Fundemental Rights (So, I can't spell... sioux me)

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

This thread is mostly directed at the board conservatives, but of course anyone should feel free to participate.

What rights do you consider consitutionally protected? It seems every time a thread gets in to discussion about fundemental rights - no matter what it is, be it the right to be free from wiretapping, to same sex marriages - there is a band of Conservative posters who continually make the argument that there is no "right" at issue. So... I ask...

What are our rights?

Under what standard do you come to the conclusion that whatever you list are the whole of our rights?

If you say we have a right to "Liberty" please tell me what that means to you. I truly am perplexed by a couple things from the Conservative stance. For example, upon some thinking about the issue(s), I've come to the conclusion that you must buy the theory that you only have that which the King (in this case, Congress) tells you you may have. That is to say, I see two positions upon which to begin

1 - Everyone is free to do whatever he or she pleases without any sort of governmental intervention of any kind

OR

2 - People are only free to do that which our government will allow. Or, you have only those freedoms which are expressly granted you.

From these positions we have two distinct paths to follow...

Under premise 1 - The government, if it seeks to stop some activity you are otherwise free to engage in, must provide a reason (rationale, compelling or otherwise) to forbid whatever conduct.

OR

under premise 2- People are free to engage in nothing unless specifically authorized to so engage, and thus if you seek to engage in something not authorized already you're asking for "special treatment"

In light of this, and maybe I just conceptualize the world wrong, I simply cannot comprehend how Conservatives can call themselves "limited government" proponants. That is to say, it appears to me you start from the position that the Government has ALL rights, and hands them out as it sees fit. Whereas, the "liberal" position would be the PEOPLE have all rights, and only give to the Government that which they won't stand up for.

 

[shetuck]

Fundemental rigths...

Is that where we put tax dollars toward preserving the dignity of those who are institutionalized because of cognitive infirmities? :p

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Fundemental rigths...

Is that where we put tax dollars toward preserving the dignity of those who are institutionalized because of cognitive infirmities? :p

Probably not.

 

[GoBucks89]

We could start by spelling "fundamental" correctly. :tongue2:

Seriously, I guess I would start by asking if the question is specific to U.S. constitutional jurisprudence, or are we taking a "natural law" perspective and talking about the rights of mankind that exist before the government is even constituted? If the former, my answer is whatever the constitutions of the various states grant, assuming they don't run afoul of the federal constitution, plus whatever is gleaned from what is forbidden for the federal government to do. If the latter, then my answer is just those inalienable rights identified in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Of course, those last three terms are vague and simply beg for some type of definition, and so I would say that to get to any firm answer you must constitute your government. Once you have done so, the rights documented in the constitution represent the rights that you have forbidden your government to trample on. Since the state constitutions existed prior to the federal constitution in this country, I believe that the framers of the federal constitution wished to give deference to those. The Bill of Rights, even though it was largely redundant because the states had already guaranteed most of the rights contained therein, was added to provide an extra layer of protection against federal intrusion. Of course, many rights can be gleaned by what the federal and state governments are forbidden from doing, and it is beyond the scope of any individual post to identify all of them. So, I've answered the best I can for now, but if you want to know about any specific right, I can give my opinion on that.

 

[MolGenBuckeye]

Fundemental rigths...

Is that where we put tax dollars toward preserving the dignity of those who are institutionalized because of cognitive infirmities? :p

And have a blast doing it! :)

I guess personally I'd lean more toward option one, and I generally tend toward "conservative" beliefs, though I try not to define my views by them. I agree with your belief that government should give a reason why they need to take away certain rights. (See: Smoking ban thread)

Liberty, to me, is more the freedom to behave as you want, rather than rights to government intervention on my behalf.

In the example of same sex marriage, my definition of liberty would be that a couple can live together, observe a commitment ceremony, etc without the threat of legal action or excessive social pressure. Tax benefits, legal status, and the like are less an issue of liberty to me, and more an issue of the best interest of the government. If society wants to allow same sex marriages, that's fine. If the government has a good reason not to, that's fine too. For what it's worth, I'm fairly indifferent to this particular issue.

