[QUOTE=yawmwen;40482162]no it's not the law represents restrictions on your rights imposed by the government. restrictions cannot represent liberty, the two are opposite forces.
and what happens if the supreme court rules gay marriage is not protected by the constitution? instead of a democratic decision being made that might have been unsavory(wouldn't have happened since a majority support gay marriage last i checked), you have a small group of elite judges making a decision that restricts the rights of people.
you are taking decision-making power from the hands of most people and trusting that a very small, privileged group of people will make decisions for the benefit of everyone.[/QUOTE]
No, your rights cannot be infringed upon. That is what makes them rights. Laws can never infringe on your rights because then they aren't rights they are privileges.
And what happens if it is put up to vote and it is voted down? Now the majority of people has just shat on the minority and removed their rights fro no reason.
The Supreme Court is indirectly appointed by the people.
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40482197]No, your rights cannot be infringed upon. That is what makes them rights. Laws can never infringe on your rights because then they aren't rights they are privileges.[/quote]
what about a right to healthcare? or a right to work? these rights aren't really supported in the american constitution.
[quote]And what happens if it is put up to vote and it is voted down? Now the majority of people has just shat on the minority and removed their rights fro no reason.[/quote]
same can happen with the supreme court. the difference is you are relying on people to determine their own fate rather than having a ruling class determine your fate.
and there are different methods of democratic decision-making that can help protect minority rights.
[quote]The Supreme Court is indirectly appointed by the people.[/QUOTE]
the supreme court is not appointed by the people at all. the supreme court also has no accountability to the people either. if the supreme court makes an unpopular decision that restricts the rights of a minority, there is no way to recall those justices.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40482242]what about a right to healthcare? or a right to work? these rights aren't really supported in the american constitution.[/quote]
Yes. These are not currently rights under the U.S. Constitution. Whether you agree with this or not is another question.
[quote]same can happen with the supreme court. the difference is you are relying on people to determine their own fate rather than having a ruling class determine your fate.
and there are different methods of democratic decision-making that can help protect minority rights.[/quote]
It's no more a "ruling class" than any elected official.
[quote]the supreme court is not appointed by the people at all. the supreme court also has no accountability to the people either. if the supreme court makes an unpopular decision that restricts the rights of a minority, there is no way to recall those justices.[/QUOTE]
The Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. Both of these bodies are appointed by the people. Therefore, the supreme Court is indirectly appointed by the people, as I said.
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40482326]Yes. These are not currently rights under the U.S. Constitution. Whether you agree with this or not is another question.[/quote]
the constitution is wrong.
[quote]The Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. Both of these bodies are appointed by the people. Therefore, the supreme Court is indirectly appointed by the people, as I said.[/QUOTE]
neither of these groups are appointed by the people in any real sense.
Obama is fucking lucky he didnt have a serious opponent in the election.
He is either weak, or lying to you.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40482341]the constitution is wrong.[/quote]
I agree, but like I said, this is another topic.
[quote]neither of these groups are appointed by the people in any real sense.[/QUOTE]
Can you explain this to me? How are they not appointed by the people? The people vote both parties into office.
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40482373]I agree, but like I said, this is another topic.[/quote]
no it's not. you said rights are unable to be taken away and i provided examples where they were.
[quote]Can you explain this to me? How are they not appointed by the people? The people vote both parties into office.[/QUOTE]
our elections are about as functional as iranian elections. take that as you will.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40482395]no it's not. you said rights are unable to be taken away and i provided examples where they were.[/quote]
Those aren't legal rights though. They're not in the Constitution.
[quote]our elections are about as functional as iranian elections. take that as you will.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't really mean anything. Are you claiming that the elections are fraudulent? Are they inefficient or not representative? In that case, aim your focus on the election system and not the Supreme Court.
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40482442]Those aren't legal rights though. They're not in the Constitution.[/quote]
so what? law can not give rights, it can only take away rights. "legal rights" is an oxymoron because rights exist only in the absence of laws restricting them.
[quote]That doesn't really mean anything. Are you claiming that the elections are fraudulent? Are they inefficient or not representative? In that case, aim your focus on the election system and not the Supreme Court.[/QUOTE]
our elections are bought by the financial sector. we have a choice between two vetted politicians. our politicians are not chosen by the people, they have been preselected by corporations and rich people.
therefore our supreme court is bought as well.
Where does he plan to put our foreign prisoners then?
