Jodi: You seem to be grasping at straws. You both suggest that I register, in essence saying I will comply with the draft, and that I not deceive the Selective Service for personal gain.
Let’s be clear here. The fact of the matter is I am not under anyone’s radar. The last letter (July 1998) I recieved from the Selective Service contained the following:
Well, as is probably obvious, I did not regsiter and they did not prosecute. Not registering has disallowed, even absent a conviction, from recieving federal financial aid, employment with the federal government (irony, that), and a driver’s license in some states (not Washington). Would you suggest I register in order to gain these benefits, only to tell them I disagree with the draft if it started up? Which option is “sneaking out the back door?”
Your post is rather contradictory. Here in “cold hard reality” you are reminicent of the White Queen, beliving six impossible things (before breakfast). You both do and don’t think authority is confered by ability.
…
…
Once more from the top then?
Rights mean nothing if they are granted and taken away by others. If people have inalienable rights, the government does not have the authority to take them away, even if it does take them away. If government, even democractic government, had this authority, the rights wouldn’t be inalienable would they? You can not “socially contract” away your inalienable rights.
It strikes me that your argument isn’t really clear in your head, only that you disagree with me.
Too right. Even the most rabid hawks in the administration realize that a draft would be political suicide. And no congressman/woman would want to go back to their district after voting for one.
One thing I’ve got to wonder…I read several news websites and a couple papers every day, and I have not heard about “a potential draft” at all during the past few months. In fact, the only place I’ve read about it is right here on the SDMB. Where is everybody getting this idea that a draft is imminent?
Registering with Selective Service is not “in essence saying [you] will comply with the draft.” It is registering with Selective Service, period. It is a way of compiling a list of men eligible to serve, and that’s all. At the time of registration, you may also apply for a deferment or exemption based on a myriad of reasons, including a claim of CO status. But you still have to register.
Well, you certainly hope you are. You are playing the odds that the limited resources of the government will not include aggressivly prosecuting people such as yourself who choose to break the law by failing to register with Selective Service. That’s a pretty safe bet, by the way, but it’s a bet.
That’s exactly what I would suggest. Register. Tell them at the time you do so that you cannot and will not fight if asked, for reasons of personal conviction. That’s how you stand up. The “sneaking out the back door” option would be simply failing to comply with the law and hoping you don’t get caught. Which is what you’re doing, unless I’ve missed something.
And if you’re confused about the meaning of the word “authority,” look it up. Quoting my posts, without any comment from your part, hardly makes your position any clearer.
First, if you think “inalienable” means “not capable of being taken away,” you need to look up “inalienable” right after you look up “authority.”
Second, in the realm of the real, as opposed to the philosophical, rights very obviously can be taken away in every practical, meaningful sense. You can insist until you’re blue in the face that you have some right that is neither acknowledged nor protected by the government or society, and the fact will remain that your unacknoweldged, unprotected, purely theoretical “right” is nonexistent in any meaningful sense. Do people in China have an unfettered right to free speech? You, apparently, would say “yes.” And as a philosophical matter, I would agree. But in reality, where it counts, do people in China have an unfettered right to free speech? They obviously do not.
Third, your assertion that government cannot take away inalienable rights is contradicted by the thousands of lawsuits filed every year asserting that the government did, is doing, or intends to do exactly that. Prayer in school? A removal of your inalienable right to separation of church and state. Gag rules? A removal of the inalienable right to a free press, and free speech. Inorder to assert that the government cannot (lacks the ability) limit or even infringe rights, you must keep the argue regarding the nature and origin of “rights” on the purely theoretical, philosophical leve.
Which is fine, except you are claiming some “right” as the basis for what you have done (or failed to do) in reality, and claiming some lack of governmental authority for what the government is doing in reality, not in theory. Under those circumstances, it is entirely appropriate – even necessary – to look at whether you actually have the right you claim to have, in any practical meaningful sense, or whether the government actually lacks the authority you claim they lack, in any practical meaningful sense. Which, to reiterate, you don’t, and they do. You *don’t[/]i have the right to refuse to register with selective service because you’re concerned you might someday possibly be asked to fight in a war you’re philosophically opposed to. The government does have the valid authority to require you to participate in registration for the draft. To argue otherwise on the basis of purely theoretical and unacknowledged “rights” or “limits on authority” is IMO an intellectually flawed argument. Deeply and obviously flawed, at that.
I certainly do disagree with you, but I’m very clear as to why. Like I said, I’ve dealt with the arguments about what rights are possessed, and when, and according to whom, and at what point the concept of a “right” becomes meaningful as something other than a concept or an aspiration – I’ve dealt with those arguments at some length professionally, and consequently I think it’s safe to say I’ve given the matter a lot more thought than the average bear.
You chose not to register with Selective Service, and by doing so knowingly broke the law. You don’t consider it radical; neither do I. But neither do I consider it particularly noble or conscientous. And I certainly see no “right” which would justify your failure to participate in registration – which, again, is all that has been asked of you at this point – nor do I see any argument that the government somehow lacks the “authority” to do what it obviously has the actual and apparent authority to do. So what I see is you rationalizing your decision, and my point is that I don’t think your rationalization holds up when looked at with any degree of scrutiny.
