[quote="SLAVE of THE STATE"]On Jan 6, 9:02 am, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:On Jan 5, 2:41 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:The moral link to rule/law making is via "natural rights."
Stunningly, you then say there are no rights and all that matters are
the _privileges the governing body grants the subjects_. And that is
covered by the doctrine of legal positivism, and decidedly not the
doctrine of natural law/rights.
Quoted message said:Dumbass,
Quoted message said:Let's not get too weepy about natural rights.
Fool,
I'm not. It was Bill's language, not mine, and I'm merely pointing
out that he is inconsistant (at best); I did not take a doctrinal
stand on the matter. (Hey, weren't you an english minor, or something
like that?) I can't get him to talk about what rights he thinks were
violated, since that is the "moral outrage, and human rights" tact
*he* is essentially talking.
I'm not aware of any rights violations (at a glance there does not
appear to be any), but then I don't really care too much either
because bike racing is not important, particularly the rule battles of
professionals and their governing body(s). (I care more about the
NCNCA, since its rules would actually affect me if I were ever to race
a bike again.)
I just wanted Bill to explain what rights he thinks exist and were
violated. Then he says there are no rights. Then he talks about
rights that are granted (which aren't rights, but privileges). Who
instituted the guv-body that _grants_ the "rights?" Round and round
we go.
Quoted message said:In reality, there are a basic set of rights, which have
been conveniently enumerated.
You think you're kidding, and your joke has nothing to do with
anything in this thread. Anyway...
Under the US federal law, and more importantly american theory of
governance, the totality of rights are unenumerated, which is another
way of saying they are unlimited in number. Of course, it is a
standing fact that you don't like the american theory of governance.
Why do you hate the constitution, including the 9th?
9th:
/The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people./
"LET ANY ONE MAKE WHAT COLLECTION OR ENUMERATION OF RIGHTS HE PLEASES,
I WILL IMMEDIATELY MENTION TWENTY OR THIRTY MORE RIGHTS NOT CONTAINED
IN IT." -- James Iredell
---------------
"In all societies, there are many powers and rights, which cannot be
particularly enumerated. A bill of rights annexed to a constitution is
an enumeration of the powers reserved. If we attempt an enumeration,
everything that is not enumerated is presumed to be given. The
consequence is, that an imperfect enumeration would throw all implied
power into the scale of the government; and the rights of the people
would be rendered incomplete." -- James Wilson,The Pennsylvania
Convention (Nov. 28, 1787), in 2 THE DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE
RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
"[I]t would be not only useless, but dangerous, to enumerate a number
of rights which are not intended to be given up; because it would be
implying, in the strongest manner, that every right not included in
the exception might be impaired by the government without usurpation;
and it would be impossible to enumerate every one. Let any one make
what collection or enumeration of rights he pleases, I will
immediately mention twenty or thirty more rights not contained in it."
-- James Iredell, Debates in the Convention of the State of North
Carolina, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (July 29, 1788),
in 4 ELLIOT'S DEBATES,
"[W]e had no bill of rights inserted in our Constitution; for, as we
might perhaps have omitted the enumeration of some of our rights, it
might hereafter be said we had delegated to the general government a
power to take away such of our rights as we had not
enumerated . . . ." -- Charles Pinckney,Debates in the Legislature and
in Convention of the State of South Carolina, on the Adoption of the
Federal Constitution (Jan. 18, 1788)
"The committee who framed this report proceeded on the principle that
these rights belonged to the people; they conceived them to be
inherent; and all that they meant to provide against was their being
infringed by the Government... [I]f the committee were governed by
that general principle, they might have gone into a very lengthy
enumeration of rights; they might have declared that a man should
have a right to wear his hat if he pleased; that he might get up when
he pleased, and go to bed when he thought proper..." --Rep. Sedgwick,
1 ANNALS OF CONG. 759 (Joseph Gales ed., 1834) (statement of Rep.
Sedgwick, Aug. 15, 1789).
"Sedgwick's argument assumes that the 'self-evident, unalienable,'
inherent and unenumerated rights retained by the people are personal
liberty rights that are unenumerable because the human imagination is
limitless." -- Randy Barnett, THE NINTH AMENDMENT: IT MEANS WHAT IT
SAYS
I forgive you knuckleheads. You are victims of publik skoolin. It
isn't your fault. It is society's fault. lol
I'm done.[/quote]
Your quoting things PEOPLE said. The Constitution is a collective
opium dream too, enacted by force.
Are these rights you claim exist, created ouside of the sphere of
humans? Are they God given? What?
You are using [censored] of words, citing human beings writings to
justify what are supposed to be fundamental, unassailable rights that
are guaranteed to everyone. Who's guaranteeing them? Mother Nature?
What makes the folks who wrote the Constitution more reliable than
Hillary Clinton? They're all people with opinions, nothing more,
nothing less. Unless you are going to insist that some higher power
than humanity grants, and enforces rights, they are nothing more, as a
concept, than pipe dreams.
You're doing a hell of a choreographed duet with a strawman here,
because you CAN'T make an argument outside human philosophy that you
agree with for basic rights.
I believe that the riders have had their "rights" under The Charter
of Fundamental Rights of the European Union violated in many places.
That's where the game is being played out, that's where the governing
bodies are, and those are the laws they are sanctioned under.
You live in the same world as our buddy Ted K.
Gst used to it, reality is what it is, and what we have to deal with
in the real world. Theoretical philosophy is nice, but if the world
doesn't work that way then to function in it you find ways to play.
Standing on a pile of books and kicking, screaming, and whining, it's
all wrong doesn't do you or anyone else any good. Maybe it makes you
FEEL good, especially since you like to slam anyone more willing to
take a practical approach as a sellout, at best.
I'll say the same thing to you that I've said to Amit a million
times, Nothing is simple. Thinking people see, at least, a duality to
everything, at a minimum, and more likely vast, complex shades of gray
when you actually begin to consider other people's opinions and
research.
You seem to think that having a complex view, and some points that
conflict within it is wrong. I say it's only wrong once you know it
all, and are a true believer.
Everything has differing fundamental frameworks you have to work
within, at different levels, deiling with the same problem.
For what seems to be one simple problem you can end up dealing with,
family, neighbors, town, county, State, and Federal governments and
their inherent requirements and challenges, many of which may very
well conflict with each other, and what you want to do.
Then when you start throwing in competeing rights, privileges,
protections, and philosophies it really gets interesting.
You just choose to deny the applicability of lots of those, but still
pay your taxes. Reality does intrude despite your [censored].
Most people, whether they agree or not, take the playing field for
what it is, and find the easiest route through it to get something
done.
I get to deal with this all the time as a contractor. There are a
million hoops to jump through, lots of which are in gray areas in law,
and society. Pitching a hissy fit and screaming at them doesn't make
things happen. What does is finding out the best way to deal with each
person, or group, and making the best deal for everyone involved. If
they are breaking the law then you report it, but most have a huge
area to play in without actually violating any laws.
What I'd like things to be is one thing. What they are is another.
What they are as an absolute is something else again.
I'm not surprised you reject those concepts as a working framework.
Compared to me and the windmills you are on another planet.
Bill C
