Tort reform in a nutshell. Good thing we have the Second Amendment. JDM
Scylla says that if someone stops you from speaking they are not giving you your freedom of speech. SolGrundy would say that same person is denying you that right.
Either you fight for someone to give you a right, or you fight to stop them from denying it to you. Which one is it?
I do not, repeat not want to derail the thread, but I have to reply to this:
No, it doesn’t. They’re still perfectly free to think it’s wrong, right, or to be completely indifferent to it.
I actually see where Scylla is coming from (or at least where I think he’s coming from).
But here’s my take on the idea. A “right” is an intangible, like the title to your car or home. You can physically point to your car or to your home. But if your car is stolen, or you loan it to someone, or you’re away on a trip, what makes it “yours” rather than the car thief, the borrower, or the person who sees your house locked up and has covetous thoughts about it? Not the title certificate or the deed, surely – they’re mere pieces of paper. It’s what they guarantee – the intangible ownership which they record – that makes them yours.
Likewise, a right is an intangible possession of yours. But just as in a lawsuit you may have to get a court to recognize that title which you hold to the disputed property, your right is viable only insofar as you can get others to recognize it.
But that doesn’t mean that it’s not there. It’s merely that you haven’t been able to exercise it, because you cannot get it recognized. Did every mixed-race couple in the U.S. magically acquire the right to marry in 1967 – for that matter, did everyone magically get that right then? Or was it an inherent right which never needed formal definition and recognition until a case came up in which it was denied, and that needed fixing?
However, Scylla has a point. Theoretically, I may have a given right – but it’s my right in a more pragmatic sense only insofar as (a) my friends and neighbors, all those I come in contact with, accept it as such, or (b) someone having infringed on it, I am able to bring in the law on my side and get the infringement removed.
So in a purely pragmatic sense, Scylla is right – my rights exist in a functional sense only insofar as the general public and or the government is willing to recognize them. But that purely begs the question of how to obtain such recognition.
The problem is that when people assert a right, they’re claiming an absolute. If it’s a Right being invoked, then there is no room for compromise. It’s not just a personal matter, it’s a symbolic battle for every American and the full weight of society should fall in behind the individual. Almost inevitably, when one person says he’s defending his Rights, his opponent will soon be defending their position by asserting some other Right.
To use the example I gave above, if one roommate says he wants to play his tuba at 3:00 am and the other roommate says he wants to sleep, there’s hope for a resolution. But if one roommate asserts that he is fighting for the Right of all Americans to freely express themselves and the other says he is fighting for the Right of all Americans to be safe in their homes, the chances of rationality or reasonableness entering into the fray have disappeared. Someone might compromise on when they play music or sleep, but nobody will surrender an inch of ground for their freedom of expression or the sanctity of their home.
They can and they do. And that’s where reason enters the debate. A reasonable person acknowledges where his right conflicts with the rights of others, and makes concessions accordingly.
I have a right to freedom of expression, but I am a reasonable person, and I acknowledge that I do not have the right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater and claim that it was “performance art.” The reason is that my right to freedom of expression conflicts with their right to safety. I have a right to privacy in my own home, but I am a reasonable person, and I acknowledge that I must allow police officers into my home to investigate if they have a warrant. The reason is that my right to privacy conflicts with the right to safety of someone else.
The problem arises when someone is trying to assert his right and is told that he is not entitled to it, even when it conflicts with absolutely no one else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo
Your right to marry a person of the same sex interferes with someone else’s right to think that’s wrong.
Quote:
No, it doesn’t. They’re still perfectly free to think it’s wrong, right, or to be completely indifferent to it.
I’m 100 percent with Sol Grundy here. It is a false and dangerous way to frame anything. My “right” to live my life does not threaten someone else’s “right” to not like it. However, right now, what the other person thinks is stomping all over my “right” because it is being enforced that way. So you’re saying because someone somewhere doesn’t like it, his “right” trumps mine? That is Total Bullshit of epic proportions.
Yes it is. Which is why I never said it. The example of two views about same-sex marriage was just an example. In case you missed it, I didn’t say one side was right and the other was wrong. My personal opinion (which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread and I haven’t brought up here before for that reason) is that gay people should be allowed to marry each other. So now that we’ve established that there’s nobody here arguing against you, could we steer the plane back on to course?