I should also add that this isn’t an issue I care particularly deeply about. I don’t consider failure to register for the draft to be a particularly heinous crime. I think most people who are subject to registration show up and dutifully register, notifying the government at that time if they have problems with serving, and why. Certainly that’s what IMO ought to be done. The fact that you didn’t do it is hardly causing me to break a sweat, but neither am I able to accept your stated “I have this theoretical, unacknowledged right” argument as justification for breaking the law, because I’ve seen that argument dozens of times, and I think it’s bogus.
Civil disobediance is not complying with unjust laws. I believe the selective service system to be unjust, ergo I do not comply with it. If it is unjust, I don’t comply when it suits me, and not when it doesn’t. I’m not sure how violating the law is sliding under the radar, while complying with a law I disagree with is principled. Registering would be easier, since it is more likely that I would be arrested for breaking the law than complying with it. It is not, however, indicitive of dissent to comply with the law.
I quoted your post without substantive comments since you plainly put your foot in your mouth. But if you insist on comments,
Here you say authority is derived from ability:
Later you say these are seperate concepts:
and finally in the same post, you say that I’m confusing them, not you.
In other words, you were not consistant in your usage of the term “authority,” while chiding me for using it “incorrectly.” I take authority in this sense to be having moral justification to do something, and have done so consistantly.
Furthermore you are quite correct about the term inalienable. Here is what I said (italics, notably, were in the original):
Here is my dictionary’s (Webster New World College Dict. 3rd ed.) defintition of inalienable:
This is your que to explain how I misused this term to your obvious confusion.
In the words of Ronald Regan, “There you go again.” I don’t have a right to refuse to register, only not to fight? Then perhaps I should wait until I’m posted to the front lines and ordered to shoot, then refuse. After all, I don’t have a right to refuse training or a plane ride, do I? My decision was to express my objection to the Selective Service at the earliest time possible, that is when they asked me to register.
Just to be clear, I have argued my case, and you disagree. I am, however, not clear on your objections. Moreover, I don’t think you’re clear on your objections since they seem to change. When your arguement is refuted, such as your claim the government has the authority to do whatever the public wants, you switch to some vague claim about agreeing “in theory” but dealing with “reality.” The, a few posts later, you come back with the same refuted arguement.
To be clear:
The government does not have the authority* to do something which violates a person’s inalienable rights.
Participation in the selective service is a violation of my inalienable rights.
Whence, the government does not have the authority to require my registration with the selective service.
*Note the use of “authority” to indicate what is morally justified, not merely whatever elected officials choose to do.
Your argument against 1 appears to be that “authority” is (or isn’t) a descriptive term. That is, you have said “authority” denotes what the democratic government is phyically capable of doing (and made the opposite claim as well). Even if you were consistant in you own usage, this is hardly a subtantive complaint from a moral or ethical standpoint. No one is saying that a government is not phyically able to do things which are in fact unjustified. The concern is with the justification.
Your argument against 2 appears to be that I have a right to avoid combat, not to refuse to register. The absurdity of this is more than obvious (and I address it again in this post).
Don’t care? Don’t post. If you do attack me, however, I will hold you to what you say. As a “professional” (paralegal was it?, if memory serves…), you may want to give your argument some more thought (speaking as a pretty avarage bear).
Sometimes I swear the general lack of knowledge held by some Americans of events outside of the USA is simply bewildering. Europe per annum takes far more immigrants than the USA - right now - as we speak. And Canada takes huge numbers too. Sometimes I swear that a certain few Americans believe that their country is the only country on earth who has ever accepted an immigrant - such are the statements which are made on occasion.
Ahhh… the old reverse insult trick… well look, in the interests of fairness I have to concede that Australia has handled certain issues regarding people smuggling very poorly - but this is the reality on the matter… Australia still takes in, per annum, 120,000 legal immigrants a year. Unfortunately, the archipelago of Indonesia lends itself to dreadful people smuggling issues - people who effectively are queue jumpers. It’s the queue jumpers who we Australians are working against. The USA, due to it’s lack of a close archipelago like Indonesia doesn’t have the same Boat People issues Australia has - accordingly Australia is in a no-win situation on that one. A knowledge of the facts never hurts.
As for your assertion that I was attempting to “nail the USA?” - oh what bunkum. I’ve lived in the USA in the past and anyone on this board who knows me also knows how much I love the country and her wonderful people. However, if and when I see a blatant display of rah-rah-rah misguided patriotic conceit (by anyone from any country) then all bets are off at that point. My comments were addressed to the poster, not to the sovereign nation of the United States as a whole.
The issue here is perception. In many respects, due to island hopping and poor border control, Australia is actually an easier country to illegally enter than the USA. Most importantly, whether you like this reality or not, these days huge numbers of the world’s population would prefer to move to countries other than the USA as their primary “new home” of choice. The reasons are wide and varied, but I’m safe in saying that the USA is perceived in a negative light by a lot of people around the world. It didn’t used to be, but it is nowadays.
