Civil Rights - what are included?

[Coloradomtnman]

I really think this whole topic boils down to what we think the purpose of government should be. Libertarians think that the only justification for government is to protect our freedom. Others want government to "run" society, albeit in different ways, like a corporation. It's the difference between a referee and a coach.

I imagine such a notion would fit a bell curve: few want none or complete governmental control, but most want just some. The push and pull is all about over what and how much. Abortion? Conservatives want more. Business? Liberals want more. Defense? Conservatives want more. Social justice? Liberals want more. Crime? Conservatives want more. Education? Liberals want more. Etc., etc....

 

[dblack]

Libertarians have a naive and dangerously childish notion of power, only recognizing the need to limit government power. They fail to recognize that private concentrations of power can be hideously exploitative, corrosive to society, and erode freedom to a draconian degree.

Yes. It's childish and naive to reject violence as a means to an end. If we were truly grown up, we'd accept coercion as the only means of civilized behavior.

 

[dblack]

Its not a coincidence that the era that most closely matched the libertarian ideal was the era of slavery and indentured servitude.

It's also utterly untrue..

Government can act in balance with personal concentrations of power. As any unchecked concentration of power will eventually be abused.

Your conceit lies in the euphemism "personal concentrations of power". What you really mean is wealth.

 

[dblack]

I really think this whole topic boils down to what we think the purpose of government should be. Libertarians think that the only justification for government is to protect our freedom. Others want government to "run" society, albeit in different ways, like a corporation. It's the difference between a referee and a coach.

I imagine such a notion would fit a bell curve: few want none or complete governmental control, but most want just some. The push and pull is all about over what and how much. Abortion? Conservatives want more. Business? Liberals want more. Defense? Conservatives want more. Social justice? Liberals want more. Crime? Conservatives want more. Education? Liberals want more. Etc., etc....

Liberals and Conservatives - at least as embodied by modern Democrats and Republicans - are two sides of the same statist coin.

 

[Skylar]

Libertarians have a naive and dangerously childish notion of power, only recognizing the need to limit government power. They fail to recognize that private concentrations of power can be hideously exploitative, corrosive to society, and erode freedom to a draconian degree.

Yes. It's childish and naive to reject violence as a means to an end. If we were truly grown up, we'd accept coercion as the only means of civilized behavior.

But that's just it. In our most libertarian era government was used by the wealthy and powerful to enforce some of the most brutal violence our nation has ever known upon the less powerful. Or as a libertarian would put it, to 'protect the freedom' to own property. Which in this case would be people.

Without checks on private concentrations of power the powerful will use government to impose their will over the less powerful. And Libertarians have no concept of why these checks would be necessary. Or worse, full understanding of why they are necessary and capitulate to moral cowardice in turning a blind eye to the inevitable consequences of their policy.

While they can, anyway.

As the elephant in the living room is that a truly libertarian society wouldn't remain one for long. Private concentrations of power, unchecked by anyone but themselves, would exert more and more influence on the government. Until we looked far more like an oligarchy than a libertarian government. As again, any unchecked concentration of power will be abused eventually.

And its the height of naivete to assume that in all the abuse of power, none would ever think to spend money or exert influence to extend that power to government. Yet Libertarians are just that naive.

 

[dblack]

Libertarians have a naive and dangerously childish notion of power, only recognizing the need to limit government power. They fail to recognize that private concentrations of power can be hideously exploitative, corrosive to society, and erode freedom to a draconian degree.

Yes. It's childish and naive to reject violence as a means to an end. If we were truly grown up, we'd accept coercion as the only means of civilized behavior.

But that's just it. In our most libertarian era government was used by the wealthy and powerful to enforce some of the most brutal violence our nation has ever known upon the less powerful. Or as a libertarian would put it, to 'protect the freedom' to own property. Which in this case would be people.

There's nothing remotely 'libertarian' about slavery.

