Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 07/03/04 2:17 pm:


Mavens:

Before I'm accused of being an anarchist, let me be clear and specific about the rights I speak of, and Jefferson wrote of.

In a free society, my freedom ends where your nose begins. That means that I have the right to act in any manner I choose as long as my action does not interfere with anybody else’s right to do the same.


I believe the Bill of Rights specifically gives me those freedoms, if the proclamation Jefferson makes in the Declaration wasn't specific enough.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by purplewings on 07/03/04 6:24 pm:
Excon it sounds very good but in practice, it can't work that way. The guy next door likes to play loud, very loud music. It offends me that I can't take a nap or enjoy my own brand of music. That may be his freedom ending at my nose but it's up for dispute. Someone's freedom is being interfered with - so who resolves it? Not each individual because each individual would present a different answer.

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 07/03/04 8:17 pm:

Hello again PW,

I suppose I should have mentioned the civil codes too, but I thought they would be self evident. Our civil code, and much of the criminal code mirrors the sentiment I wrote above.

The courts resolve it, PW. Do you think I'm talking about some other country? Don't you know how it's supposed to work here? Don't you understand that freedom means exactly that. That if you limit freedom, it's not freedom. Freedom, by its very nature, is limitless.

That's what it means. I know you want it to mean something else, but it doesn't. It's written in plain English, too. Not Martian. I know you don't like it, because you've got all sorts of people on your list whom you don't think should have rights. And, that's the problem.

So, I want to understand exactly what you said. Are you actually saying that this country was founded on a theory that SOUNDS good but doesn't work in practice?

Really? Where did you learn civics? USSR? Perhaps in Cuba?

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by purplewings on 07/04/04 6:50 am:
Wow excon! I never saw you in this light before! You appear to on the muscle.

For one thing, when the bill of rights was written, the population was nowhere near this large - and there were not ethnic complications as there is now. The world has changed greatly and very little is black and white anymore.

You're quite wrong about what I'm saying. You're very wrong in saying I have 'all sorts of people on a list whom I don't think should have rights.' In fact, I'd like to say how dare you!? I don't see anything in my response that would indicate that is my feelings.

My response is from what personal experiences, and what I've seen certain other people experience.

Of course the courts resolve any question of who's rights are being interfered with. It still leaves one person without, since both sides cannot come out on top.

"Rights" and "freedoms" are a priviledge granted to, that is as long as we remain within the law.

Because I prefer to have God included in my Pledge, and someone else does not - it can't be both ways, so whose 'rights' are being interfered with......?

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 07/04/04 9:30 am:

Hello again PW,

It's true. I got angry. You didn't deserve my attack. I'm sorry.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 07/04/04 10:52 am:

Hey Elg, happy Fourth.

>>>When you give one of those "rights" to someone (or some group) you take away one of the others from someone else.<<<

The rights that Jefferson speaks of are not given by anyone. In fact, if a government gives someone rights (or believes it does), then that government believes it can take them away – as this government does. As Jefferson understands it (and I believe it), these rights are unalienable. That means we have them, automatically, just because we happen to be human. Nobody gave them to us, and nobody can take them away. That’s what unalienable means. He used the word all. There’s no equivocation. (Now, I suggest that he didn’t mean all, but the fact that he wrote it, and we’re bound by it, in and of itself is a miracle. But regardless of what he meant, he said ALL and ALL is absolute. That’s what makes it such a great declaration.

Now there’s no question that the notion that people automatically have rights is an anathema to every government that has come before it, and every government that has come since. Because before us, all rights came from the rulers. That isn’t what we’re doing here. Ever since the beginning, our government, society, you, have challenged that notion every step of the way. I’m ashamed to say, society has made headway. After all, you, PW, Tomder, Elliot, all of you still think in terms of giving rights or not to various people. To me, that discussion is a non-starter. I know what all means. Don’t you? And, I don’t think Jefferson was kidding.

