  No such power is given to the Congress to delegate its lawmaking power to other entities.

Which is how it should be.  As defined by the Constitution, the people have the right to review the actions of their Congressmen every two years, and vote out those who pass screwy laws.  How long would a Congressman continue to have his job if he voted to take millions of acres out a cultivation to preserve a species of rats?  To preserve a species of flies?  He would be voted out at the very next election.  But the EPA can do these things with impunity, because it is not answerable to the voters.

[The Rabbi]

 When you say "must be allowed to exercise" do you mean at all times and in all situations?

You must be allowed to exercise your rights at any time and in any situation in which you have rights.  To use the old stand-by, you have a right to shout "Fire!" while standing in a vacant lot, but you don't have a right to do so in the proverbial crowded theater.  It's not that your right is denied or that your right is overridden by the concern for public safety.  It is that you don't have such a right to begin with.  

To use another old stand-by, you have a right to swing your arm when it only connects with air, with the wall of your house, or with the face of someone who is attacking you unjustly.  However, the law prohibits punching an innocent person.  Your rights aren't denied here, because you don't have a right to swing your arm where it will connect with my face.

This seems like a distinction without a difference.  Especially since the areas where one does not have rights (on your theory) are not spelled out and change.

 

I agree that rights are a moral concept....What is the source of this "right"?....We have had numerous discussions here over time on this.  My position is that "rights" are simply what society says they are.  There are no inherent rights in any person.

Very glad to discuss this.  A few years ago, when pondering the subject, I decided it was wrong to attribute to God (at least the Christian God) the concept of human rights, when He hadn't mentioned it.  Rights, I thought, are just a social convention we use to explain what free people ought to be allowed to do.  On further reflection, though, I must conclude that this concept assumes a morality of whatever kind.  

Rights must be inherent, though, or the concept is meaningless.  I think what you are saying Rabbi, is that you don't believe in human rights, you believe in majority rule.

It obviously reflects a moral value, more especially the Christian background of the Founders, with an admixture of Greco-Roman culture.
You are right: I do not believe in rights as some amorphous ill-defined things that spring from some quasi-mystical source.  I believe rights are things generally agreed on by society to be so.  This seems obvious.

[The Rabbi]

"All legislative Powers herein grantedshall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
(Constitution, Article 1)

StickJockey, I agree.  There is another emphasis which I also find interesting:

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
(Constitution, Article 1)

It seems to me that We the People created a very specific process for creating federal laws.  All federal laws.  This process is designed with some faily high hurdles--A law has to be passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and be signed by the President, all of whom are elected officeholders.

This process by which we have the FCC, OSHA, EPA, and other alphabet-soup agencies creating laws (which they call "regulations", but the the jail cell is just as real if you violate their "regulations"), is clearly in violation of Article I, section 1.

One of my better teachers in college told me that when someone writes "obviously" or "clearly" he is on shaky ground.  It is so.
All of the alphabet agencies operate under an initial enabling legislation and are ultimately answerable to whatever branch they operate under (usually the Executive).  This has been the case since the founding.

[doczinn]

One of my better teachers in college told me that when someone writes "obviously" or "clearly" he is on shaky ground.

I believe rights are things generally agreed on by society to be so.  This seems obvious.

[The Rabbi]

Are you trying to make a point here?

[doczinn]

You made it.

[The Rabbi]

OK, so the answer is "no."  Thanks for clearing it up.

[...has left the building.]

One of my better teachers in college told me that when someone writes "obviously" or "clearly" he is on shaky ground.

I believe rights are things generally agreed on by society to be so.  This seems obvious.

Clearly that was friggin' awesome!

[...has left the building.]

All rights in my opinion stem from the right to life. Property rights, gun ownership, religion, etc. are just logical extensions of this. These rights are of course individual, since doing anything through forced collectivity infringes on some degree or another to another person's right to life. I don't think there is anyone in the entire world, besides sociopaths, that would argue that people do not have the right to live.

[doczinn]

Yet by advocating collectivism, that is exactly what many are arguing for. They don't want to take your whole life, just pieces of it.

[Werewolf]

Tell me if I have this right, in theory.

We citizens, individuals, have rights.  Our government has the power we give it.  So govt can do only what we tell it do, but we can do whatever we want, so long as we respect the rights of others.  This is simplistic, but I think it suffices to get my meaning across.

Therefore it would be silly to say, "The government has a right to do thus and so."  Rather, the government has the duty and/or the power to do certain things, but can't be said to have a right to do anything.  

Further, an individual or a group of individuals (like an evil corporation) has much more liberty to do as it wishes than a govt.  I can carry any gun I want, however I want (in theory) while a soldier or police officer can carry only what is authorized.  So, a cop has a duty or power to scrutinize my weapon-carrying if there is probable cause to believe I am acting illegally but I have a moral right to carry, while he is only acting on the instructions of a govt.  Naturally, he has the same rights I do when he puts on civilian clothes.

How's that sound?

In theory you've got the role of government down pat. Really - I am not being sarcastic.  

The reality, however, is somewhat different.