Drug problems, gang problems, city violence, a feeling of not being welcome, a sense that the USA is no longer what she was - all of it adds up to a perception by many potential immigrants that other countries are better bets - and the figures back this up. That’s why Europe in particular has the immigration it has these days.
Sometimes I swear the general lack of knowledge held by some Americans of events outside of the USA is simply bewildering. Europe per annum takes far more immigrants than the USA - right now - as we speak. And Canada takes huge numbers too. Sometimes I swear that a certain few Americans believe that their country is the only country on earth who has ever accepted an immigrant - such are the statements which are made on occasion.
Ahhh… the old reverse insult trick… well look, in the interests of fairness I have to concede that Australia has handled certain issues regarding people smuggling very poorly - but this is the reality on the matter… Australia still takes in, per annum, 120,000 legal immigrants a year. Unfortunately, the archipelago of Indonesia lends itself to dreadful people smuggling issues - people who effectively are queue jumpers. It’s the queue jumpers who we Australians are working against. The USA, due to it’s lack of a close archipelago like Indonesia doesn’t have the same Boat People issues Australia has - accordingly Australia is in a no-win situation on that one. A knowledge of the facts never hurts.
As for your assertion that I was attempting to “nail the USA?” - oh what bunkum. I’ve lived in the USA in the past and anyone on this board who knows me also knows how much I love the country and her wonderful people. However, if and when I see a blatant display of rah-rah-rah misguided patriotic conceit (by anyone from any country) then all bets are off at that point. My comments were addressed to the poster, not to the sovereign nation of the United States as a whole.
The issue here is perception. In many respects, due to island hopping and poor border control, Australia is actually an easier country to illegally enter than the USA. Most importantly, whether you like this reality or not, these days huge numbers of the world’s population would prefer to move to countries other than the USA as their primary “new home” of choice. The reasons are wide and varied, but I’m safe in saying that the USA is perceived in a negative light by a lot of people around the world. It didn’t used to be, but it is nowadays.
Drug problems, gang problems, city violence, a feeling of not being welcome, a sense that the USA is no longer what she was - all of it adds up to a perception by many potential immigrants that other countries are better bets - and the figures back this up. That’s why Europe in particular has the immigration it has these days.
[hj]
Perhaps I misunderstand you on this. (Boat People issues) We have quite the steady flow of folks arriving illegally by boat in the US. Haitians, Dominicans, Cubans, Chinese all arrive here by boat rather frequently. Thousands and thousands of them. Plus smaller numbers of just about every other nationality you can think of.
[/hj]
Indeed you are correct sir. I’m not quite so sure that the same endemic “people smuggling” aspects are at play however - at least in the context of Boat People. Certainly, I’m very much aware that it happens via the Mexican border, (that is, where illegal immigrants actually pay a courier to smuggle them in) but I suspect the people smuggling aspects through Indonesia is a far greater problem.
That’s a mighty convenient definition of civil disobedience you’ve got there. To most, civil disobedience is not only not complying with the law, but doing so openly so that one’s actions serve to put the system – and others – on notice of one’s belief that the law is unjust, and further indicate a willingness to work within the system so long as what is asked of one is not unjust. IMO, civil disobedience in this instance would be showing up, saying I’m registering because I’m required by law to register, but I’m telling you right now that I won’t serve if called. Tell it to the registrant. Write it on the form. And, hopefully, have conducted your life in such a way that if your convictions are later investigated they don’t appear to be only a pretext.
This sentence doesn’t make any sense.
Registering would be easier? What crap. You haven’t done a thing about this, as far as you’ve explained. How is showing up easier than not showing up. Your choices are not limited to obeying the law, or quietly breaking the law. Your third choice is true civil disobedience – obeying the law to the extent you believe you morally can and, once you no longer can, being open, honest, and public about your refusal to do what is asked of you and the reasons why you simply cannot do it. Not incidentally, this puts you in a position of demonstrating your willingness to serve your country to the very best of your ability, and to the limits of your moral ability, and underscores that your violation of the law is not motivated by less noble (and more obvious) reasons, like laziness or cowardice.
[quote]
Here you say authority is derived from ability:
quote:
Authority: as in the apparent ability, legal and factual, to do a given thing.
Later you say these are seperate concepts:
quote:
Well, not. Because they may do it as well. “Can” connotes ability. “May” connotes authority. The government has both.
I think you’re parsing things too finely. Authority by necessity includes ability, as should be obvious; how can you have the authority to do something you don’t have the ability to do? To say that some one may (has permission) do something they can’t do (lacks ability) is meaningless. Factually, I cannot authorize you to fly, because you can’t fly. Legally, I can’t authorize you to steal my car, because if I authorize it, you can’t steal it. This is entirely tangential, of course; if you’re confused about my definition of “authority,” consult a dictionary. I’m happy to employ any reasonable definition you might like. That won’t include “the government doesn’t have the authority to do something if I, King Short, say it doesn’t.”
There is no definition by which the term “authority” will be defined as “having moral justification.” “Authority” means a delegate of power to do a given thing.