This solves the problem by ignoring it. Obviously if two reasonable people are able to agree on a solution which addresses both of their needs there’s no issue of their respective rights.
But the problems arise when one or more people in a situation don’t agree on a solution. Maybe one person isn’t reasonable. Maybe nobody is. Maybe there is no resonable solution. This is where the problem becomes difficult. What’s the solution then?
This has taken an interesting turn:
“Your right to same sex marriages interferes with my right to stop them.”
“Your right to freedom conflicts with my right to enslave you.”
Well… That is a refreshingly honest and novel stance. I think we can say that.
I did miss it. My apologies.
My point is that often people are invoking their rights in situations where there is no threat to their rights. They just have an opinion but when they realize their individual opinion might not be enough to carry the argument in their favor, they hitch it to a right and defend the opinion as if it were the entire right.
Example, please, preferably not invoking anything about gay rights – since that would result in a major hijack. Not arguing so much as trying to grasp your point better.
I’ll us the tuba example I’ve used before. Pretend I’m the nocturnal tuba player and I’m trying to justify my practice. If I have nothing to argue except “I like to play the tuba at three in the morning” I really don’t have much of a case. People will tell me I’m being inconsiderate and that everyone else in the building is trying to sleep at that time.
But if I invoke my Right to Free Expression, I now have an argument. The people who are trying to stop me are oppressing my freedom and that’s wrong. Or they’re trying to destroy the Right of Free Expression in general and that’s even more wrong. It doesn’t matter if everyone is against me because that’s what defending your rights is all about - one lone man struggling against the mob tyranny. Any compromise I make now would betray all the brave people who went before me and gave their lives for my rights. So I will never give up. Never back down an inch. I will fight for all of our rights and I will play my tuba forever!
You see what I’m saying? Too many times people put themselves in a position where they cannot compromise to resolve a situation because they’ve decided there’s an issue of rights involved.
I think I have an answer. In exercising your right to play the tuba at 3 in the morning, you are impinging on “the group’s” right to get a decent amount of sleep, when a “reasonable” person might want to sleep before starting another work day or school day. They could make a case that by depriving them of their rest, you are causing physical harm. To steal from Mr. Spock, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”. You could play your tuba any time of day. Others can’t just drop off to sleep on the job, or at will. Or, some crazy in the building might proclaim his “right” to shoot tuba players 
Or it could be that I never had a Right To Play The Tuba. And the rest of the house doesn’t have a Right To Sleep. We were just having a disagreement not a fight over our rights.
Provokes the following thoughts:
I agree that rights are always granted.
Rights can be Common or Special.
People don’t have Natural Rights; only Natural Needs.
Naturally, people look for ways to satisfy their needs. Society provides a variety of ways to satisfy people’s Needs. Those ways, approved by Society, become Rights. Society grants certain rights to most of its members (Common Rights) and grants special rights to selected members (Special Rights)
Let’s get down to Basics Needs: nourishment and excretion.
One has the right to feed oneself (because everybody does it), but one has no right to eat freely by grabbing any food in sight. Most people have the right to buy food at the local store or a restaurant, but special people have rights to eat at special places (White House or Capitol buildings).
One has the right to relieve oneself (because everybody does it), but one has no right to relieve oneself in public. Most people have the right to use public restrooms, but special people have rights to crap at special places (White House or Capitol buildings).
One either has a Right to satisfy one’s Needs in an approved manner because the majority are doing it themselves, or because the majority consents to one’s special privileges.
To claim a Common Right one has only to point out that everybody else have it. To claim a Special Right one has to prove oneself worthy and/or exceptional.
Are there Individual Rights, or Autonomous Rights, accorded to an individual unconditionally, simply by virtue of being Human? There’s a right to Breath, because it doesn’t affect anybody, so it goes unregulated; however, down at the bottom of the sea or up at the outer space, breathing might become a contentious issue. There’s also a right to Think, as long as one doesn’t bother anybody with results of those thought processes.
Back to OP, one doesn’t have a Right to freely engage in abusive discourse, but one might certainly have a Need to do so. How then one proceeds to claim a Right to Inflict Abuse in that case? By following others (Common Right) or taking the initiative, expecting that significant number of other people will approve (Special Right), or just going it alone because one feels like it (Individual or Autonomous Right). Well, may be there are Autonomous Rights in Cyberspace!