If you do something that hurts others, then you are overstepping your rights. The specifics of what you cannot do you can find in the criminal law (and criminal laws can and often are different from location to location). So you can't murder somebody without expecting a retribution.
Your rights are not enumerated, because there is no reason to enumerate them. You have a right to do whatever, unless it violates somebody else's right in a way, that it is mandated that you are punished for this in criminal law.
That's all there is to it.
As to contract law - this is not about your rights, this is about a mutual agreement and penalties for not following the agreement between private parties. You can go to court over this, but it's not a criminal matter and has nothing to do with rights at all.
You are obligate by social contract to society as a whole
- nonsense. Just because you are born into a system doesn't mean you signed any contracts.
In fact these so called 'social contracts' are very one sided, where the past generations get to impose their views and choices, worse - their debts upon the young. The eventual conclusion will be that the young will leave (and the rest will have no economy and no jobs due to the choices that the previous generations made) and the old will have nobody to satisfy their desire for this social contract fulfillment.
Why are these social contracts always seem so one-sided, where the old impose their will on the young? Don't forget, the young will grow up and they may pay back in a manner different than what you expected from this so called 'contract' that the young didn't sign.
As to voting - this is not actually an obligation. It's a choice and we don't even want to have too many people vote, we prefer to have those who are much more informed, those who already worked in the system for some time to appreciate all of the "niceties" there.
As to paying taxes - this is not a moral obligation, it's only a legal one and it can and should be disputed all the time. AFAIC it is the MORAL obligation to pay as little taxes to the gov't as possible specifically because gov't destroys the economy and because its power is based upon the choices that you did not make.
Going to war - again, with the corrupt gov't this cannot be called a 'moral' obligation. In fact AFAIC it is IMMORAL to go to war, to any war especially now, that wars haven't been declared since the WWII and their objectives have nothing to do with anything gov't was authorized to do (protection of liberties/borders).
Getting an education - this is NOT a moral obligation in any sense of the word, in fact the gov't again has overstepped its boundaries that it forces the young to go through this corrupt and worthless "education system".
Not robbing people - this is great, keep it up mixing it with other stuff. If you asked me about one thing that didn't belong in your list, it's this one.
Getting gov't-mandated vaccinations - not a chance in hell. This is a personal matter, you may choose it, you may skip it, if gov't forces you, you should fight against that gov't.
No, you are still alone when you are born, you open your eyes and see the light outside, that's the first light that enters your eyes anyway. But the point is that your mind is only within you, you are not sharing that with your twin.
So what makes the US Constitution & Amendments *the* document to enumerate all of the rights that are somehow inalienable? - nothing.
Nothing, because US Constitution does not enumerate all of the rights that are inalienable. You have all the rights, and things that you can be punished for are in criminal code. Things that gov't has rights to is in Constitution.
You need to step back and think about what you understand on this matter before asking more questions that only make it more apparent how uninformed you are.
I see you like my comments so much, you are leaving a response to every one of them. Is it because you think I am a 'self important idiot', that you have to do that, what is the fascination?
Also, it's you, who are a self important idiot, who thinks you have the right to walk over everybody's individual rights for your convenience.
You can't walk over the rights of individuals for your convenience. By the way, I am not saying everybody should stop using vaccines. I am saying it should be up to individual choices and it is obviously your choice too, and you choose for your child regarding the vaccines and regarding the places he/she visits with you.
I see your comments in this thread, you don't have to 'suffer' anything, you are free to leave your comments or to leave at any moment for other threads. Nobody can force you to stay (and nobody is interested in forcing you either.)
From your perspective idea of having liberties is equivalent of being 'parasitic', which shows your mindset, that is completely broken. The society doesn't exist so that individuals serve it, it exists to serve the individuals, and individuals deal with other individuals all the time, even if it's not them, who deals, even when somebody gets killed on purpose, there is a criminal system for that.