Yes, I know
Except you didn’t express your objection, so far as I can tell. You don’t refer to yourself as a conscientious objecter, but a “'draft dodger.” Which is exactly what you appear to be, since who am I to not take you at your word? Though as to that IMO you certainly should wait until you are actually asked or are imminently going to be asked, to do the thing you object to (fight) before objecting. Unless you object to filling out forms.
My argument has been and is consistent. You wish to talk about rights in their theoretical form – “inalienable” rights that you assert to possess, and which you further assert the govenrment lacks the “authority” to take away – but then, inexplicably, you want to attempt to apply those purely theoretical rights to a reality in which they do not exist in any meaningful way. To which I reply: The right you are claiming (the right not to fight if you don’t feel like it) does not exist in the reality in which you are attempting to employ it. The authority you claim the government does not have, it quite obviously in reality does have. This is not that complicated.
First, regarding your asterisk: That’s not what “authority” means. Your morality differs from mine, obviously. Neither your opinion nor my opinion of what is morally justifiable under these circumstances has diddly-squat to do with the government’s authority. I’m not going to join you in defining a word to mean something it very clearly doesn’t mean.
Second, you may argue on a theoretical or philosophical level about what the government is “permitted” to do, and on that level you can certainly argue that the government cannot “take away” your rights. Meanwhile, back down here on Planet Earth, it obviously can, and frequently is accused of doing just that. As I’ve already explained, but you appear to have ignored that part.
Which one? This is just some right you made up, isn’t it? You have no right to refrain from filling out a form. As I’ve already said, if you’re just going to assign yourself rights, make up ones with a more tangible payoff.
Since (1) is incorrect and (2) is incorrect, it follows that (3) is incorrect as well. And you’re still misusing “authority.”
No, wrong again. “Authority” doesn’t just mean “you can do whatever you have the physical power to do.” Under that rationale, a large man would have the authority to beat up a small man. Certainly I never said this. In fact, I already defined the term: “Authority” means the power to do something, assigned by one (like the citizens) to another (like the government). Note that this also implicates the ability to do the thing in question, since authority without present or future ability is meaninless. But “authority” is not just ability, and you can certainly leave that concept out if it’s confusing.
The government doesn’t have to justify anything, until such time as it is alleged to violating a person’s constitutional right through a given enactment. Not just some vague “inalienable” right; a recognized constitutional right that is acknowledged to exist in our society and therefore has a meaning in reality, and an existence beyond a theoretical construct. Though as to that, the general catch-all “justification” for myriad government actions is the promotion or protections of the public health, safety, and/or welfare. Selective Service certainly falls within that rubric.
Ah, yes, it’s so absurdly obvious that you don’t really address it. You say (paraphrasing): “Perhaps I should have to wait until I’m in actual danger of being shot at?” To which I reply, Yes. You should. I wouldn’t go so far as to have you up there on the line, but somewhere a little closer than filling out a form in a time when there isn’t even an active draft would be IMO more appropriate.
I said I didn’t care deeply about, not that I didn’t care at all. Obviously I care marginally, because I think your position is flawed. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a rationalization, since how would I know?, but it’s flawed because you’re attempting to use a right that doesn’t exist in reality, and to deny authority that does exist in reality, in order to justify your actions. And it doesn’t work that way. As much as you may be morally opposed to driving less that 80 miles per hour, you do not have a “right” to speed. And the government has the authority to prevent you from doing so. To claim that, yes, you do, when very obviously no, you don’t, is delusional. I mean, who do you think decides what rights you have? You? Franklin Roosevelt declared that every person in the world has the right to be free from fear. In a post 9/11 world, how’s that working out? And no, I’m not a paralegal, so memory doesn’t serve, though why should it, there’s no reason for you to know any more about me than I know about you. But I’ve read my posts in this thread and I think my arguments arepretty clear, so I guess I’ll just stick by them, thanks.
Lastly, I’m not “attacking” you. I don’t care enough about the issue to attack you. But I’m not going to act like I think your reasoning is solid when IMO it isn’t, and I’m certainly not going to act like I respect your actions when as should be obvious, I don’t. I’d have a hell of a lot more respect for you if you had engaged in civil disobedience by going in and saying “this is wrong, and I’m not going to participate and I’m here to tell you so, and tel you why, in writing and in person.” Which, I don’t know, maybe you did, but if you did, you’ve left that part out.
Well, I am happy to debate the meaning of the words I used. It appears, however, that save for the timing of my voicing dissent, the substantive issues are settled. You seem to agree that it is morally (not legally, not pragmatically) justified to oppose the draft, by not participating at some point. That, whatever words you choose, is what I am doing.
Regarding when to voice opposition to the draft: I object to compulsory military service generally. I will not cooperate by putting my name on a list which has no use but to assist a program of compulsory military service.
If there were a program to round up all and imprison all people who don’t like the President, would you suggest we all go register? After all, lists are not objectionable…
Onto the definitions of various words: Civil Disobedience. I defined it as not complying with unjust laws. Zinn defines it “The deliberate violation of the law for a social purpose” (Declarations of Independence, pp107). Does his definition suit you? It works fine for me. You may, however, want to familiarize yourself with Zinn before saying there is no social purpose to evading the draft. It is one of his prime examples.
