• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?[W:349

Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

THE CONCEPT OF "RIGHTS" is the real starting point. My handy paperback dictionary has quite a few definitions for the word "right", but these two seem relevant:
"in accordance with truth, justice, or propriety" (a bit less relevant)
"that to which one has a moral or legal claim" (the most relevant)
The actual most important key word is "claim". Rights basically exist because some people claim them, and others let them get away with it. (There's more to it than just that, so please hold off for a minute, on any knee-jerk reaction.)
Like I said, "rights" are a human invention.

There is this Grand Thing sometimes called "The Social Contract". It is a thing that each society creates as it experiments with various "social mores" and discovers what works to benefit that society, and what doesn't work. A lot of human cultures have concluded that something very workable involves getting everyone in the culture to agree on various statements like this one: "I will accept your claim that you have a right to life, provided you do the same for me." (See? Every individual can make the claim, and everyone else lets him or her get away with it! :)) Obviously rights to Liberty and Property and other things can begin to exist in that culture via extremely similar statements. In one respect the US Constitution is our Nation's Social Contract; surely you must have encountered statements such as, "If you don't like our rules, you are free to move to some other country." --there is an assumption that everyone raised in the USA will automatically accept the Constitution (and everyone who immigrates to become a citizen is required to accept it). That assumption is probably a mistake, because even though most born citizens do accept it, there are always a few who don't, and make trouble.

Anyway, the Logic here is, because the Constitution (plus Amendments) spells out various rights, and because the People accept that overall document, therefore do those rights exist in the USA. No other rationale need apply!

i think, that you are thinking extremely to hard.

our founders state rights are inherent in man, they come from his humanity.

we all have many many many rights not just what is listed in the bill of rights, it is something which does not infringe on the rights of others.

one thing you had to observe about rights,....... is for something to be a right, it cannot lay a burden on another person and this is key in determining what a right is.

we exercise rights all day long in our life's, rights which have not been the subject of the courts/ the bill of rights, becuase in that exercise........as i said it not placing a burden on those we interact with every day so there is no need for it to come into question.

you dont accept my right, and i dont accept your right to take a walk,......... i have a right to take a walk using my right of freedom and becuase that activity that i am engaging in, is not placing a burden on you, ......it does not affect you.

you are making this extremely more complicated then it needs to be.
 
Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

i think, that you are thinking extremely to hard.
NO. Actually, I think more "literally" than any other way. So, when you bring up the phrase "natural rights", I look at Nature and conclude you are spouting nonsense, because it is extremely obvious that "rights" in Nature are almost non-existent. Very simple! So, while I might understand that the phrase "natural rights" is being associated with some non-literal interpretation, the literal interpretation is what I choose to focus on. And I do that because it can give others a chance to understand that various common phrases don't make sense without additional background information --yet that background information is usually not supplied; the person spouting the phrase is assuming that the listener knows exactly what background is being referenced. Well, remember the joke about what "ass u me" means...?

our founders state rights are inherent in man, they come from his humanity.
AND THEY ARE NOT EXACTLY CORRECT. For the True Natural State Of Man, all you need do is look up stories about "feral children". The following information is going to take a bit of time to present, so please bear with me. "Feral" children are rare; they were raised from near-infancy by animals, and some of these kids don't act like People at all (depends on how old they were when the animals took over the child-raising task). The most feral have no more ability to declare they have "rights" than any other ordinary animal has such an ability. In the earliest days of the first hominid species, all were "feral", simply because all were raised by animals. However, they were clever animals, and able to invent stuff. Hundreds of thousands of years passed, and, gradually, even while hominids mutated from one species into another, the total number of inventions increased (including such things as descriptive words, if not true language). These were of course taught to the youngsters.

Modern Research Has Discovered A Startling Truth: "Normal" human mental development (aspects of brain growth) Strongly Depends on youngsters experiencing a great deal of mental stimulation as youngsters. If they don't receive the stimulation (such as happens when animals raise a human child), then the brain does not develop "normally". The brain develops in the manner that was normal for all hominids for many hundreds of thousands of years. That is, what is "normal" development today is not the Default Natural State for humankind.