You want totalitarian control over other people's bodies, no less, if you don't get what you want, you call the people 'parasites'. I think it is you, who is a parasite on every individual's rights out there.
Everybody must be able to make their own choices regarding a few things in their lives, these include the choices about their bodies, their business and incomes and their dealings with other people. It's individual choices, and if individuals are forced by the society into choices they are not interested in, then it's in their best interest to make sure that a society like that is replaced with a better society, that serves the individuals.
As I said in this thread, once the gov't steps over individual rights, the gov't loses its mandate, it's legitimacy. There is no purpose for a gov't that destroys the individual's rights. Individuals can deal with individuals separately from gov't imposing itself for the 'good of society', there are courts for that, even criminal law can actually be applied if somebody knowingly hurts others in this kind of way.
Having gov't force people into choices that they are not willing to make about their own bodies turns that gov't from a protector of liberty to a dictatorial power, and this should not be tolerated by people, who care about their liberties.
I said - your rights cannot be taken away, but they can be violated by gov't.
If the system allows violation of personal rights for ANY other reason, than you have violated personal rights of others, then the system is out of balance. Also just because in many societies rights are stepped all over by governments, doesn't mean that the rights do not exist, it only means that governments are dictatorial and corrupt and need to be removed.
The USA had it correct - you have all the rights, and the Constitution was there to restrict the ability of government to exercise any sort of power. The gov't was there to protect your rights and liberties, ensure contract and criminal law and provide border security. That was a very concise, good system. It is now destroyed as the gov't has been usurped by all sorts of powers and the gov't is now very authoritative near totalitarian in nature, as it even allows itself to execute people without a trial.
No, they have to once again go Karel Capek on us here - RUR.
Do you believe that it is a bad thing that people have modernized the agriculture industry and allowed 5% of population to feed 100% of it? (By the way, if you are unsure about your career, still thinking what to do with yourself, I think it's a worthwhile pursuit at this point to think of farming / mining, average age of farmer in USA is 58 years and supplies are the lowest ever, thanks gov't subsidies).
This is nonsense. We want production, we don't want to work. We want more and more production and machines allow us to be more and more productive. We want as much leisure as possible, and we want as little work as possible.
The problem in our way is NOT the machine, the problem is government! Gov't is standing on our way, destroying free market capitalism and causing major job displacement, but in reality there are plenty of jobs, it's just artificial prices that gov't sets for labor are unsustainable in USA and rest of Western world.
With the machines we would still have jobs, but we would be much more productive. Also without gov't setting prices, in many cases humans would actually be more preferable and less expensive than the alternatives - machines, but gov't steps in, sets prices, causes massive imbalances in the economy and we end up with stories like this one.
Normally in bad economies people blame foreigners, bankers and journalists. Since the industrial revolution and the free market capitalism that allowed it, we are also blaming the machines.
No, the rights cannot be taken away. Rights are NOT granted to you by anybody, your gov't or anybody around you. Your rights are inalienable and that's that.
Your rights can be trampled and not protected and you may have to structure your gov't in a way that it is set to protect them rather than to step all over them, but the gov't steps all over them, then you truly do not have rights, because rights are not about your relationship with private people around you and you, it's about your relationship with the collective - the government.
If the gov't is taking your rights away, there is NO POINT to that gov't, there is no reason for it to exist, it's a moral imperative that you remove that gov't from power.
Some parents might get it into their heads that seat belts are dangerous and choose to not strap their children in. Do we allow it? No.
- even in this case it should be up to the individual and not the society. Whether you take the individual to court if there is an accident and the child is hurt is another matter, enforcing a rule of this type also goes against the rights of individual and I oppose this.
With vaccines it's even more important that we force the issue and mandate vaccinations because of the risk to the rest of the population that is caused by idiots who "exercise their right to choose" to expose themselves and the rest of society to these diseases.