Inalienable rights These are rights which no one has moral justification to take away. Someone might keep you from exercising them, but they are not morally justified to do so. They are no more theoretical than other rights, even when being suppressed. A person should always believe they have these rights, even if those in power tell them otherwise.
If you don’t believe these rights exist, that is another story. There can be no distinction between “theoretical” inalienable rights and those in reality. Some may be suppressed, but they still exist (precisely because they are inalienable).
Authority You seem to see any transference of power as the granting of authority. However, in order to grant power, one must first have it. I can not grant my neighbor the authority to kill people because I don’t have moral justification to kill someone. Citizens can’t grant their government the authority to remove someone’s inalienable rights; the citizens don’t have the moral justification to suppress inalienable rights.
When someone says “they can’t do that” (when “they” obviously are doing just “that”), the meaning is “they do not have the moral justification to do that.” No matter what you think what such a sentence should mean, that is what it was intended to mean. If this was not clear before, it should be now.
No you said that a powerful government had the authority to do anything lawful (although one must understand laws to be instruments of government policy, not some kind of transcendent document):
And again (if I’m reading this correctly)
Any government can pass laws to do anything. That does not mean they have the authority to do anything any more than the large man can have authority to beat up a smaller man.
You may argue that the government can in fact be authorized to do anything (if assented to in a “social contract”). I disagree with this, since (among other reasons) it precludes inalienable rights. If yours is the social contract position, we can go from there.
My apologies about mistaking you for a paralegal. I argued with someone about two years ago here about Jury Nullification, and somehow thought that person was you.
If my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle. Is it an infringement upon a specific right of the individual to put on them a duty to register for a draft? No. Is it an infringement upon a specific right of the individual to imprison people on the basis of a lawfully held opinion? Yes. You “object to compulsory military service” generally, but you’re a little unclear as to why. Just “the government can’t do that,” when of course they can, and “I have a right not to register” when of course you don’t. And, by the way, I do NOT agree that it is morally justified to “dodge” the draft by just not showing up and hoping the government doesn’t catch up to you until it’s too late. I fail to see any admirable moral stand in such an action.
No, that definition does not suit me. “Civil disobedience” is more generally defined as “refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means.” (Dictionary.com) It is the intent of civil disobedience to effect change in the law, and that almost always means disobeying in a public manner, so that the fact of the disobedience and the reasons for it are brought to light, drawing attention to the perceived problem. The problem with your definition is that it is too broad; saving your own skin is “a social purpose.” So is continuing to do something you and your friends would like to do except, oops, it’s illegal. Neither is generally held to be the sort of principled stance that is associated with civil disobedience. Though I can certainly see how intepreting your own actions so nobly must be a comfort. But I’m not required to see them in such a light, and I don’t.
Really. And precisely what rights are those? Do you have a right to be free from fear, as Franklin Roosevelt declared? How about free from want, as he also declared? Do we have a right to a clean environment? How about the right to a balanced budget? Are those rights or not? Here’s a hint: It depends on which state’s constitutio you’re reading.
The problem with defining “inalienable rights” as simply “those rights that no one has a moral justification to take away” is that you’re not saying what they are, or where they come from, or under what circumstances it is “morally justifiable” to infringe on those rights. Apparently, you feel you get to decide all that by yourself and then, magically, the government is required to fall right in line with your personal determination regarding the nature, scope, and existence of rights. Which, of course, it isn’t, and doesn’t. Which takes us right back to the original point: There is no practical reason (beyond aspiration) to assert rights that do not exist in any meaningful way in a given society.
Once again: What rights are those? How do you know they are inalienable? Who decides? What list are you reading from, anyway? Of course there’s a difference between theoretical rights and rights granted in reality. The latter exist in some meaningful, demonstrable way; the former do not. Do you have a right to free speech? Yes. It’s set forth in the constitution of the U.S., probably in the constitution of whatever state you live in, and has been set forth and defended by over 200 years of jurisprudence. I can point that right out to you. I can point to 1000 different cases in which it has been considered, and given the deference granted to a right we as a society have agreed exists. I can tell you circumstances under which you can invoke that right. I can tell you circumstances under which you can’t. I can explain to you at great length how the recognition and possession of this right has shaped our society. That is a real right you have in the real world.
The right to be free from fear, on the other hand, is a mere aspiration. It’s not a right you actually have. It’s not been accepted by our society as something you are entitled to; it has not been set forth in a binding document setting forth the principles of society; it is not protected by the courts; it is not something you can invoke in any meaningful way. It is a theoretical right, but it is not one you have in any meaningful way in the real world.
“Real” rights (meaning, agreed-upon, recognized, accepted rights) exist both theoretically and realistically. Theoretical rights exist only in theory, not in practice. So say that there is no difference between the theory and the practice is stupid; it denies reality.
