Can we try this again?

[Caveman_Nick]

In both cases, the government has spelled out the rules.

 

This cuts to the heart of what is wrong.

 

"The government" did not spell out the rules. Men spelled out the rules in the formation of the government and spelled them out specifically so that the government could do nothing to damage or change the rules.

 

The big problem is that later men in the government found loopholes in the language that they could use to circumvent the prohibitions and usurp power over things that the federal government was not meant to have.

 

Cycle that over time long enough and combine it with enough acceptance by the people and that gets us to your argument. That is one born of the cycle that the government was supposed to be built to defend against. And it succeeded for 2 reasons.

 

1) In general people are too ignorant of what is going on to try and make an informed difference.

2) The effort involved in making a difference is significantly more than most people want to bother with.

 

Government agents know this, and so those people manipulate and work to exert influence in ways they can get away with. So long as enough individual alarms do not go off at once they are free to continue to perpetrate whatever invasion of freedom that fits within that bounding box.

[detlef]

This cuts to the heart of what is wrong.

 

"The government" did not spell out the rules. Men spelled out the rules in the formation of the government and spelled them out specifically so that the government could do nothing to damage or change the rules.

 

The big problem is that later men in the government found loopholes in the language that they could use to circumvent the prohibitions and usurp power over things that the federal government was not meant to have.

 

Cycle that over time long enough and combine it with enough acceptance by the people and that gets us to your argument. That is one born of the cycle that the government was supposed to be built to defend against. And it succeeded for 2 reasons.

 

1) In general people are too ignorant of what is going on to try and make an informed difference.

2) The effort involved in making a difference is significantly more than most people want to bother with.

 

Government agents know this, and so those people manipulate and work to exert influence in ways they can get away with. So long as enough individual alarms do not go off at once they are free to continue to perpetrate whatever invasion of freedom that fits within that bounding box.

Is or is not the government a reflection of those who built that government? Sure, men spelled out the rules but these men were appointed, or appointed themselves, to be the men who defined our government. And let's not pretend that these men were necc. any more noble than the men who have followed them in the same position. As you have recognized, these men left a lot of people out in the cold when they started putting the divine list of rights of humans on paper. So, at the end of the day, it was our first government who defined what "rights" were important. And that list was not only flawed but are also tainted by implied association with something more profound than a bunch of dudes sitting in a room, arguing over what we should and should not be able to do to each other.

 

As for the bit about rights being something that takes nothing away from someone else. As a white man, my say in what goes on is diluted by the fact that black men and women can now vote. Once upon a time, I had to share my say with about 40% or so of the adults around. Now every man, not just white, and adult women get a say as well. That increases the likelihood of laws that promote equality among non-white men and women in the workplace and, thus, may cut into my earning power. Now, that doesn't mean that my privileged status was appropriate or proper, but it existed none the less, more so than it does now. Now that the US as a whole as seen that these "rights" that women and black men were born with but deprived the privileged status of being able to enjoy, by that same US, can now enjoy, my demographic now has to share something they once had all to themselves.

[Caveman_Nick]

Is or is not the government a reflection of those who built that government? Sure, men spelled out the rules but these men were appointed, or appointed themselves, to be the men who defined our government. And let's not pretend that these men were necc. any more noble than the men who have followed them in the same position. As you have recognized, these men left a lot of people out in the cold when they started putting the divine list of rights of humans on paper. So, at the end of the day, it was our first government who defined what "rights" were important. And that list was not only flawed but are also tainted by implied association with something more profound than a bunch of dudes sitting in a room, arguing over what we should and should not be able to do to each other.

 

As for the bit about rights being something that takes nothing away from someone else. As a white man, my say in what goes on is diluted by the fact that black men and women can now vote. Once upon a time, I had to share my say with about 40% or so of the adults around. Now every man, not just white, and adult women get a say as well. That increases the likelihood of laws that promote equality among non-white men and women in the workplace and, thus, may cut into my earning power. Now, that doesn't mean that my privileged status was appropriate or proper, but it existed none the less, more so than it does now. Now that the US as a whole as seen that these "rights" that women and black men were born with but deprived the privileged status of being able to enjoy, by that same US, can now enjoy, my demographic now has to share something they once had all to themselves.

 

I don't mean to be flip, but I am not really sure what your point is in this post or where you are going.

 

The bill of rights as written treats people equally. It always did. It just wasn't always applied that way. Thankfully we are past that.

 

It was a different time and a different world. The actors in those events acted within the parameters of the world they knew. They just happened to be more brilliant in what they did than even they knew.

 

Nothing you are writing (as far as I am reading and interpreting) is a valid counterpoint or answer to the question I first put to you of:

 

If you (or anyone) can't operate from this basis in an argument that you want to make about what rights exist, why, how they are granted, what's done to protect them, etc., then in that same argument you are undermining the very foundation and reason for the establishment of our government in the first place.

 

Let me put the question another way: Are you saying that the government was not put together for the purpose of securing these rights and liberties as they were understood in the time frame in which they were written? And if not, then for what purpose was it put together.

 

Or are you saying that the purpose for which our government was put together is no longer valid?

[Perchoutofwater]

"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Slavery has so frightful an aspect to men accustomed to freedom that it must steal in upon them by degrees and must disguise itself in a thousand shapes in order to be received." -David Hume, Scottish philosopher

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

First they came for the wealthy heirs, and I did nothing because I was not a wealthy heir.