Or, to break it down to something more absurd, I'm free to run laps around my yard, and I have every right to do so. I don't have the right to tax benefits for it, unless there's a reason for the government to grant it, whether because of societal pressure, financial benefit, or anything else.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

We could start by spelling "fundamental" correctly. :tongue2:

Seriously, I guess I would start by asking if the question is specific to U.S. constitutional jurisprudence, or are we taking a "natural law" perspective and talking about the rights of mankind that exist before the government is even constituted? If the former, my answer is whatever the constitutions of the various states grant, assuming they don't run afoul of the federal constitution, plus whatever is gleaned from what is forbidden for the federal government to do. If the latter, then my answer is just those inalienable rights identified in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Of course, those last three terms are vague and simply beg for some type of definition, and so I would say that to get to any firm answer you must constitute your government. Once you have done so, the rights documented in the constitution represent the rights that you have forbidden your government to trample on. Since the state constitutions existed prior to the federal constitution in this country, I believe that the framers of the federal constitution wished to give deference to those. The Bill of Rights, even though it was largely redundant because the states had already guaranteed most of the rights contained therein, was added to provide an extra layer of protection against federal intrusion. Of course, many rights can be gleaned by what the federal and state governments are forbidden from doing, and it is beyond the scope of any individual post to identify all of them. So, I've answered the best I can for now, but if you want to know about any specific right, I can give my opinion on that.

Appreciate the response.

For purposes of my question, I would ask the same about "state rights" That is to say, the State or the Federal Gov. is "the Government" as far as I'm concerned here.

So, I suppose since you used the term natural law, yes... is there some sort of "natural law" out there in the ether? Or... do we have only those rights which our "King" (Be it State, local or federal Gov.) tells us we have?

I was thinking about the declaration of independence, actually....

It states:

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

That among these....

It doesn't purport to be a laundry list at all.... But, I think seems to be treated that way a lot of time.

 

[AKAK]

In light of this, and maybe I just conceptualize the world wrong, I simply cannot comprehend how Conservatives can call themselves "limited government" proponants. That is to say, it appears to me you start from the position that the Government has ALL rights, and hands them out as it sees fit. Whereas, the "liberal" position would be the PEOPLE have all rights, and only give to the Government that which they won't stand up for.

I'd say your premise here is flawed... there is a difference between social conservatives and libertarian conservatives.

And... in fact... depending on your particular flavor of "liberal"-- your position isn't anything fucking near "PEOPLE have all rights" As I certainly don't have the right not to pay taxes for... oh social welfare programs...

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

And have a blast doing it! :)

I guess personally I'd lean more toward option one, and I generally tend toward "conservative" beliefs, though I try not to define my views by them. I agree with your belief that government should give a reason why they need to take away certain rights. (See: Smoking ban thread)

Liberty, to me, is more the freedom to behave as you want, rather than rights to government intervention on my behalf.

In the example of same sex marriage, my definition of liberty would be that a couple can live together, observe a commitment ceremony, etc without the threat of legal action or excessive social pressure. Tax benefits, legal status, and the like are less an issue of liberty to me, and more an issue of the best interest of the government. If society wants to allow same sex marriages, that's fine. If the government has a good reason not to, that's fine too. For what it's worth, I'm fairly indifferent to this particular issue.

Or, to break it down to something more absurd, I'm free to run laps around my yard, and I have every right to do so. I don't have the right to tax benefits for it, unless there's a reason for the government to grant it, whether because of societal pressure, financial benefit, or anything else.

Fair enough. I actually tend to agree with you, which I think probably comes as a bit of a surpise. Meaning, I agree that there is a difference between funding something and "allowing" something... or that is, I concur that tax consequences are not a matter of "rights" necessarily. If the Gov. tried to tax my right to breathe, I suppose I'd feel differently, but.. that's a little ridiculous.

Anyway, we're probably all willing to pay for different things, and that's to me what Government should focus on primarily... Figuring out how to best invest our resources. (I'm not saying our Gov. does not do this already, of course, just saying to me it should be the primary and almost exclusive role)

I'd say your premise here is flawed... there is a difference between social conservatives and libertarian conservatives.

True, but I guess that's what Im trying to get at.... or elicit somehow..

And... in fact... depending on your particular flavor of "liberal"-- your position isn't anything fucking near "PEOPLE have all rights" As I certainly don't have the right not to pay taxes for... oh social welfare programs...

Yeah, I'm not looking to make larger, and yet more specified, remarks about conservativism or liberalism. I mean, you make valid points regaridng the particulars, but I'm trying to be more general.

 

[FCollinsBuckeye]

Simply put, I'm of the opinion our most fundamental right is to do as we please so long as we are not infringing upon the rights of other individuals or placing others in harms way due to our activities.