[qupte]Authority You seem to see any transference of power as the granting of authority. However, in order to grant power, one must first have it. I can not grant my neighbor the authority to kill people because I don’t have moral justification to kill someone. Citizens can’t grant their government the authority to remove someone’s inalienable rights; the citizens don’t have the moral justification to suppress inalienable rights.
[/quote]
We as a society quite obviously have abilities (“powers”) collectively that we do not have as individuals. Therefore, we as a society can certainly grant the authority to the government to do things in our stead and on our behalf. Indeed, the government exists to do precisely that. You cannot tax your neighbor; the government can. You cannot lock your neighbor up; the government can. You cannot put your neighbor to death; the government can. You cannot make your neighbor go to war to protect you; the government can. None of these governmental actions involve the violation of any citizens inalienable rights, by the way, provided that you’re willing to limit your discussion of “rights” to rights recognized by someone other than just you, which so far you have sigularly been unwilling to do.
It is clear now. What should also be clear is that the government does not have to justify its actions to you or anyone – provided that its actions are undertaken lawfully and do not violate anyone’s constitutional rights. Neither inquiry, by the way, demands that the government come up with a “moral” justification of anything. Ideally, the government does not act based on what it perceives to be moral, but rather based on what is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. There are broad exceptions, of course; the government’s obligation to take care of children who have no other means of care is largely based on a collective moral conviction that that’s the right thing to do. The operative inquiry when challenging government action is whether it’s legal, not whether it’s moral, because “moral” is a subjective judgment call that varies depending on who you ask.
If the people, through their government properly pass a law giving the government the authority to “do anything,” then – surprise! – the government has the authority to do anything. (Assuming no individual rights are violated, and I mean recognized rights, not rights you’ve thought up.) If a law is properly passed, then you have precious little basis to complain that it is applied to you unless you can show that its application to you violates a constituional right or prohibition. Which, in this case, you obviously can’t. Heck, you can’t even really articulate what right you’re talking about, or where it comes from, or why the government should be required to recognize it.
The government can be authorized to do anything that is lawful and that does not violate existing rights (inalienable or not). Where you argument breaks down – heck, falls apart completely – is when you try to hang it not on any real right that you can point to as actually having in any meaningful sense, but rather on some vague idea of general “inalienable rights” that are not recognized to exist by anyone with the power to enforce them or the duty to recognize them. That is the essence of the social contract in a representative democracy: We give our authority to our representatives; they pass the laws; and we tacitly agree to follow them. If we think they’re wrong, we change the law. If we think our rights are infringed, we go to court to prove it and have the law struck down. We do NOT simply decide to follow the laws we think are good ideas as disregard the ones we think are bad ideas – at least not without suspecting (rightly) that someday the authorities might come looking for us, because obedience to the law is not considered optional.
So rather than just speaking vaguely about your “right” to not have to do what every other young man of your generation is expected to do, maybe you’d like to take a shot at explaining precisely what right you’re referring to, where you think it comes from, and how you know you have it? You might keep in mind, however, that even conscientious objecters to the draft do not base their failure to serve upon some “right” to be free from the obligation, or some assertion that the government lacks the authority to impose the obligation, because both of these arguments are wrong. Rather, they base their failure to serve on deeply held religious or moral convictions that prevent them from complying. It’s not “You can’t make me serve,” it’s “I can’t serve.” It’s not “I have a right not to serve,” it’s “I can’t serve.” That’s a heck of a stronger argument than hanging your hat on some non-specified right that our society doesn’t even agree exists.
Jodi let’s imagine a scenario (albeit an unlikely one). The people and their elected officials decide one day that they don’t like you, and you should be put in prison. To accomplish this, they throw out of the constitution bills of attainer, habeas corpus, the judicial branch, and the appropriate amendments. Do you, being a good citizen, accept your fate? Let’s suppose further that, in addition to being unjust, the agents of the government are also incompetent, and you could escape with ease. Do you leave your cell? What recourse do you have, if all your rights and basic equality itself are merely granted by law and not transcendent?
Yes this is a thought experiment, not something which will likely happen. Such is the stuff of ethics.
Laws, in my view, are simply the means by which governments achieve their policy objectives. “Existing rights,” that is rights granted by law, are part of this and thus subject to change at the whim of the government. There are no rights granted by law which can not be taken away by law. Since there exist unjust laws, they are not an absolute code of good moral behavior.
Allow me to anticipate your answer: you would go to Canada. The social contract in the US no longer suits you and you leave (regardless of what the law says you can do). Congratulations, you have just established your first inalienable right: the right to decide your own best interest.
You may wish to add on a few more: the right to equality, the right to have and express your opinions, and so on. Once you admit there are inalienable rights, you must ask what they are and where they come from. Many philosophers of the enlightenment saw the Christian deity as the source (“endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights”). I find these accounts to be flawed since, among other reasons, I don’t believe in the Christian deity.
There are many other accounts. The social contract is one of them, and this post is a critique of it. I am not going to give you a complete account of moral behavior because I don’t have one. There are open questions in moral philosophy. What should we make, for instance, of an incompetent person (recalling the right to determine your own best interest), or children? Clearly there are missing components. But this is not a course in pure or applied ethics.
