We've got our rights and our freedoms, now what about our responsibilities?

Great Debates
1

Jim and I were having an intense discussion about what is wrong with the world today (as we often do, especially while driving), and we figured out that we live in a world (well, North America, anyway) where we concentrate on and legislate the rights and freedoms of all people, but we ignore the responsibilities of citizens.

I propose amendments to the constitutions of Canada and the U.S. that include the following responsibilities:

  1. You have the responsibility to not have more children than you can look after yourself (even if that means not having children at all).

  2. You have the responsibility to provide care for any children you have brought into the world (mother and father) until they are eighteen.

  3. You have the responsibility to make sure the guns you own are looked after properly at all times.

4.You have the responsibility to use free speech in mature, helpful ways.

  1. You have the responsibility to monitor the actions of yourself and your own family, not get away with whatever you can while authority isn’t looking.

  2. You have the responsibility to mind your own business about religion.

  3. You have the responsibility to think about other people, and consider how your actions affect them.

  4. You have the responsibility to vote.
    Thoughts?

2

Er, are these supposed to be legally binding?

What’s the government going to do to me if I don’t vote, or whatever?

3

Response the first: Hell, darlin, I look after my kids just fine. They like waiting in the car while I play slots. What’s it to you?

Response the second: Pork and beans is nutritious. Clothes don’t need to be washed every day. Heck, neither do the kids. School isn’t all that important. What’s it to you?

Here’s a carton, boy. Smoke up. And then get a job. I’m not made of money.

I keep it properly clean and properly loaded. The kids know not to mess with it.

That new 'do of yours looks like crap. Just being helpful. Oh, and fuck the referees, the bums.

But speeding isn’t really breaking the law. Nor is smoking a joint in the garage. And anyway, if the boy gets into jail, he can rot there. maybe it’ll teach him something.

It is my business if you go to hell or not. I like you and don’t want you burning for all time with Matthew Shepard. Besides, you’re going to make the wrong choices because of your wrong beliefs, and those choices might affect me.

Thought about it, considered it, don’t give a rat’s ass.

With these choices? What,I have a responsibility to write in Mickey Mouse? Nuh-uh. Not worth the effort.

Or, in other words, I think you’re seeking to regulate others’ behavior based on your idea of right and wrong. I don’t think it’s gonna fly.

4

I don’t think we ignore the responsibilities of citizens.

It’s not legal to neglect your kids. Neglect, mind you, not adhere to a style of parenting you don’t like or raise the kid to believe things that you don’t, or not to believe things that you do.

It is criminal to not take proper care of your guns should your kids get a hold of them. There are various firearms laws of all types.

If your speech is destructive (that is, it infringes upon someone else’s rights), it doesn’t fall under free speech.

Religion is a tough one. I think the separation of church and state isn’t taken as seriously as it should be, but that’s my interpretation. However, your way of putting it is just not feasible for practitioners of some religions, and I find the idea of making evangelism illegal very much against the notion of free speech.

Making voting a requirement is not, IMHO, a good idea. However you are obligated to the government in other ways, such as through taxes, jury duty, and so forth.

What you seem to want is to tell people to exercise common sense, human decency, compassion, understanding, and tolerance – all in your interpretation of those terms. That’s fine, except that you want to make these the law of the land. Even if we did, it would be impossible. Look at this forum alone – don’t you see enough people having problems with the rule “don’t be a jerk”?

These sorts of things are fine as a personal code. However, the law is not meant for gray areas or fuzzy moral guidelines. It is meant to tell you what is allowed and what isn’t. I don’t want the government to start telling me how to live a constructive life and how human beings should act outside the sphere of protecting rights. It’s not a good precedent.

I do think that people should think about their own behavior more than they do, and look out less for number one and more for their fellow man. That being said, a list of my personal wishes for society shouldn’t be in the Constitution. Neither should yours.

5

Maybe, instead of making it illegal to evangelize, we could make it legal, but give the person being evangelize the right to whack the evangelical with a baseball bat?

If they pass that law, I’m putting on a gay pride T-Shirt, grabbing Wonderboy and heading over to the corner by the Baptist Church.

Kirk

6

If we can make the protection of the rights of the citizens the law of the land, why not the responsibilities (as agreed upon by a majority) as well? It seems to be just the other side of the coin to me - you want to live in a community where your rights are protected, you must live in a community where there are certain expectations of you as well. With rights come responsibilities in all other areas of life, except where general societies are concerned, it seems.

The government started telling us how to live constructive lives a long time ago; I just don’t think they’ve taken it far enough. They’ve left far too much room for people without a strong enough moral code to live lives that affect other people in negative ways with no repercussions, and often without even any idea they’re doing anything wrong.

7

Feather, you’ve nailed it right – it depends how you define rights.

Freedom itself is a responsibility, and that’s just not part of the national discourse, it’s more akin to watching the rats scurry off of a sinking ocean liner.

I understand “You can’t legislate Morality” but I fail to see the efficacy of subsidizing immorality.