- and as I said, the individual is more important than the society. If this notion is lost, then the society is not worth anything, it's garbage and should (and will) be destroyed. Trampling over individual rights by the means of force upon the decisions they make about their own bodies (and their children, by the way), is a good enough cause to destroy that society.
There is no point in supporting a system that takes away your liberties.
Now, I am not saying that people shouldn't use seat belts. I am not saying that people should not do vaccinations. I am saying it is as important a personal choice as any other personal choice, for example choice of abortion.
If it's individual vs a bunch of other individuals, then they can resolve it in court.
If it's individual vs society, then the rules are imposed by default and there is very little an individual can do.
BTW., everybody who is PRO-CHOICE should vote for Ron Paul, because he is against one monopoly system - federal gov't, from imposing one set of rules upon everybody.
Sure, some States can be pro-life but some will definitely be pro-choice. If you have ONE system that imposes that rule upon you, then you may lose that right, it only takes one Supreme Court decision that goes against what you stand for and you'll have that decision for the entire country.
It's like LA and weed and the federal war on drugs. Need I continue?
Who is saying that individuals cannot be held personally responsible for spreading disease to other individuals?
I don't see a reason why this is an impossible idea, in fact it's perfectly fine to say that no individual has the right to cause harm to other individual, it's right there, in the criminal code.
Irrelevant. Completely irrelevant argument based on convenience and not on the fact that society exists for individuals, not the other way around.
I will never condone society that imposes itself upon individual right to his own body this way.
If an individual causes disease to spread, that's between him and those who can be affected, but nothing more than that. There is no society if the individual in it has no choice regarding his/her own body. Society like that is irrelevant and deserves to be destroyed because it destroys individual. At the end of the day, we are all individuals, we are born and we die alone, it's not a group experience, so to individuals the only real question about society is: is it promoting more individual liberties (which is the correct society), or is it destroying the individual for some weird perverted notion of some form of 'higher collective good', which is pure nonsense.
One person is as important as every one single other person, but society is nothing at all, and only should serve the individuals, not destroy them.
Recommendation is one thing. Mandate is another altogether. I don't have a problem with somebody recommending something. I have a problem with somebody taking over your decisions about your body and your health (and yes, I think an individual rights are more important than the society, because individual is the smallest minority).
So you are for all these sociology majors getting into all of this debt rather than actually doing something useful with their lives, maybe NOT going to a universities to get those sociology majors with gov't "guaranteed" money?
I would rather see them figuring out something in their lives to do, to start some businesses, to become apprentices, to go to trade schools, to do something productive. And IF some of them want to go to colleges, they would have to get PRIVATE money (their own money or private loans based on some USEFUL education that they would get, something that they would be able to prove would allow them to pay the fees and interest back).
There is no need for all of these people in colleges.
YES, it should be that only people who really really benefit from college go there, not everybody just based on a herd mentality and gov't loans, thus worsening the college for everybody in both, tuition fees and quality.
But why does it have to be cheap to be a value system? It is valuable at the price that it is selling at, I don't see why 'value' automatically means 'extremely cheap'. It's not very cheap, and with 16GB of RAM it's even less cheap, but then again, if you do productive work with it, it's good value.
Just because you see in mono, doesn't make the characters around you one dimensional. You see people as cardboard cut outs, to you their only quality that matters is that they are rich or poor, and you see yourself as a puppet master, who needs and wants to pull the strings, it doesn't make you smart and it definitely doesn't improve your failed ideology in any way.
Slashdot Mirror
You have all the rights, all of them.
If you do something that hurts others, then you are overstepping your rights. The specifics of what you cannot do you can find in the criminal law (and criminal laws can and often are different from location to location). So you can't murder somebody without expecting a retribution.
Your rights are not enumerated, because there is no reason to enumerate them. You have a right to do whatever, unless it violates somebody else's right in a way, that it is mandated that you are punished for this in criminal law.
That's all there is to it.