Now, like I already wrote, hominids were clever animals that kept inventing stuff. There was a point about 50,000 to 70,000 years ago in which The Modern Human Mind began to make its presence known in the paleontological record. There were no "artistic" things prior to that time, and after that time, the Record is chock-full of artistic things. From the data it is easy to conclude that that time is when the first "non-feral" humans began to exist; it is then when the total amount of mental stimulation received by youngsters, of all those accumulated inventions, finally triggered what today is called "normal" brain development. (Heh, what that development actually is, is simple: It is a physical adaptation of the body, made in order to deal with the stress of an inundation of data. Much like a youthful body would physically adapt to, say, the stress of a high-altitude climate, by increasing the red-blood-cell count and lung capacity.)

Today most folks would assume that humans have a Natural Right to experience the inundation of data that causes "normal" brain development. HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! The Fact Is, if humans don't provide lots of mental stimulation to their offspring, their offspring simply won't experience today's "norm" of youthful brain-development. Such a "Right" has absolutely nothing to do with the Facts. Now, one might say that humanity earned that Right, by spending hundreds of thousands of years gradually inventing stuff --yet every time an accident happens that leaves an infant to be raised by ordinary animals, we continue to be reminded that it is not actually a Right we are talking about here. It Is Just A Fact Of Life --and the biggest such Fact of all, is, Not Every Life Is The Same.

Now go search for some information about "Koko the Gorilla". She was raised from infancy in a very-mentally-stimulating environment, and her brain adapted just like human brains do. With the exception that her total brain capacity is much more limited than that of humans, so Koko exhibits the mental characteristics of a human toddler (she has about the same magnitude of brain as a human toddler). She is much more of a "person" than the typical "feral" human child. From this data we can understand that hominids have had the potential of enhanced brain capabilities for just about as long as hominids and gorillas went separate Evolutionary ways. But only in the last 50-70 thousand years has that potential become actualized, turning clever animals into People. Koko is a person too, while most gorillas remain clever animals, and no more than that (just like feral human children).

SO, to claim that "rights" come from our "humanity" or "human nature" is to make a Big Mistake, since our Humanity does not Naturally Include The Mental Abilities We Take For Granted Today. We Made Our Humanity What It Is Today; It Is An Artificial Thing. And we did it in two stages, first by accidentally accumulating so many inventions that our offspring had to physically/mentally adapt to accommodate them all, and second, by spending many thousands of years in which non-feral humans interacted with each other, to discover what works, in the realm of getting-along with each other, and what doesn't work.

Remember that I've stated several times that the concept of "rights" is a human invention. Today's version of "humanity" is a human invention, too! --Which Logically Means There Is No Way To Associate "Rights" With Something Purely Natural. "Rights" are most certainly not inherent in Man, and to the extent they "come from his humanity", they are actually coming from the Invented Humanity, not the Natural version.

we all have many many many rights not just what is listed in the bill of rights, it is something which does not infringe on the rights of others.
YES AND NO. We are free to make lots of claims regarding rights. And, as I indicated in my last post, so long as those claims are accepted by others, then we can act like those rights are real inventions, not fictional inventions.

one thing you had to observe about rights,....... is for something to be a right, it cannot lay a burden on another person and this is key in determining what a right is.
FALSE. Because, for example we have Lists Of Endangered And Protected Animal Species. Those animals are not persons, yet we grant them a "right" to live without being hunted to extinction by humans. And most humans (poachers excluded) have accepted that. The animals themselves, of course, know nothing about what humans have decided regarding the fates of those animals. All they are interested in is eating, breeding, sleeping, and excreting.

And then there is the Abortion issue, which also involves the killing of mere animal organisms, not persons (see above about the brain development that must take place after birth for a human animal to begin to qualify as a human person). Some humans want to grant the unborn rights, while others disagree --humans are not endangered in the same way as so many other species, after all!

Then there are criminals, most-easily defined as those humans who claim rights for themselves, but don't accept similar claims made by others. Hypocrites!