 

[Skylar]

Its not a coincidence that the era that most closely matched the libertarian ideal was the era of slavery and indentured servitude.

It's also utterly untrue..

No it isn't. Libertarianism has no checks on personal power. Resulting in predictable, inevitable exploitation of the powerful over the weak. With government used to violently enforce that exploitation under the moniker of 'protecting rights'.

Government can act in balance with personal concentrations of power. As any unchecked concentration of power will eventually be abused.

Your conceit lies in the euphemism "personal concentrations of power". What you really mean is wealth.

Massive concentrations of wealth. Monopolies, regional or otherwise. Monolithic business interests. Families of tremendous influence. Private armies. All of it. Any and all concentrations of private power. There is absolutely no checks on any of this under libertarianism. And any unchecked concentration of power will be abused eventually.

Even under the most idealic and purely pristine ivory tower version of libertarianism, exploitation is horrific, predictable and systematic. WIth libertarians hiding behind their cowardly concept of 'violence'. You merely allow starvation, sickness and desperation to ravage the powerless until they will have no choice but to accept the most disadvantageous, exploitative, abusive, dangerous conditions imaginable. Or die. Submission or death. And since its one's own body that's doing the killing, per a libertarian its all above board.

This being the beating heart of the moral cowardice of libertarianism. The ugly, fetid underbelly....even under the most ivory tower of circumstances.

And of course that ivory tower nonsense never lasts. It *always* changes into one of two things; government used to check private power to limit exploitation. Or government corrupted by unchecked private concerntations of power. With either outcome ending libertarianism. Its an unsustainable political philosophy as it has a child's understanding of the application of power. Imagining itself magically immune to the abuse of unchecked power.

Which of course, it isn't.

 

[dblack]

And its the height of naivete to assume that in all the abuse of power, none would ever think to spend money or exert influence to extend that power to government. Yet Libertarians are just that naive.

The height of naivete is the assumption that centralizing economic power in the hands of government will protect it from abuse. You don't find it the slightest bit ironic that the more government regulates the economy, the more private wealth gets in bed with government?

I see strong and valid parallels between religious power and economic power. It took us hundreds of years for society to come to the understanding that the only way contain dangerous religious leaders was to keep them out of government. And the only way to keep religion out of government is to keep government out of religion.

We're currently tracing a similar path with the power of "greed". Merging economic power with state power is not the solution. It will only make matters worse, creating the economic version of theocracy (corportacracy?). We're seeing this play out in front of us with ACA, which has perverted an ernest desire to reform the health care market, turning it into an obscene concentration of power in the hands of corporate wealth. It is a direct result of naive attempts to control wealth with government. Like religion, the only way to keep economic power from corrupting government is to prohibit government from interfering in the economy in the first place.

 

[dblack]

Its not a coincidence that the era that most closely matched the libertarian ideal was the era of slavery and indentured servitude.

It's also utterly untrue..

No it isn't. Libertarianism has no checks on personal power. Resulting in predictable, inevitable exploitation of the powerful over the weak. With government used to violently enforce that exploitation under the moniker of 'protecting rights'.

Slavery is antithetical to everything libertarians stand for.

 

[PredFan]

Did Jefferson identify them in the Declaration of Independence? Or are they only the Rights delineated in COTUS?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

What other Rights might be among the three noted in this seminal document?

What Rights can we infer from the 9th Amendment?

Can Rights be abridged by "The People"?

"What other Rights might be among the three noted in this seminal document?"

All the rights we have are delineated in the Bill of Rights.

"What Rights can we infer from the 9th Amendment?"

None. The ninth amendment is a clarification of the Bill of Rights and restrictions on the government as to the Rights of Americans.

"Can Rights be abridged by "The People"?"

They shouldn't be, but more and more these days, the government is getting away with it.

Interesting. ALL of our Rights are delineated in the BoR's?!! So there is no right to vote, except those rights added in the Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment; the 15th A.; the 19th A.; the 23rd A.; the 24th A.; and the 26th A.