As to contract law - this is not about your rights, this is about a mutual agreement and penalties for not following the agreement between private parties. You can go to court over this, but it's not a criminal matter and has nothing to do with rights at all.
You are obligate by social contract to society as a whole
- nonsense. Just because you are born into a system doesn't mean you signed any contracts.
In fact these so called 'social contracts' are very one sided, where the past generations get to impose their views and choices, worse - their debts upon the young. The eventual conclusion will be that the young will leave (and the rest will have no economy and no jobs due to the choices that the previous generations made) and the old will have nobody to satisfy their desire for this social contract fulfillment.
Why are these social contracts always seem so one-sided, where the old impose their will on the young? Don't forget, the young will grow up and they may pay back in a manner different than what you expected from this so called 'contract' that the young didn't sign.
As to voting - this is not actually an obligation. It's a choice and we don't even want to have too many people vote, we prefer to have those who are much more informed, those who already worked in the system for some time to appreciate all of the "niceties" there.
As to paying taxes - this is not a moral obligation, it's only a legal one and it can and should be disputed all the time. AFAIC it is the MORAL obligation to pay as little taxes to the gov't as possible specifically because gov't destroys the economy and because its power is based upon the choices that you did not make.
Going to war - again, with the corrupt gov't this cannot be called a 'moral' obligation. In fact AFAIC it is IMMORAL to go to war, to any war especially now, that wars haven't been declared since the WWII and their objectives have nothing to do with anything gov't was authorized to do (protection of liberties/borders).
Getting an education - this is NOT a moral obligation in any sense of the word, in fact the gov't again has overstepped its boundaries that it forces the young to go through this corrupt and worthless "education system".
Not robbing people - this is great, keep it up mixing it with other stuff. If you asked me about one thing that didn't belong in your list, it's this one.
Getting gov't-mandated vaccinations - not a chance in hell. This is a personal matter, you may choose it, you may skip it, if gov't forces you, you should fight against that gov't.
No, you are still alone when you are born, you open your eyes and see the light outside, that's the first light that enters your eyes anyway. But the point is that your mind is only within you, you are not sharing that with your twin.
So what makes the US Constitution & Amendments *the* document to enumerate all of the rights that are somehow inalienable? - nothing.
Nothing, because US Constitution does not enumerate all of the rights that are inalienable. You have all the rights, and things that you can be punished for are in criminal code. Things that gov't has rights to is in Constitution.
You need to step back and think about what you understand on this matter before asking more questions that only make it more apparent how uninformed you are.
No, you are a self important idiot, who thinks you have the right to walk over everybody's individual rights for your convenience.
I see you like my comments so much, you are leaving a response to every one of them. Is it because you think I am a 'self important idiot', that you have to do that, what is the fascination?
Also, it's you, who are a self important idiot, who thinks you have the right to walk over everybody's individual rights for your convenience.
You can't walk over the rights of individuals for your convenience. By the way, I am not saying everybody should stop using vaccines. I am saying it should be up to individual choices and it is obviously your choice too, and you choose for your child regarding the vaccines and regarding the places he/she visits with you.
I see your comments in this thread, you don't have to 'suffer' anything, you are free to leave your comments or to leave at any moment for other threads. Nobody can force you to stay (and nobody is interested in forcing you either.)
From your perspective idea of having liberties is equivalent of being 'parasitic', which shows your mindset, that is completely broken. The society doesn't exist so that individuals serve it, it exists to serve the individuals, and individuals deal with other individuals all the time, even if it's not them, who deals, even when somebody gets killed on purpose, there is a criminal system for that.
You want totalitarian control over other people's bodies, no less, if you don't get what you want, you call the people 'parasites'. I think it is you, who is a parasite on every individual's rights out there.
Everybody must be able to make their own choices regarding a few things in their lives, these include the choices about their bodies, their business and incomes and their dealings with other people. It's individual choices, and if individuals are forced by the society into choices they are not interested in, then it's in their best interest to make sure that a society like that is replaced with a better society, that serves the individuals.