Finally, every "right" but one does put a burden on others: the burden of acceptance. (Only the "right to try" is inherent and makes no requirement of anyone; it is, as I've stated elsewhere, The Only True Natural Right.)

we exercise rights all day long in our life's, rights which have not been the subject of the courts/ the bill of rights, becuase in that exercise........as i said it not placing a burden on those we interact with every day so there is no need for it to come into question.
A LEARNED THING. We grow up experiencing them and are chastised when we fail to abide by them --mostly during the childhood years, in which most children exhibit lots of selfishness that needs to be discouraged. Do note that selfishness is pretty much the antithesis of "acceptance of rights claimed by others".

you dont accept my right, and i dont accept your right to take a walk,......... i have a right to take a walk using my right of freedom and becuase that activity that i am engaging in, is not placing a burden on you, ......it does not affect you.
YET WE KNOW WHAT CAN HAPPEN IF TWO CHOOSE TO WALK THE SAME PATH AT THE SAME TIME. The modern version, involving cars, has led to a modern name for one of the possible consequences: "Road Rage".

you are making this extremely more complicated then it needs to be.
NOPE. YOU ARE. I'm being consistent with the Facts, and I summed up the most important "rights" in the USA in just one sentence:
Anyway, the Logic here is, because the Constitution (plus Amendments) spells out various rights, and because the People accept that overall document, therefore do those rights exist in the USA.
One thing I should now point out, though, is this that I also wrote in that last message:
In one respect the US Constitution is our Nation's Social Contract
Because the Constitution (plus Amendments) is incomplete, regarding all the more common day-to-day type of "rights" that you have just mentioned. That is, Our Foundational Law is not a complete Social Contract. It is simply a most excellent start!
 
Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

NO. Actually, I think more "literally" than any other way. So, when you bring up the phrase "natural rights", I look at Nature and conclude you are spouting nonsense, because it is extremely obvious that "rights" in Nature are almost non-existent. Very simple! So, while I might understand that the phrase "natural rights" is being associated with some non-literal interpretation, the literal interpretation is what I choose to focus on. And I do that because it can give others a chance to understand that various common phrases don't make sense without additional background information --yet that background information is usually not supplied; the person spouting the phrase is assuming that the listener knows exactly what background is being referenced. Well, remember the joke about what "ass u me" means...?


AND THEY ARE NOT EXACTLY CORRECT. For the True Natural State Of Man, all you need do is look up stories about "feral children". The following information is going to take a bit of time to present, so please bear with me. "Feral" children are rare; they were raised from near-infancy by animals, and some of these kids don't act like People at all (depends on how old they were when the animals took over the child-raising task). The most feral have no more ability to declare they have "rights" than any other ordinary animal has such an ability. In the earliest days of the first hominid species, all were "feral", simply because all were raised by animals. However, they were clever animals, and able to invent stuff. Hundreds of thousands of years passed, and, gradually, even while hominids mutated from one species into another, the total number of inventions increased (including such things as descriptive words, if not true language). These were of course taught to the youngsters.

Modern Research Has Discovered A Startling Truth: "Normal" human mental development (aspects of brain growth) Strongly Depends on youngsters experiencing a great deal of mental stimulation as youngsters. If they don't receive the stimulation (such as happens when animals raise a human child), then the brain does not develop "normally". The brain develops in the manner that was normal for all hominids for many hundreds of thousands of years. That is, what is "normal" development today is not the Default Natural State for humankind.

Now, like I already wrote, hominids were clever animals that kept inventing stuff. There was a point about 50,000 to 70,000 years ago in which The Modern Human Mind began to make its presence known in the paleontological record. There were no "artistic" things prior to that time, and after that time, the Record is chock-full of artistic things. From the data it is easy to conclude that that time is when the first "non-feral" humans began to exist; it is then when the total amount of mental stimulation received by youngsters, of all those accumulated inventions, finally triggered what today is called "normal" brain development. (Heh, what that development actually is, is simple: It is a physical adaptation of the body, made in order to deal with the stress of an inundation of data. Much like a youthful body would physically adapt to, say, the stress of a high-altitude climate, by increasing the red-blood-cell count and lung capacity.)

Today most folks would assume that humans have a Natural Right to experience the inundation of data that causes "normal" brain development. HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! The Fact Is, if humans don't provide lots of mental stimulation to their offspring, their offspring simply won't experience today's "norm" of youthful brain-development. Such a "Right" has absolutely nothing to do with the Facts. Now, one might say that humanity earned that Right, by spending hundreds of thousands of years gradually inventing stuff --yet every time an accident happens that leaves an infant to be raised by ordinary animals, we continue to be reminded that it is not actually a Right we are talking about here. It Is Just A Fact Of Life --and the biggest such Fact of all, is, Not Every Life Is The Same.