If one really believes that any contemporary world government today derives its power from its citizens or that those same governments are not power devouring, vampiric, controlling, and self serving multilithic organizations then I want some of the DRUGS you believers are doing. It must be nice to live in a world with pink skies and blue bunnies.

[Perd Hapley]

This seems like a distinction without a difference.  Especially since the areas where one does not have rights (on your theory) are not spelled out and change.

You could not be more wrong.  There is a world of difference between a denial of rights and a lack of rights.  Would you prefer that I phrase it as "My right to life supersedes your right to yell fire in the crowded theater."?  This seems very messy to me.  But how do these rights change?  You never have a right to speak if that speech presents a clear, immanent, physical danger to an innocent person.  Nor do you ever have a right to punch if your fists will land in the face of the innocent.  And if you want everything spelled out, then I guess you are a big fan of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, or whatever it's called.

I do not believe in rights as some amorphous ill-defined things that spring from some quasi-mystical source.  I believe rights are things generally agreed on by society to be so.  This seems obvious.

I wouldn't say the Christian beliefs of the founding generation were quasi-mystical, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there.  "Generally agreed on" seems correct, but these rights must be seen as being inherent, not something that can change with public opinion.  The very value of rights is that they remain fixed, once agreed upon.  I have a book by a fellow named Felix Morley, who made the observation that the Bill of Rights is anti-democratic, in that it restricts the will of the people.  The people may want to eliminate all Muslims from America, but the Bill of Rights presents a barrier that at least forces them to argue against religious toleration.  These protections can be overcome, of course.

I am probably not taking the time to write as clearly as I ought and witht the proper structure.  I apologize, but I spend too much time on the net as it is.

[The Rabbi]

I do not believe in rights as some amorphous ill-defined things that spring from some quasi-mystical source.  I believe rights are things generally agreed on by society to be so.  This seems obvious.

I wouldn't say the Christian beliefs of the founding generation were quasi-mystical, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there.  "Generally agreed on" seems correct, but these rights must be seen as being inherent, not something that can change with public opinion.  The very value of rights is that they remain fixed, once agreed upon.  I have a book by a fellow named Felix Morley, who made the observation that the Bill of Rights is anti-democratic, in that it restricts the will of the people.  The people may want to eliminate all Muslims from America, but the Bill of Rights presents a barrier that at least forces them to argue against religious toleration.  These protections can be overcome, of course.

I am probably not taking the time to write as clearly as I ought and witht the proper structure.  I apologize, but I spend too much time on the net as it is.

They are "mystical" in the sense that there is no proof what they are, much less that they exist at all.  They are simply "endowed by our Creator" by some unspecified process.
But rights do change with public opinion.  Do you have a right to privacy?  You do since the Griswold decision but not before that.  Many states had laws against miscegenation and no one thought people's rights were being infringed until courts began striking them down in the 1950s.  Libel standards were very different 100 years ago.  I could go on and on.  Yes there are some constants provided by the BOR but the way that is read has changed historically.

[Guest]

I like to think of rights as created by implication, contract, promise or agreement. I offer the right of "freedom from my interference in your life, liberty and property" to all. If they reciprocate, fine. If they don't, I retract my offer.

 For instance, if someone doesn't interfere with my gun ownership, I respect theirs. If they would try to interfere with my gun ownership, I assume they accept my interference with their similar right.

 In practice, I am hesitant to take that person's gun...but it would be justified. One can't justly claim a "right" for oneself that one does not extend to others.

[...has left the building.]

Yet by advocating collectivism, that is exactly what many are arguing for. They don't want to take your whole life, just pieces of it.

Very true. The problem is though, that some manner of "collectivism" is necessary for society to function. Voluntary is of course the good kind, involuntary the bad. Unfortunately for those who are self-driven, upright sort of people, history has shown us that there isn't any society that doesn't impose its will on people in some way or another.

[roo_ster]

One of my better teachers in college told me that when someone writes "obviously" or "clearly" he is on shaky ground.

I believe rights are things generally agreed on by society to be so.  This seems obvious.

Ouch.

Petard

[roo_ster]

Power ultimately only respects greater power.

Our Founding Fathers (FF) recognized this part of human nature and tried to craft a gov't that had two major checks and one minor check.

The minor check is what we know of as "checks & balances" in the COTUS.  It is decentralization of power into the three branches of gov't.  Competition between the three is key, here.

The first major check was the invokation of a higher being (Creator) that grants right to citizens.  By implication, those who use power will answer for their actions in the afterlife, if not on earth.  This check has been eroded by the secularization of American society and especially by the rise of the secular progessives in gov't, media, and academia.  Undermining faith has the unintended consequence of undermining our liberties.

The second major check was the armed citizenry.  If the person wielding the power of the state does not fear punishment in the afterlife, perhaps the prospect of having punishment meted out by fellow citizens would do the trick.  Gun control advocates and the usurpation of this power by fed.gov has brought nearer the necessity to use our arms.  Generally, where gun control is strong, liberties are weak, since the ruling class has less to fear.