As I said in this thread, once the gov't steps over individual rights, the gov't loses its mandate, it's legitimacy. There is no purpose for a gov't that destroys the individual's rights. Individuals can deal with individuals separately from gov't imposing itself for the 'good of society', there are courts for that, even criminal law can actually be applied if somebody knowingly hurts others in this kind of way.
Having gov't force people into choices that they are not willing to make about their own bodies turns that gov't from a protector of liberty to a dictatorial power, and this should not be tolerated by people, who care about their liberties.
I said - your rights cannot be taken away, but they can be violated by gov't.
If the system allows violation of personal rights for ANY other reason, than you have violated personal rights of others, then the system is out of balance. Also just because in many societies rights are stepped all over by governments, doesn't mean that the rights do not exist, it only means that governments are dictatorial and corrupt and need to be removed.
The USA had it correct - you have all the rights, and the Constitution was there to restrict the ability of government to exercise any sort of power. The gov't was there to protect your rights and liberties, ensure contract and criminal law and provide border security. That was a very concise, good system. It is now destroyed as the gov't has been usurped by all sorts of powers and the gov't is now very authoritative near totalitarian in nature, as it even allows itself to execute people without a trial.
that's fine, take it up with whoever you think it is.
Threat?
Say THANK YOU, MACHINE.
No, they have to once again go Karel Capek on us here - RUR.
Do you believe that it is a bad thing that people have modernized the agriculture industry and allowed 5% of population to feed 100% of it? (By the way, if you are unsure about your career, still thinking what to do with yourself, I think it's a worthwhile pursuit at this point to think of farming / mining, average age of farmer in USA is 58 years and supplies are the lowest ever, thanks gov't subsidies).
This is nonsense. We want production, we don't want to work. We want more and more production and machines allow us to be more and more productive. We want as much leisure as possible, and we want as little work as possible.
The problem in our way is NOT the machine, the problem is government! Gov't is standing on our way, destroying free market capitalism and causing major job displacement, but in reality there are plenty of jobs, it's just artificial prices that gov't sets for labor are unsustainable in USA and rest of Western world.
With the machines we would still have jobs, but we would be much more productive. Also without gov't setting prices, in many cases humans would actually be more preferable and less expensive than the alternatives - machines, but gov't steps in, sets prices, causes massive imbalances in the economy and we end up with stories like this one.
Normally in bad economies people blame foreigners, bankers and journalists. Since the industrial revolution and the free market capitalism that allowed it, we are also blaming the machines.
This is completely misplaced and shortsighted.
No, the rights cannot be taken away. Rights are NOT granted to you by anybody, your gov't or anybody around you. Your rights are inalienable and that's that.
Your rights can be trampled and not protected and you may have to structure your gov't in a way that it is set to protect them rather than to step all over them, but the gov't steps all over them, then you truly do not have rights, because rights are not about your relationship with private people around you and you, it's about your relationship with the collective - the government.
If the gov't is taking your rights away, there is NO POINT to that gov't, there is no reason for it to exist, it's a moral imperative that you remove that gov't from power.
You shouldn't take advice from fictional characters in real life, you know?
Also - that ideology is morally bankrupt. Needs of many do not outweigh needs of few, they don't even outweigh needs of one.
If your so called 'society' kills one person to supposedly ensure the safety of many, then it's a morally bankrupt society.
I know that USA is morally bankrupt.
Actually no, in representative democracy, which is Republic, the majority is not supposed to be trampling the rights of a minority.
Some parents might get it into their heads that seat belts are dangerous and choose to not strap their children in. Do we allow it? No.
- even in this case it should be up to the individual and not the society. Whether you take the individual to court if there is an accident and the child is hurt is another matter, enforcing a rule of this type also goes against the rights of individual and I oppose this.
