True or false? You can't give someone a right, you can only stop taking it away.

originalpckelly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-26-07 05:14 PM
Original message

Poll question: True or false? You can't give someone a right, you can only stop taking it away.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

phantom power

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-26-07 05:19 PM
Response to Original message

1. I say "false."

I say that, because my theory on "rights" is that they are human constructs, and so we give them to each other by mutual agreement. For example, in the USA, we all have the right to vote because we agreed to enforce that right for each other.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

originalpckelly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-26-07 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. They are human constructs, but there can be no arbitrary exceptions to those constructs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

WI Independent

(156 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-26-07 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #1

4. Agree... n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TahitiNut

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-26-07 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #1

9. Self-determination is the 'right' while voting is an entitlement...

Edited on Thu Apr-26-07 05:41 PM by TahitiNut

... just like citizenship. (The state must certify a person in order for that person to vote - including questions of residency.) Anything that's a creature of (i.e. CREATED by) law and requires the force of the state to SUPPORT is an entitlement. 'Title' ... like Duke, or baron, or landlord. By far, the relationship between state and human rights is one of a threatening nature, not a creative nature.

When an entitlement is not equitably distributed (like voting and Social Security) then it's called a 'privilege.' Inheritance, for example is a privilege, not a right. IMHO.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Up2Late

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-26-07 05:28 PM
Response to Original message

3. False, see the first 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (a.k.a. The Bill of Rights)

Before The Bill of Rights, none of those Rights contained in that document were your Rights, now they are (or were before *Bush crossed several of them out).

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

magellan

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-26-07 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #3

13. I suppose it depends on the perspective but...

...I voted True based on the example set by the Constitution, which enumerates rights that had been previously withheld. But really, the question can be looked at from either way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

porque no

(180 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-26-07 05:33 PM
Response to Original message

5. I'm willing to wager that this poll is intended

to bolster some ridiculous gun argument.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

lonestarnot

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-26-07 05:35 PM
Response to Original message

6. Wrong all around. Rights can't be given, given up, or taken away.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Wcross

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-26-07 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #6

15. That pretty much sums it up.

Very well put lonestarnot.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

originalpckelly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-26-07 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #6

18. I would ask prisoners whether they have the right to travel freely.

They might disagree.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Selatius

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-26-07 05:35 PM
Response to Original message

7. If you believe in the Jeffersonian view of it, those rights are inalienable and self-evident.

If that is true, you cannot give somebody a right because it already exists. You can, however, deny the person that right through force.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TahitiNut

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-26-07 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #7

12. I'd say it's the liberty to exercise the right that's taken awy

... either by due process or oppression. The 'right' remains and is infringed upon.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

originalpckelly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-26-07 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #12

14. Democracy is a natural truth. Is a mathematical and technological truth.

Edited on Thu Apr-26-07 05:42 PM by originalpckelly

More people can force less people to do something. There are more people, there is more force. That truth is altered by technology, with technology a smaller group can have more force than a larger group. I mean this in the sense of math and physics. Literally, a larger group has more physical newtons than a smaller group unless the smaller group uses technology to increase the newtons of force they have.

However, because it defeats the natural truth, technological force is undemocratic and unjust.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

AZBlue

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-26-07 05:36 PM
Response to Original message

8. False

From 1919 - 1933 we didn't have the right to drink. In 1933, the 21st Amendment gave us (back) that right.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Book Lover

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-26-07 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #8

10. I would argue a different perspective

That from 1919-1933 the federal government refused to recognize the right of people to drink for recreation (as there was an exception made for catholics and wine at mass).

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

originalpckelly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-26-07 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #8

11. Or did they just decide to stop taking it away?

Rights are a human theory of a natural truth, in the sense that 2 + 2 = 4.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

piedmont

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-26-07 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #8

16. We had that right before the 18th took it away. nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

BlooInBloo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-26-07 05:48 PM
Response to Original message

17. True or false: Semantics games are stupid when everyone already agrees on the basic issue?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

originalpckelly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-26-07 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #17

19. Not really, there are demeaning aspects to "giving a right".

It implies the one "giving" the right is capable of doing so. It's very condescending. I started thinking about it in the wake of the NH civil union law. How condescending that they have to "give" gay people the right to have civil unions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TahitiNut

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-26-07 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #19

20. The rhetorical shell game of 'rights' v. 'entitlements' v. 'privileges' is a GOP staple.

Edited on Thu Apr-26-07 06:04 PM by TahitiNut

It's the GOP and the right wing that constantly connect "Constitution" with "rights" like they connect "Saddam" and "al-Qa'ida" ... all to obfuscate the fact that they're the Party of Privilege and the Party of Property.

It's the GOP that's infected the American mind with the notion that only by owning property do people have a 'privacy' right - that's it's somehow something that one must purchase.

As my (dear departed) uncle would say, "The Republicans are the party of property and the Democrats are the party of people."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 02nd 2024, 08:26 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.