>>>For example; you allow me the freedom to buy sub-machine guns, you automatically take away someone's right to order (probably my neighbor).<<<

You imply that there is only so much freedom to go around. I disagree. Freedom is unlimited. When one person gains freedom there is no corresponding loss anywhere. Because I can buy a gun (well not me, but you), doesn’t take away anyone’s rights. It would be a different story were I to use it on your neighbor, and we have laws to cover that. But, were I to use it to protect my family from an intruder – well, I have a right to do that now, don’t I? Buying the gun is distinct from using it, and how we use it doesn’t always violate someone else’s rights.

I’m not sure what you mean when you use the term ‘give one of those "rights" to someone (or some group)’. I suspect what you mean, is that a court of law, whose job is to interpret the Constitution, has interpreted it to mean that a right (an unalienable right) (a right someone has always had), should be upheld against the powers of government.

Let me also argue with you usage of the term “group”. Groups don’t have rights – only individuals do. If an individual is a member of a class of individuals, then the ruling of the court for an individual affects the entire class. That’s our legal system and it is as it should be.

>>>So when you talk about "rights," be aware that our system is designed to be in conflict no matter what "rights" are given or restricted. You can't look at the writings of anyone (even Thomas Jefferson, the great slave holder)and say that they should cover EVERYONE. Unfortunately, things are not that simple.<<<

The rights we have are, indeed, simple, clear and easy to understand. It’s when they conflict that simplicity disappears – and conflict they do. But, the courts (by and large) handle those conflicts, as they are designed to do - and not to everyone’s liking.

But the rights we enjoy and who has them is abundantly clear.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 07/05/04 1:33 pm:

Hello again, Itsdb:

>>>In he example of gay marriage given, nobody is denying homosexuals the right to marry. What we're being asked to do is redefine the centuries old institution of marriage...that is not a right.<<<

Flat out wrong! Homosexuals ARE denied the right to marry. Let’s be clear about this. I don’t know any gay couples who want to get married, but I can promise you this, they don’t care a hoot about your century’s old institution. They just want the rights that accompany marriage – the same rights you have. YOU are not being asked to do anything! Read again what I said about freedom being unlimited. I think you’ve been listening to way too much talk radio.

The last time I checked, Jefferson didn’t say these rights belong to all STRAIGHT people. No, he used no qualifiers at all – none. Homosexuals are part of ALL whether you like it or not. Every individual, in this country, has the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. Homosexuals are individuals and citizens and are entitled to the same rights you enjoy. Plus, their right to marry doesn’t interfere with your rights one iota. Not an iota. Not a sprig. They don’t want more than you – they want the same as you. I guess you can’t get that.

The rest of what you said bears no relationship to anything I wrote, and it's pure poppycock.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 07/05/04 4:46 pm:
Ex,

I'm wrong a lot, but I'm not wrong on this. You think my examples are irrelevant poppycock, but it's not. All the gay community wanted a few years ago was "the rights that accompany marriage." Fine, I have no problem allowing for that, ok? Suddenly that's not enough, civil unions are not enough, it must be 'marriage.' It doesn't matter that 'marriage' has been defined for millenia as between male and female, not to mention it only works one way. Can we legislate procreation to be a 'right' between homosexuals?

So what's next ex, the right to marry your 12 year old niece or nephew, your sheep, your dog, your cow, what? Seriously ex, talk radio or not, if you redefine marriage once what's to stop the next one since the door is now wide open? Where would YOU put a limit on redefining marriage?

As I've said several times, I have no problem affording gay couples the same 'rights' as a traditional married couple. But, if that's ALL they want why do they want us to redefine marriage? Would Jefferson have endorsed gay marriage? What would he have said about trying to redefine the institution of marriage?

Your words, "That if you limit freedom, it's not freedom. Freedom, by its very nature, is limitless," and "Freedom is unlimited," indeed suggest the "power to do as one pleases," or a "total absence of restraint." This 'free' country has never been void of restraint...and I would hope we never have a 'limitless' freedom.

Steve