With vaccines it's even more important that we force the issue and mandate vaccinations because of the risk to the rest of the population that is caused by idiots who "exercise their right to choose" to expose themselves and the rest of society to these diseases.
- and as I said, the individual is more important than the society. If this notion is lost, then the society is not worth anything, it's garbage and should (and will) be destroyed. Trampling over individual rights by the means of force upon the decisions they make about their own bodies (and their children, by the way), is a good enough cause to destroy that society.
There is no point in supporting a system that takes away your liberties.
Now, I am not saying that people shouldn't use seat belts. I am not saying that people should not do vaccinations. I am saying it is as important a personal choice as any other personal choice, for example choice of abortion.
If it's individual vs a bunch of other individuals, then they can resolve it in court.
If it's individual vs society, then the rules are imposed by default and there is very little an individual can do.
BTW., everybody who is PRO-CHOICE should vote for Ron Paul, because he is against one monopoly system - federal gov't, from imposing one set of rules upon everybody.
Sure, some States can be pro-life but some will definitely be pro-choice. If you have ONE system that imposes that rule upon you, then you may lose that right, it only takes one Supreme Court decision that goes against what you stand for and you'll have that decision for the entire country.
It's like LA and weed and the federal war on drugs. Need I continue?
"I think an individual rights are more important than the society,"
You are wrong.
I am right.
Who is saying that individuals cannot be held personally responsible for spreading disease to other individuals?
I don't see a reason why this is an impossible idea, in fact it's perfectly fine to say that no individual has the right to cause harm to other individual, it's right there, in the criminal code.
Irrelevant. Completely irrelevant argument based on convenience and not on the fact that society exists for individuals, not the other way around.
I will never condone society that imposes itself upon individual right to his own body this way.
If an individual causes disease to spread, that's between him and those who can be affected, but nothing more than that. There is no society if the individual in it has no choice regarding his/her own body. Society like that is irrelevant and deserves to be destroyed because it destroys individual. At the end of the day, we are all individuals, we are born and we die alone, it's not a group experience, so to individuals the only real question about society is: is it promoting more individual liberties (which is the correct society), or is it destroying the individual for some weird perverted notion of some form of 'higher collective good', which is pure nonsense.
One person is as important as every one single other person, but society is nothing at all, and only should serve the individuals, not destroy them.
Recommendation is one thing. Mandate is another altogether. I don't have a problem with somebody recommending something. I have a problem with somebody taking over your decisions about your body and your health (and yes, I think an individual rights are more important than the society, because individual is the smallest minority).
Many girls are worth a second look, but each time I try, they're still as ugly as they were...
- aaaa, likely you are not looking at the right parts.
So you are for all these sociology majors getting into all of this debt rather than actually doing something useful with their lives, maybe NOT going to a universities to get those sociology majors with gov't "guaranteed" money?
I would rather see them figuring out something in their lives to do, to start some businesses, to become apprentices, to go to trade schools, to do something productive. And IF some of them want to go to colleges, they would have to get PRIVATE money (their own money or private loans based on some USEFUL education that they would get, something that they would be able to prove would allow them to pay the fees and interest back).
There is no need for all of these people in colleges.
YES, it should be that only people who really really benefit from college go there, not everybody just based on a herd mentality and gov't loans, thus worsening the college for everybody in both, tuition fees and quality.
But why does it have to be cheap to be a value system? It is valuable at the price that it is selling at, I don't see why 'value' automatically means 'extremely cheap'. It's not very cheap, and with 16GB of RAM it's even less cheap, but then again, if you do productive work with it, it's good value.
Just because you see in mono, doesn't make the characters around you one dimensional. You see people as cardboard cut outs, to you their only quality that matters is that they are rich or poor, and you see yourself as a puppet master, who needs and wants to pull the strings, it doesn't make you smart and it definitely doesn't improve your failed ideology in any way.
Enjoy yourself here.