Now go search for some information about "Koko the Gorilla". She was raised from infancy in a very-mentally-stimulating environment, and her brain adapted just like human brains do. With the exception that her total brain capacity is much more limited than that of humans, so Koko exhibits the mental characteristics of a human toddler (she has about the same magnitude of brain as a human toddler). She is much more of a "person" than the typical "feral" human child. From this data we can understand that hominids have had the potential of enhanced brain capabilities for just about as long as hominids and gorillas went separate Evolutionary ways. But only in the last 50-70 thousand years has that potential become actualized, turning clever animals into People. Koko is a person too, while most gorillas remain clever animals, and no more than that (just like feral human children).

SO, to claim that "rights" come from our "humanity" or "human nature" is to make a Big Mistake, since our Humanity does not Naturally Include The Mental Abilities We Take For Granted Today. We Made Our Humanity What It Is Today; It Is An Artificial Thing. And we did it in two stages, first by accidentally accumulating so many inventions that our offspring had to physically/mentally adapt to accommodate them all, and second, by spending many thousands of years in which non-feral humans interacted with each other, to discover what works, in the realm of getting-along with each other, and what doesn't work.

Remember that I've stated several times that the concept of "rights" is a human invention. Today's version of "humanity" is a human invention, too! --Which Logically Means There Is No Way To Associate "Rights" With Something Purely Natural. "Rights" are most certainly not inherent in Man, and to the extent they "come from his humanity", they are actually coming from the Invented Humanity, not the Natural version.


YES AND NO. We are free to make lots of claims regarding rights. And, as I indicated in my last post, so long as those claims are accepted by others, then we can act like those rights are real inventions, not fictional inventions.


FALSE. Because, for example we have Lists Of Endangered And Protected Animal Species. Those animals are not persons, yet we grant them a "right" to live without being hunted to extinction by humans. And most humans (poachers excluded) have accepted that. The animals themselves, of course, know nothing about what humans have decided regarding the fates of those animals. All they are interested in is eating, breeding, sleeping, and excreting.

And then there is the Abortion issue, which also involves the killing of mere animal organisms, not persons (see above about the brain development that must take place after birth for a human animal to begin to qualify as a human person). Some humans want to grant the unborn rights, while others disagree --humans are not endangered in the same way as so many other species, after all!

Then there are criminals, most-easily defined as those humans who claim rights for themselves, but don't accept similar claims made by others. Hypocrites!

Finally, every "right" but one does put a burden on others: the burden of acceptance. (Only the "right to try" is inherent and makes no requirement of anyone; it is, as I've stated elsewhere, The Only True Natural Right.)


A LEARNED THING. We grow up experiencing them and are chastised when we fail to abide by them --mostly during the childhood years, in which most children exhibit lots of selfishness that needs to be discouraged. Do note that selfishness is pretty much the antithesis of "acceptance of rights claimed by others".


YET WE KNOW WHAT CAN HAPPEN IF TWO CHOOSE TO WALK THE SAME PATH AT THE SAME TIME. The modern version, involving cars, has led to a modern name for one of the possible consequences: "Road Rage".


NOPE. YOU ARE. I'm being consistent with the Facts, and I summed up the most important "rights" in the USA in just one sentence:

One thing I should now point out, though, is this that I also wrote in that last message:

Because the Constitution (plus Amendments) is incomplete, regarding all the more common day-to-day type of "rights" that you have just mentioned. That is, Our Foundational Law is not a complete Social Contract. It is simply a most excellent start!

I don't see us....seeing eye to eye, so we will have to agree to disagree.
 
Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

I don't see us....seeing eye to eye, so we will have to agree to disagree.
THAT'S OK. I just hope, in the future, you keep in mind that when the Founding Fathers talked about such things as "natural rights", they were not actually talking about literal Natural Rights. Their world-view included assumptions that we don't make today, mostly because we have lots more data, Facts, available to us than they did. (One of the Big Differences is that we understand much more about the Law of Cause and Effect than they did. They had so many unknowns that it was very easy to believe God was directly involved in almost every day-to-day event. Now we know that the Universe is chock-full of things that happen automatically, per the Law of Cause and Effect. It may have been Designed by God, but God most certainly is not directly involved in every day-to-day event. The Workings of the Universe make such involvement unnecessary.)

Then there are the facts about feral children and today's "normal" brain-development, which weren't discovered until the mid-20th Century --and even today most people don't really understand that modern human mental capabilities are not the Natural Default for humanity....
 
Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

right to association doers not exist?

While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.[4]

Please quote where the Constitution says there is a right to freedom of association
 
Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

Please quote where the Constitution says there is a right to freedom of association

search with Google....you will have no problem finding the right

i will give you something to think about....women get an abortion based on right to privacy......

Please quote where the Constitution says there is a right to privacy.
 
Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

search with Google....you will have no problem finding the right

i will give you something to think about....women get an abortion based on right to privacy......

Please quote where the Constitution says there is a right to privacy.

Another dodge

Please quote where the Constitution says there is a right to freedom of association
 
Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

Another dodge

Please quote where the Constitution says there is a right to freedom of association

are you this bad.?....i do not know how others on this forum believe you are clever.

STOP pot-stirring and look it up via .....recognized.
 
Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

are you this bad.?....i do not know how others on this forum believe you are clever.

STOP pot-stirring and look it up via .....recognized.

YOu have claimed that there is no right to privacy because the constitution doesn't mention it

Please quote where the Constitution says there is a right to freedom of association
 
Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

YOu have claimed that there is no right to privacy because the constitution doesn't mention it

Please quote where the Constitution says there is a right to freedom of association

boy you are terrible.........at this!

right to privacy is recognized by the USSC....because it is not enumerated.

all rights which are not listed, are recognized by the court .....not created by congress, ...which is why the 9th amendment exist......

right to privacy is unwritten law, because it is a natural right.


Unwritten Law

Unwritten rules, principles, and norms that have the effect and force of law though they have not been formally enacted by the government.

Most laws in America are written. The U.S. Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are three examples of written laws that are frequently cited in federal court. Each state has a similar body of written laws. By contrast, unwritten law consists of those customs, traditions, practices, usages, and other maxims of human conduct that the government has recognized and enforced.

Unwritten law is most commonly found in primitive societies where illiteracy is prevalent. Because many residents in such societies cannot read or write, there is little point in publishing written laws to govern their conduct. Instead, societal disputes in primitive societies are resolved informally, through appeal to unwritten maxims of fairness or popularly accepted modes of behavior. Litigants present their claims orally in most primitive societies, and judges announce their decisions in the same fashion. The governing body in primitive societies typically enforces the useful traditions that are widely practiced in the community, while those practices that are novel or harmful fall into disuse or are discouraged.

Much of International Law is a form of primitive unwritten law. For centuries the Rules of War governing hostilities between belligerents consisted of a body of unwritten law. While some of these rules have been codified by international bodies such as the United Nations, many have not. For example, retaliatory reprisals against acts of Terrorism by a foreign government are still governed by unwritten customs in the international community. Each nation also retains discretion in formulating a response to the aggressive acts of a neighboring state.

In the United States, unwritten law takes on a variety of forms. In Constitutional Law the Supreme Court has ruled that the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to privacy even though the word privacy is not mentioned in the written text of the Constitution. In Commercial Law the Uniform Commercial Code permits merchants to resolve legal disputes by introducing evidence of unwritten customs, practices, and usages that others in the same trade generally follow. The entire body of Common Law, comprising cases decided by judges on matters relating to torts and contracts, among other things, is said to reflect unwritten standards that have evolved over time. In each case, however, once a court, legislature, or other government body formally adopts a standard, principle, or Maxim in writing, it ceases to be an unwritten law.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/unwritten+law
 
Last edited:
Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?

are you this bad.?....i do not know how others on this forum believe you are clever.

STOP pot-stirring and look it up via .....recognized.

Who, other than himself, thinks he is in any way clever?
 
Re: Question: When rights conflict with one another, is there a primacy of rights?[W

A recent state supreme court decision declared that a Christian wedding photographer would be required to work for a gay couple, photographing their ceremony, despite the photographers having religious objections.

Does the first amendment freedom of religion, or even freedom of association (or in this case the implied right to not associate), have primacy over the equal rights amendment? or vice versa? and on what basis?

I call that tyranny with pressure from the progressive PC crowed that could give a rats ass about freedom or the Bill of Rights..... Since when has the United States become a prison where you're required to do as your told.... This is a nation where individuals makeup their own decisions not a collectivist 1984 Orwellian utopia where the government decides whats good for the collective hence the individual.
 
Back
Top Bottom