Jump to content

What does Freedom mean?


philthygeezer

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members
Do we really need to rehash the fact that, according to hundreds of years of precedent, your statements aren't correct? Hasn't the last dozen times been enough?
:facepalm:



Doesn't mean he has to agree with it. Precedent or not. I know from a LEGAL standpoint you are correct, but I still disagree with it.

There are several laws I disagree with. Including this one and eminent domain (at least how it is practiced).

And the great thing is, I'm free to do so. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

 

Good law should reflect natural law, otherwise men will buck underneath the strain of it. Obviously there should be laws about murder and theft and the like, but not laws restricting what you can do with your own life or on your own property. We've come a long way from that though, take my own state of Minnesota for example...

We have a statewide smoking ban. I despise smoking, but I have a very big problem with the government coming out and preventing people from allowing it on their
own private property
. If I own a bar, it should be MY choice whether or not smoking is allowed. The government should have no say in it. Doing so is an infringement on property rights, and once they start going down this road, there's no telling where it will end.

 

 

 

Should you as a bar owner have the choice of having the bar's roof held up with furring strips? Should you have the choice of removing the plumbing and having a bucket for patrons to relieve themselves into? Should you have the choice of running exposed bare wires in the building and not using any fuses or circuit breakers? Should you have the choice of allowing food and drink to rot in the building, and insect and rodent infestations overtake the property.

 

There is no difference between these forms of public safety law and a smoking ban in public establishments. You can smoke in your bar if you feel you need that choice. But that choice will entail closing it to the public, just as any violation of the laws I outlined above will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Doesn't mean he has to agree with it. Precedent or not. I know from a LEGAL standpoint you are correct, but I still disagree with it.

 

 

Except he didn't just say "I disagree with this", he said "Doing so is an infringement on property rights, and once they start going down this road, there's no telling where it will end."

 

That's a statement of fact, and it's one not supported by history. The government has been using this interpretation for as long as it's existed. If it's a slippery slope, then the slide is pretty slow indeed. :poke:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Because the government is required to properly compensate those whose property is taken. Property rights are not just about ownership and control, but about value and just compensation. The prohibition of "takings" (appropriation without compensation) was a major element of the property rights theory put forth by the founding fathers.


Further, no right is absolute, but there is a difference between limitation and infringement. Even the most absolute right in the United States, that of the Freedom of Speech, is limited (though in the case of Speech, that limitation is exceedingly minor and exceeding specific). Those limitations stem from the recognition that sometimes the exercise of the rights of individuals clash with each other, and there must be a resolution.



Another way to say it: There are obviously pragmatic concerns to be considered, and I wouldn't say otherwise (if that's how it seemed, I wasn't clear enough). But the idea to which I was objecting was not that
"sometimes rights get limited/aren't absolute"
, but that the Constitution operates under some kind of utilitarian equation measuring individual rights against community rights. Communities don't have rights as communities. Individuals have rights, and the rights of "a community" is merely the collective rights of the individuals who make up that community. The measure is always the rights of an individual vs. the rights of an individual (no matter how many individuals are in the equation)...



I hope that's clear. For some reason, the words I'm looking for seem elusive this evening...

 

 

I guess maybe "rights of the community" would've been better phrased as "needs (or even in some cases I guess, desires) of the community"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I guess maybe "rights of the community" would've been better phrased as "needs (or even in some cases I guess, desires) of the community"



In which case I wouldn't even have acknowledged as much as I did. :D

The needs/desires of a community are completely and entirely irrelevant in the face of the rights of even one individual.

The only way your rights can be curtailed is in the face of a competing right. It doesn't matter if 50 million people desire to kill you, your right to life can tell the whole lot of them to {censored} off.

Rights are inalienable and inviolate. The only way that limitations can be allowed is when the rights of two or more individuals are in conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Should you as a bar owner have the choice of having the bar's roof held up with furring strips? Should you have the choice of removing the plumbing and having a bucket for patrons to relieve themselves into? Should you have the choice of running exposed bare wires in the building and not using any fuses or circuit breakers? Should you have the choice of allowing food and drink to rot in the building, and insect and rodent infestations overtake the property.


There is no difference between these forms of public safety law and a smoking ban in public establishments. You can smoke in your bar if you feel you need that choice. But that choice will entail closing it to the public, just as any violation of the laws I outlined above will.

 

 

Well, the state does have the authority to regulate behavior, as has been the case since the nation's founding. Pertinent issues of public safety are perfectly acceptable areas for legislation, as is the case with most building and health codes (as you used for examples). However, the smoking ban is where they start to overreach. They stretch "public safety" to include second-hand smoke (only a minor health threat, despite what anti-smoking advocates say), and then take it further to ban smoking on private property. I'm okay if a state wants to ban smoking on public lands if that's what reflects the will of the people. I don't agree with it, but to me that's not egregious as banning it in someone's private establishment. If I own Joe's Bar, I should be able to decided whether or not smoking is allowed. I'm not forcing anyone to patronize my business or work there.

 

I do believe the smoking ban in a private establishments is an overreach, and fits the slippery slope, at least here in Minnesota. First, individual cities introduced bans, then before you know it we had a statewide ban. Now, they've introduced a plan to ban smoking in cars, at least when children are inside. What's next, banning smoking in someone's house? Sorry, if you have kids at home, you can't smoke in your own home. While I think smoking with kids in the car makes for truly despicable parenting, we don't need a nanny state telling us what to do. Also, look at all the other bans throughout the country justified under the banner of "public health." Trans-fat bans. Fast food bans. It just keeps getting bigger and bigger. While the latter aren't necessarily private property violations, they still are massive government overreaches.

 

We also have plenty of other private property violations. The DNR will now tell you that you can't cut down trees even if you own the land. They'll tell you what you can and can't do with your private property. Want to build a a small dock because you have lakefront property? Sorry, gov't says no. What about using a barbecue grill or a fire pit in your yard? Nope, gov't says no. Obviously there needs to be some rules so people don't start strip mining in their backyards, but things have gone too far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The only way your rights can be curtailed is in the face of a competing right. It doesn't matter if 50 million people
desire
to kill you, your right to life can tell the whole lot of them to {censored} off.


Rights are inalienable and inviolate. The only way that limitations can be allowed is when the rights of two or more individuals are in conflict.

 

 

Ok how does this work within scenarios involving war criminals or executions then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

My guess is the justification is that the executed person surrender their own right to life when they chose to take another persons.

 

 

That's the lion's share of the justification. The idea of rights in the US assumes as a premise many elements of the idea of the social contract. Rights exist as the means by which the individual can involve themselves in society and still remain protected from predation and harm. Choosing to violate the rights of another is inherently removing one's self from the protection of the social contract.

 

 

That said, I personally am of the opinion that the death penalty cannot be properly exercised without an inherent violation of due process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I personally am of the opinion that violations regarding "age of consent" statutes cannot be properly exercised without an inherent violation of due process.



I personally am of the opinion that if and when I have a daughter, I will due process your ass with a .357 if you come within 100 miles of her...:wave:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's the lion's share of the justification. The idea of rights in the US assumes as a premise many elements of the idea of the social contract. Rights exist as the means by which the individual can involve themselves in society and still remain protected from predation and harm. Choosing to violate the rights of another is inherently removing one's self from the protection of the social contract.



That said, I personally am of the opinion that the death penalty cannot be properly exercised without an inherent violation of due process.

 

 

Thanks for the clarification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...