While I disagree with our foreign policy, if you are imprisoning foreigners, you gotta have a place to keep them. Guantanamo serves that purpose and it is naive to shut it down.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40482475]so what? law can not give rights, it can only take away rights. "legal rights" is an oxymoron because rights exist only in the absence of laws restricting them.
our elections are bought by the financial sector. we have a choice between two vetted politicians. our politicians are not chosen by the people, they have been preselected by corporations and rich people.
therefore our supreme court is bought as well.[/QUOTE]
Legal rights are the only rights, natural rights don't exist.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40482475]so what? law can not give rights, it can only take away rights. "legal rights" is an oxymoron because rights exist only in the absence of laws restricting them.[/quote]
We have specifically stated rights in the U.S. They are legally codified in the Constitution. I'm sorry if I was unclear. Things that are not in the Constitution are not rights.
[quote]our elections are bought by the financial sector. we have a choice between two vetted politicians. our politicians are not chosen by the people, they have been preselected by corporations and rich people.
therefore our supreme court is bought as well.[/QUOTE]
I don't normally entertain conspiracy theories, but I'll just note that this is an entirely different discussion because you are now talking about the election system and not whether or not the Supreme Court is appointed by the people.
I am speaking from an idealistic viewpoint where there aren't any problems with the system and how it is run. Inherently, if the elections are fair, the Supreme Court is appointed (indirectly) by the people.
[editline]30th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mingebox;40482520]Legal rights are the only rights, natural rights don't exist.[/QUOTE]
Well technically the rights in the Constitution are supposed to represent natural rights but that's extremely ambiguous and for all intents and purposes you are correct.
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40482548]We have specifically stated rights in the U.S. They are legally codified in the Constitution. I'm sorry if I was unclear. Things that are not in the Constitution are not rights.[/quote]
but that doesn't mean anything. the rights "given" to people in the uk is different than rights "given" in the usa. that makes no effort to actually decide what rights humans have and instead puts all faith into a legal system that may or may not actually work towards our benefit.
[quote]I don't normally entertain conspiracy theories, but I'll just note that this is an entirely different discussion because you are now talking about the election system and not whether or not the Supreme Court is appointed by the people.
I am speaking from an idealistic viewpoint where there aren't any problems with the system and how it is run. Inherently, if the elections are fair, the Supreme Court is appointed (indirectly) by the people.[/quote]
but in practice our supreme court is NOT chosen indirectly by the people because our elections are not functional.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40482605]but that doesn't mean anything. the rights "given" to people in the uk is different than rights "given" in the usa. that makes no effort to actually decide what rights humans have and instead puts all faith into a legal system that may or may not actually work towards our benefit.[/quote]
Are you talking about Human Rights? That is not the same things as rights in the U.S.
[/quote]but in practice our supreme court is NOT chosen indirectly by the people because our elections are not functional.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you're picking up what I'm putting down.
I thought that Guantanamo Bay was a military prison for POWs and other prisoners of that sort. If this is the case then shouldn't Obama, being commander in chief, be able to order it shut down?
Evidently this is not the case, but I'm still curious as to how it is not a part of the military.
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40482624]Are you talking about Human Rights? That is not the same things as rights in the U.S.[/quote]
rights are rights. they are there in the absence of restriction.
[quote]I don't think you're picking up what I'm putting down.[/QUOTE]
that the supreme court works in an ideal situation? it doesn't work at all in practice or even in theory because it concentrates power into the hands of unaccountable people. this will lead to tyrannical decisions as it has in the past.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40478320]He ought to have tried harder, especially for this.[/QUOTE]
Let us think real quick on the current congress.
Done?
It wont happen this congress.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40482772]rights are rights. they are there in the absence of restriction.[/QUOTE]
And how exactly would someone's right to healthcare or non-discriminatory pay for work be guaranteed in the absence of laws?
[QUOTE=jordguitar;40482801]
It wont happen this congress.[/QUOTE]
Maybe give congress a 'hands on' tour of Guantanamo then, perhaps that will change their minds
[QUOTE=Megafan;40484048]And how exactly would someone's right to healthcare or non-discriminatory pay for work be guaranteed in the absence of laws?[/QUOTE]
well pay-work is not valid in a society without restrictions placed on economic distribution. healthcare would work out because no one would be denied based on their ability to pay, a restriction that stems from legal restrictions on work and production.
i guess a better way to phrase it is a right to your own production and the right to healthcare regardless of social status.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40484106]well pay-work is not valid in a society without restrictions placed on economic distribution. healthcare would work out because no one would be denied based on their ability to pay, a restriction that stems from legal restrictions on work and production.
i guess a better way to phrase it is a right to your own production and the right to healthcare regardless of social status.[/QUOTE]
How is that anything more than an assumption? If there are no laws to guarantee it, what recourse do you have if for some reason you don't get the care you need?