8

I think the point featherlou is trying to make is that rights do not exist in a vacuum: a person cannot simply claim his or her inalienable human rights without accepting the responsibilties that come with them.

Americans and Canadians alike are entitled to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness;” it is also our responsibility to see that our rights to those things do not infringe on the rights of others.

The Framers of our respective Constitutions very much had this in mind when they were putting down in writing the rights of all citizens. They merely held that responsibilities were understood and self-evident and so they did not see fit to underscore them. As time passed, and people became more and more self-consumed, one’s responsibilities fell by the wayside while one’s rights took the forefront. As Paxton Blair put it, “there has been in recent years excessive emphasis on a citizen’s rights and inadequate stress put upon his duties and responsibilities.” And that was in the late 1800s! Imagine how he would look at the state of affairs now.

One of the great statesmen from Canada’s formative days said, “A man’s rights end precisely where the next man’s begin.” Implicit within that statement is knowing where one’s rights end and repecting the next person’s.

I don’t think requiring people to accept responsibility for their rights infringes on their freedom. I would suggest in fact that true freedom would be a lot easier if we spent more of our energies on our responsibilities and less worrying about our rights.

One final thought: Children are not given several rights to which adults are entitled simply because they are not old enough to accept responsibility for their actions. If we hold children to this standard, why do we not hold adults to the same standard? When you are old enough to accept responsibility for your actions, why do we not require people to exercise that responsibility where their precious rights are concerned?

9

I think the point featherlou is trying to make is that rights do not exist in a vacuum: a person cannot simply claim his or her inalienable human rights without accepting the responsibilties that come with them.

Americans and Canadians alike are entitled to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness;” it is also our responsibility to see that our rights to those things do not infringe on the rights of others.

The Framers of our respective Constitutions very much had this in mind when they were putting down in writing the rights of all citizens. They merely held that responsibilities were understood and self-evident and so they did not see fit to underscore them. As time passed, and people became more and more self-consumed, one’s responsibilities fell by the wayside while one’s rights took the forefront. As Paxton Blair put it, “there has been in recent years excessive emphasis on a citizen’s rights and inadequate stress put upon his duties and responsibilities.” And that was in the late 1800s! Imagine how he would look at the state of affairs now.

One of the great statesmen from Canada’s formative days said, “A man’s rights end precisely where the next man’s begin.” Implicit within that statement is knowing where one’s rights end and repecting the next person’s.

I don’t think requiring people to accept responsibility for their rights infringes on their freedom. I would suggest in fact that true freedom would be a lot easier if we spent more of our energies on our responsibilities and less worrying about our rights.

One final thought: Children are not given several rights to which adults are entitled simply because they are not old enough to accept responsibility for their actions. If we hold children to this standard, why do we not hold adults to the same standard? When you are old enough to accept responsibility for your actions, why do we not require people to exercise that responsibility where their precious rights are concerned?

10

Because tyranny by the majority is still tyranny. The rights to which you refer were not granted by the majority. A vote was not taken that enumerates the rights of the people. The constitution (of the US, anyway…I’m not familiar with that of Canada) seeks only to enumerate the powers of government, and explicitly states that anything not specifically mentioned must be a right of the people. By seeking to enforce your code of morals, you are flipping the coin to state that ONLY those rights (read: privileges) specifically granted by the majority are valid, and that people must be constrained to live “on the straight and narrow” as defined by the majority.

**

I certainly agree with you, with rights come responsibilities. However, like rights, it is not possible to enumerate responsibities. They simply are. However, assuming they could be enumerated, how can we enforce those responsibilities? Looking at a few of the examples you’ve provided:

It is literally impossible to regulate whether or not people have children. Various methods of state control could be proposed that will limit peoples reproductive abilities, but in the end it is the decision of two people whether or not to create a child. The state is essentially left with two choices: Criminalize unsanctioned reproduction or stay out of it. Thus far, they’ve chosen the latter approach. Additionally, we’ve set up programs for those who can not “look after” their children themselves. Should we abolish these? Is it time to turn a cold shoulder and blind eye to children whos parents did not excersise their reproductive responsibility when they had children they could not afford to have?

Another is:

I assume this means the owner is 100% accountable for any action taken with this weapon, regardless of who actually uses it. Very well. That means (essentially) any gun you own must be carried on your person at all times. There is no possible way, other than maintaining physical possession of the weapon, that it can be “looked after properly.” Unless there are incidents in which a crime can be committed, or an accidental shooting take place, with a legal weapon that was being looked after properly. How granular will this regulation be?

According to whom? If I decide to say “<SUBJECT> is a scumbag”, where subject is the regulating authority, and they decide that this is neither mature nor helpful, what should my punishment be? This “responsibilty” actually negates the first ammendment by giving regulatory power over the content of citizens speech.

Note that I don’t actually disagree with any of the responsibilities you’ve put forth. I disagree with the notion that regulating and enforcing these responsibilities is a good idea.

I find it disturbing that you see solutions in government intervention. Governments should not exist to enforce morality, and every government in history which has sought to do so has become intolerable. The Spanish Inquisition is an excellent example of this.