Edited March 31, 2010 by CaP'N GRuNGe

[Ursa Majoris]

Det, I think you are overlooking something very important in your rants here. I will try and boil it down.

 

When we talk of rights and such and our ownership of them not only as people but as citizens of this country, we must remember the genesis off this entire discussion.

 

 

 

Whether or not you believe in a Creator or choose to refer to the these rights as "natural rights", I think you and anyone who would engage in the discussion of what rights matter (including myself) should at least try to recognize the scope of what The Founders were trying to accomplish.

 

In the drafting of the Bill of Rights it was established what these men thought were the rights that our government should secure and be bound to. That the government is created to secure them and not to grant them is a very important concept to the discussion. Exactly what is being said in that portion of the Declaration is that we are born to these rights. Nobody gives them to us. We have created a government in order to protect these rights against tyrants, not to grant them.

 

That these amendments are all listed as negative statements defining what the government shall not do is also something that is very telling. The first amendment does not say "The American People Have The Right To Free Speach". It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

That is the general theme of their wording, and are worded so for the very purpose of recognizing that we have these rights and that the government exists to secure them and not to interfere with them.

 

If you (or anyone) can't operate from this basis in an argument that you want to make about what rights exist, why, how they are granted, what's done to protect them, etc., then in that same argument you are undermining the very foundation and reason for the establishment of our government in the first place.

I think this is in line for Most Erudite and Well Argued Post Of The Year.

[westvirginia]

I don't mean to be flip, but I am not really sure what your point is in this post or where you are going.

 

The bill of rights as written treats people equally. It always did. It just wasn't always applied that way. Thankfully we are past that.

 

It was a different time and a different world. The actors in those events acted within the parameters of the world they knew. They just happened to be more brilliant in what they did than even they knew.

 

Nothing you are writing (as far as I am reading and interpreting) is a valid counterpoint or answer to the question I first put to you of:

 

 

 

Let me put the question another way: Are you saying that the government was not put together for the purpose of securing these rights and liberties as they were understood in the time frame in which they were written? And if not, then for what purpose was it put together.

 

Or are you saying that the purpose for which our government was put together is no longer valid?

 

Gee, I just wish I had as much of a clue as to what we were arguing about as detlef does. He's so awesome...

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Det, I think you are overlooking something very important in your rants here. I will try and boil it down.

 

When we talk of rights and such and our ownership of them not only as people but as citizens of this country, we must remember the genesis off this entire discussion.

 

 

 

Whether or not you believe in a Creator or choose to refer to the these rights as "natural rights", I think you and anyone who would engage in the discussion of what rights matter (including myself) should at least try to recognize the scope of what The Founders were trying to accomplish.

 

In the drafting of the Bill of Rights it was established what these men thought were the rights that our government should secure and be bound to. That the government is created to secure them and not to grant them is a very important concept to the discussion. Exactly what is being said in that portion of the Declaration is that we are born to these rights. Nobody gives them to us. We have created a government in order to protect these rights against tyrants, not to grant them.

 

That these amendments are all listed as negative statements defining what the government shall not do is also something that is very telling. The first amendment does not say "The American People Have The Right To Free Speach". It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

That is the general theme of their wording, and are worded so for the very purpose of recognizing that we have these rights and that the government exists to secure them and not to interfere with them.

 

If you (or anyone) can't operate from this basis in an argument that you want to make about what rights exist, why, how they are granted, what's done to protect them, etc., then in that same argument you are undermining the very foundation and reason for the establishment of our government in the first place.

 

Regarding the bolded, the amendments say the fedgov shall not blah blah blah. It does not say the fedgov shall prevent the private sector from engaging in blah blah blah though. So it does not exist to secure them, but only to not interfere with them. Right?

 

Free speech does not exist in the workplace. Your employer can prevent you from carrying a weapon into the workplace. Etc etc.

Edited March 31, 2010 by CaP'N GRuNGe

[Caveman_Nick]

Regarding the bolded, the amendments say the fedgov shall not blah blah blah. It does not say the fedgov shall prevent the private sector from engaging in blah blah blah though. So it does not exist to secure them, but only to not interfere with them. Right?

 

Free speech does not exist in the workplace. Your employer can prevent you from carrying a weapon into the workplace. Etc etc.

 

(without looking at them all to be 100% certain) The amendments appear to be specifically structured to protect people from tyranny by the government.

 

There are other laws that deal with the private sector. I think it's pretty easy to argue that the constitution is meant to deal specifically with defining the role and requirements of the federal government.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Caveman_Nick

[The Mucca]

(without looking at them all to be 100% certain) The amendments appear to be specifically structured to protect people from tyranny by the government.

 

There are other laws that deal with the private sector. I think it's pretty easy to argue that the constitution is meant to deal specifically with defining the role and requirements of the federal government.

 

 

Tell that to todays politicians and they'll just laugh.

[westvirginia]

Regarding the bolded, the amendments say the fedgov shall not blah blah blah. It does not say the fedgov shall prevent the private sector from engaging in blah blah blah though. So it does not exist to secure them, but only to not interfere with them. Right?

 

Free speech does not exist in the workplace. Your employer can prevent you from carrying a weapon into the workplace. Etc etc.

 

Most relationships with private businesses are at-will/by choice. Gov't is the only entity that can legally use force to accomplish it's goals - remember. That's the distinction right there.