[QUOTE=Megafan;40484168]How is that anything more than an assumption? If there are no laws to guarantee it, what recourse do you have if for some reason you don't get the care you need?[/QUOTE]
"The Spanish Revolution of the 1930s provides us one example of an anarchist health service in practice. In rural areas local doctors often joined the village collective and provided their services like any other worker. Where local doctors were not available, "arrangements were made by the collectives for treatment of their members by hospitals in nearby localities. In a few cases, collectives themselves built hospitals; in many they acquired equipment and other things needed by their local physicians."
[url]http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/anarchist-vision-universal-health-care-mutual-aid-through-self-managed-health-cooperatives[/url]
in the absence of restrictive authority healthcare is simply free to the people who need it.
unless you are talking about your inability to get healthcare because there simply aren't the resources or technology. in which case that is a natural restriction that isn't able to be solved via state/capitalist intervention in the first place.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40484215]"The Spanish Revolution of the 1930s provides us one example of an anarchist health service in practice. In rural areas local doctors often joined the village collective and provided their services like any other worker. Where local doctors were not available, "arrangements were made by the collectives for treatment of their members by hospitals in nearby localities. In a few cases, collectives themselves built hospitals; in many they acquired equipment and other things needed by their local physicians."
[url]http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/anarchist-vision-universal-health-care-mutual-aid-through-self-managed-health-cooperatives[/url]
in the absence of restrictive authority healthcare is simply free to the people who need it.
unless you are talking about your inability to get healthcare because there simply aren't the resources or technology. in which case that is a natural restriction that isn't able to be solved via state/capitalist intervention in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Are there any examples that didn't exist for a period shorter than ten years? There doesn't seem to be any indication of stability, because at some point along the line someone has to produce the equipment/medicine, someone has to acquire it, someone has to get the expertise to use the equipment, etc. among other things that at some point would make it difficult to just offer it for free (as in actually free, not paid for by taxation).
[QUOTE=Aetna;40480074]Congress needs to GO, plain and simple. There is no point in congress. Why the fuck do we even elect a president in the first place if congress can overturn any decisions he makes? It's a completely contradictory system.[/QUOTE]
I think you fail to understand the most basic concepts of every modern democracy right now.
[QUOTE=Megafan;40484265]Are there any examples that didn't exist for a period shorter than ten years? There doesn't seem to be any indication of stability, because at some point along the line someone has to produce the equipment/medicine, someone has to acquire it, someone has to get the expertise to use the equipment, etc. among other things that at some point would make it difficult to just offer it for free (as in actually free, not paid for by taxation).[/QUOTE]
actually i do not have an example that lasted over 10 years that i can think of. the problem is that revolutions tend to be squashed by the institutions involved. in catalonia the communists and later fascists destroyed the anarchist revolution. in the ukraine the anarchists were perceived as a threat and dismantled by the bolsheviks.
stability is a fair concern, but people are not imbeciles. i believe they can organize the procurement and education without having a government or boss telling them how to. or at the very least workers are capable of choosing people within their own ranks capable of helping to direct resource allocation and distribution.
[QUOTE=DrLuckyLuke;40478197]It's not his fault congress constantly keeps blocking him.[/QUOTE]
It is his fault. He actually does not need congressional approval because it is a military base on soil rented by the US under military jurisdiction. As commander-in-chief, he is the final arbiter on military matters and this includes the operations of bases. If he [I]really[/I] wanted to he could close it with a pen swipe, but he's playing goodie goodie and trying to get congressional approval because _____. The only power that congress has in this matter is that they allocate funds to it, and that the president needs to spend fund allocated to those areas by congress, but if he closes the base after spending the existing funds (which he can spend any way he wants withing a certain area. He could spend it all on king's uniforms and world-class dinners for the prisoners there and Congress couldn't stop it without passing a bill) before the next budget is administered, then they can't give him any more.
Long story short, there's an easy way out of this, and there's the wrong way. Which won't get us out.
[editline]30th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40482772]rights are rights. they are there in the absence of restriction.
[/QUOTE]
No, there are no right in nature. Rights are [I]protections[/I], they are a construct. Liberties, on the other hand, are always there and can only be taken away by [I]restriction[/I]. Rights can lead to less restrictions, but they can also restrict. Regardless of what we want to believe, "natural" or "human rights" come [I]after[/I] or with the social contract and do not exist in the original position/state of nature.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.