 

[AKAK]

Yeah, I'm not looking to make larger, and yet more specified, remarks about conservativism or liberalism. I mean, you make valid points regaridng the particulars, but I'm trying to be more general.

Then why try to find the hypocrisy in "conservative" viewpoints?

Eh, I'm just cranky.

I've noticed a lot more "Hey Liberals/Democrats/Conservative/Republican, what do you have to say about________" [Insert something moronic that someone of that perceived ilk did/said]

Its just baiting...

I guess I'm generally annoyed by it, is all. I don't see the point of trying to call people out to defend something that they've never commmented on.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Then why try to find the hypocrisy in "conservative" viewpoints?

Eh, I'm just cranky.

I've noticed a lot more "Hey Liberals/Democrats/Conservative/Republican, what do you have to say about________" [Insert something moronic that someone of that perceived ilk did/said]

Its just baiting...

I guess I'm generally annoyed by it, is all. I don't see the point of trying to call people out to defend something that they've never commmented on.

Eh, I'm just trying to drum up conversation and trying to understand something that I truly don't understand about the "other side of the aisle" as it were.

I suppose I see where it looks like I'm just trying to establish hypocricy in the Con view, but that's really only because you know me as a liberal, isn't it?

 

[AKAK]

Eh, I'm just trying to drum up conversation and trying to understand something that I truly don't understand about the "other side of the aisle" as it were.

I suppose I see where it looks like I'm just trying to establish hypocricy in the Con view, but that's really only because you know me as a liberal, isn't it?

Umm... no...

Its because you're viewing the "spectrum" as a "line" and you're attributing different view points of one group and claiming they hold, at the same time, other viewpoints which they don't necessarily.

Then, you go so far as to claim what a "liberal" believes... and... I think you're similarly off the mark with that generalization.

I concur that tax consequences are not a matter of "rights" necessarily. If the Gov. tried to tax my right to breathe, I suppose I'd feel differently, but.. that's a little ridiculous.

Well, I'd tend to think that if "tax consequences" are not a matter of right, you better put the declaration of Independence back in your pocket... and NOT use that to support your views on this issue, because I'm not real sure you actually got the "gist" of the document, otherwise.

 

[MaxBuck]

I'd say your premise here is flawed... there is a difference between social conservatives and libertarian conservatives.

Bravo. The GOP has trended unfortunately (IMO) toward the former; for most of my adult life I felt comfortable in the party as a libertarian fiscal conservative, but now I feel alienated.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Umm... no...

Its because you're viewing the "spectrum" as a "line" and you're attributing different view points of one group and claiming they hold, at the same time, other viewpoints which they don't necessarily.

Then, you go so far as to claim what a "liberal" believes... and... I think you're similarly off the mark with that generalization.

Well, then I think you're reading what I'm trying to get at here with far to an exacting eye. I will say I am viewing the "spectrum" as a "line" but I'm doing it for a specific purpose. I freely admit to making a generalization about Cons (as well as libs)... but it's not derrogatory... or at least isn't intended to be. I'm simply trying to set up the parameters of what I'm trying to elicit.... too often these threads delve in to either A) pissing matches or B) discussions about how we're going to discuss what is supposed to be discussed. (Which, of course, I'm doing now... )

Edit: And "trying to elicit" isn't intended to mean "Box you in to" it means what limited issue I'm trying to contemplate.

I'm not saying "Hey, GoBucks89, what the fuck is your deal, explain yourself to me, motherfucker" am I? (Using him as an example here because he responded, that's all)

Shit, AKAK, I've been on this board for 4 years now... I think you can give me enough fuckin intellectual credit to recognize a damn trend in the viewpoints expressed on this board....

 

[buckeyegrad]

Bravo. The GOP has trended unfortunately (IMO) toward the former; for most of my adult life I felt comfortable in the party as a libertarian fiscal conservative, but now I feel alienated.

Social conservativism has nothing to do with libertarian fiscal conservatives feeling alientated.

I identify with both the social conservative and the libertarian fiscal conservative labels (they are not in opposition as they deal with different aspects of government). The libertarian fiscal conservative side of me has always felt alienated by both the GOP and the political culture of the society.

As for the social conservative side of me, that often feels alienated in the GOP as well. Most of the time I feel lip service is only being given to these views in order to get my vote and that there really isn't a commitment to these ideas. In addition, I have always felt a resentment by many others in the GOP that they have to tolerate us social conservatives because we constitute such a significant plurality of the party.