If the move to Canada (or equivalent solution) was in fact your solution to the thought experiment, I’m curious from whence you derive your right to discern your own best interest, even if the law is to the contrary.
But, I hasten to add before I continue, that a requirement of a complete theory of morals before any action can be taken is onerous. We could engage in a lengthy discussion of a theory of morals (and I am quite happy to do so), however the expectation that we agree is unreasonable. Just as there the open questions in the fundementals of the philosophy of science don’t prohibit doing the best science we can, the open questions in ethics don’t prohibit our making moral decisions as best we can. You are welcome to try to find flaws in my argument, but the lack of an undisputed moral authority from which all goodness flows is not, to my mind a flaw if we agree to the premises.
How is this:
If we admit killing is wrong under some circumstances, or that there might (in theory or in fact) be an unjust war, we are not justified in agreeing to kill or fight without knowing the circumstances. We are further not justified in participating in a system which forces people to kill or go to war, since forcing them precludes their consideration of what is just in a given set of circumstances. The selective service system is exactly that, and I for one don’t participate.
You can take your time replying, I’m not likely to be able to post again until tomorrow.
You know, you don’t address yourself to any of the points I raise, and you don’t answer the questions I’ve asked. Allow me to repost my questions: What rights do you think you have? Please list them for me, and I mean list them all. Where do they come from? Who decides if you have them? If no one but you acknowledges them, how do you know you have them? You drone on about unspecified rights being “inalienable” or “transcendent” but you refuse to say what right you are relying on in this instance, where it comes from, or why you think you have it. This is like the third time I’ve asked, and your failure to answer appears evasive. Kindly answer the questions. Do you have a freedom from fear? Do you have a freedom from want? How do you know?
I have not said that rights are granted solely by law in a theoretical sense. I have no problem with lofty statements on inalienability and grants from God (". . . that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights . . ."). In fact, I’d say I’m probably more comfortable with them than you are (or should be), because as a practicing Christian I have no problem accepting that they come from God and therefore ought to be respected by humanity – ought to be, which is not to say I believe they always actually are. You do not believe in a Diety, nor do you believe in a social contract granting rights – so where the heck do you think they come from? I mean, if not from God, and not from Man, then from where? Please answer the question.
Regardless of where rights originate, in every practical, identifiable sense, you have only those rights that society, through the function of its history and its powers of enforcemtn, agree that you have. A right that society does not recognize or enforce is merely an aspiration.
First, the only one talking about morality is you. Morality doesn’t enter into it much, as I’ve already pointed out. Second, rights, once recognized as such and given the deference due to fundamental rights agreed to exist in a given society, are certainly not “subject to change at the whim of the government.” In fact, the existence of agreed-upon rights and the acceptance of the principle that the government may not violate them, is one of the chief checks on the “whims of government.” The government attempts to violate the citizens rights with great regularity, either intentionally or unintentionally, and the courts step in and say “you can’t do that; it’s unconstitutional.”
Besides which, your position remains indefensible to the extent you argue that if rights are “transcendent” or “inalienable” then a government cannot take them away. This is quite obviously incorrect. For any right you can think of, I can tell you a government that does not recognize that right, does not grant it to its citizenry, and has even every meaningful sense “taken it away.” “Where rights come from” have nothing whatsoever to do with whether they exist in any detectible way – in any way that has any meaning or any relevance beyond being a high ideal. I think it’s about time you addressed yourself to the problem of what the value is of a right that no one recognizes but you. I would be very surprised if you can assign such a right any value at all, beyond being an aspiration or an ideal. Please address this point.
This is precisely why questions of the enforcement of rights do not usually devolve to questions of morality. Morality varies from citizen to citizen, but we all have the same rights and they should be applied equally. If you admit that we can and very likely will disagree about a “theory of morals” (whatever that means), you must also admit that a government seeking to govern a collective of individuals cannot expect society to present it with a particular theory of morals for it to use. And you must also admit that, therefore, a theory of personal morality is not sufficient justification to break the law and expect not to suffer the consequences. If you were raised a Gypsy – pardon me, a Rom – you might feel it is perfectly moral to steal. You will still be expected to follow the law in this society and refrain from stealing. Your personal morality will not excuse you from suffering the consequences if you insist on stealing anyway. And if you claim that your actions are justified by some “inalienable” “transcendant” right to steal that the government “can’t” take away, you will undoubtedly be told you have no such right. You, apparently, would then insist that, yes, you do, even though no one acknowledges that but you. By this rationale, you are the king of all you survey, because you say so and no one else has the “authority” to say you aren’t. I am amazed that you don’t recognize how transcendently stupid this is.
I don’t thin I need to “try” to find flaws in your argument; I think your argument is obviously and deeply flawed: You base a course of action you took in reality on some “right” you refuse to identify, for which you have no evidence that it even exists in any meaningful way in any place other than inside your head. You further assert, completely without basis, that the government does not have a type and breadth of authority that it very clearly – completely obviously – does have. When asked to clarify what right you are talking about, why you think you have it, where you think it comes from, and how you can possibly assert that you have it if the society you live it doesn’t recognize it – you refuse to answer. How much more flawed can your argument possibly get?
If you were raised a Negro – pardon me, an African-American – you might feel it is perfectly moral to deal drugs. You will still be expected to follow the law in this society and refrain from drug dealing. Your personal morality will not excuse you from suffering the consequences if you insist on drug dealing anyway. And if you claim that your actions are justified by some “inalienable” “transcendant” right to deal drugs that the government “can’t” take away, you will undoubtedly be told you have no such right.
Likewise, if you were raised a Paddy – pardon me, an Irishman – you might feel it is perfectly moral to beat your wife. You will still be expected to follow the law in this society and refrain from beating her. Your personal morality will not excuse you from suffering the consequences if you insist on giving her a hiding anyway. And if you claim that your actions are justified by some “inalienable” “transcendant” right to beat your wife that the government “can’t” take away, you will undoubtedly be told you have no such right.
Also, If you were raised a cunt – pardon me, Jodi – you might feel it is perfectly moral to post stupid shit. You will still be expected to follow the law in this society and refrain from posting stupid shit. Your personal morality will not excuse you from suffering the consequences if you insist on posting stupid shit anyway. And if you claim that your actions are justified by some “inalienable” “transcendant” right to post stupid shit that the administration “can’t” take away, you will undoubtedly be told you have no such right.
Your right, I didn’t answer these questions. I addressed them, however; I said the questions were not relevant. You may, if you choose, disagree with the specific moral claims I have made in my argument. To post such a list of rights as you propose is, however, to invite criticism of whether people have a right to education or employment, which have not one thing to do with the question at hand.
I’m glad you agree. If you want a GD thread on the topic, I’ll post to it. I don’t want to be drawn off topic here, however. I said as much in my last post, if you read carefully.
Your regularly repeated claim that suppressed rights are merely theoretical I have answered several times. I have stated that enforcement of law or recognition of rights is not necessary for the existence of rights. I have given you several examples why the contrary position, that rights are granted by law, is absurd. If you read further, you will find I say this again below. The question with which I began my last post, which you never answered, was motivated by your continual posting of this “theoretical rights don’t exist” claim again and again, without addressing my response.
Answer the question: would you violate the law if the law were, in every outward appearance, unjust? Doing so, at least in a democracy, is the assertion of rights not recognized by others.
Back to the argument at hand. You may note that the only moral claims needed for my argument in the previous post are as follows:
Killing, under some possible circumstances, is not morally justified.
A person, being personally responsible for their actions, and as a consequence, must be permitted to decide when their killing of another is not justified.
No one is justified in forcing someone person to do something which is not morally justified.
You can agree or disagree with any of these. We can debate the origins of these claims, but if you agree with them, what is the point? If you disagree, point out where please. If possible, you may want to further exhibit an example of why you think it would lead to an absurd or impossible conclusion.
You may not be a paralegal, but you must be trained in the law. Only someone who thinks like a lawyer could think mincing words like this has meaning. A right is an entitlement (freedom from or freedom to do something). If you aspire towards something, you must either believe you are entitled to it, or will somehow become entitled to it (usually through work).
I’m glad you brought this up, since it seems to be a fundamental point. Morals, recognized by others or not, are motivating factors of actions. If you don’t follow your moral judgment, what would you follow?
What is the point of discussing civil disobedience without discussing morals? Of course it is against the law; it wouldn’t be civil disobedience otherwise (no matter what definition you use). I can’t imagine a discussion civil disobedience without discussing morals.
Finally, we consider this:
If the congress is not a good source of all things moral, then I daresay the courts won’t be either. Nor the constitution, nor the majority opinion of the country. Hell, not even the super majority of elected representatives necessary to change the constitution (and say, remove judicial review, that bulwark against injustice) makes their decrees morally justified, it merely makes them legal.
In an absolute monarchy, the monarch may remove the rights of a particular citizen or group of them. In a democracy, the majority of citizens may do the same. In neither case is it morally justified.
Much of the rest of your post seems to be going in circles confusing what is and what should be. You are quite correct that many people live with their human rights suppressed by the government. It doesn’t mean we should accept it, nor does it mean that it is right. My actions are motivated by what is morally justified to do, not what the law or courts say are my rights. I advocate changing laws to what is morally justified, not the other way around.
A drive-by to call me a cunt! Wow, that’s a first. And I would be so upset by it if I knew who you were or had the slightest reason to give a shit what you thought. Though your enormous overreaction to what was an attempt on my part to make sure I was not offending anyone indicates you need your medication adjusted, KAL.
SHORT, we’re done. You are repeatedly asked direct questions to support your position; you do not answer them. Of course, there’s no way I can make you answer them, but neither will I waste my time attempting to guess what they might be. The conversation is therefore over.
I was impressed to find someone still reading these monstrous posts.
Thank you, Jodi for a fine discussion. I understand that you may not find my arguments sufficient, however I feel (and think the above thread shows) that I responded to every one of your questions. We may even disagree on this point, but I do appreciate your obvious intellect and the lively discussion.