Sad that so many amendments needed to be added to provide the right to vote for so many citizens. Sad too that the Equal Rights Amendment was stonewalled by conservatives and never passed, allowing for women to toil in the same jobs as men and yet be paid less, and a US citizen residing in the Dist. of Columbia cannot vote for POTUS or VPOTUS even to this day.

No, there is no right to vote. If you look closely you will understand that the constitution only states that you cannot be prevented from voting because of race, gender, etc. it's more of a rule than a right. That is why there are so many additions to cover it. Rights need no such defense.

What does the ERA have to do with this? The ERA was not passed simply because it wasn't necessary. There are already laws against descrimination based on sex. How about we enforce them?

Thanks so much for your opinion, that your thoughts are myopic is no surprise.

You have no answer for my post. Meh, in used to it from you lefties.

 

[westwall]

Rights are endowed by the Creator...not by Obabble and al sharpton.

Non sequitur. If you want to argue God exists, and created Rights, please provide the evidence.

Even if true, it is man who enforces the Rights or not, no matter their source during his or her life time.

Oh, and take you childish misuse of the President of the United States name and shove it up your racist ass, if there's enough room being that's where your head is.

How can it be a non sequitur when it is in your OP? The Declaration merely states that Rights are natural, they are given to you by whichever creator you happen to believe in when you are born and the COTUS merely enumerates those Rights which the government is not allowed to screw with. Pretty simple if you A understand English, and B are not trying to pervert it's meaning for political reasons.

 

[PredFan]

You need to notice that I quoted WryCatcher's words and then answered the question.

Let me visually simplify then. If I'm misquoting you, by all means please tell me.

None. The ninth amendment is a clarification of the Bill of Rights and restrictions on the government as to the Rights of Americans.

A clarification of *what* in the Bill of Rights? The 9th amendment isn't particularly tricky:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So what is the 'others' of the 9th amendment. You say 'none'.

Others and none are pretty much opposites.

I never said "others". Wry catcher did. If you did t leave out his quotes, you would have a better understanding.

I wasn't quoting Wry. I was quoting the 9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The 9th amendment clearly makes reference to other rights. You say there are none.

Ok, I see. I thought you were referring to him and thinking I said that.

The ninth puts further restrictions on the government as far as rights go but I imagine it may mean that there may be a right that individual states and or communities decide they need.

States don't have rights in the constitution. They have powers. Only people have rights.

And the 9th makes it pretty clear there are other rights. Do you still insist there are none?

I did not say that states had rights, I said that in some states the people might want some rights that aren't covered in the Bill if Rights.

 

[Skylar]

Let me visually simplify then. If I'm misquoting you, by all means please tell me.

A clarification of *what* in the Bill of Rights? The 9th amendment isn't particularly tricky:

So what is the 'others' of the 9th amendment. You say 'none'.

Others and none are pretty much opposites.

I never said "others". Wry catcher did. If you did t leave out his quotes, you would have a better understanding.

I wasn't quoting Wry. I was quoting the 9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The 9th amendment clearly makes reference to other rights. You say there are none.

Ok, I see. I thought you were referring to him and thinking I said that.

The ninth puts further restrictions on the government as far as rights go but I imagine it may mean that there may be a right that individual states and or communities decide they need.

States don't have rights in the constitution. They have powers. Only people have rights.

And the 9th makes it pretty clear there are other rights. Do you still insist there are none?

I did not say that states had rights, I said that in some states the people might want some rights that aren't covered in the Bill if Rights.

The 9th amendment doesn't say a thing about the States. It speaks only about people and the rights they possess. The BIll of Rights didn't even apply to the States in the era of the founders. So where did you get the idea that these 'other rights' are predicated on 'individual states'?

The States are probably the least relevant to the 9th amendment.

 

[PredFan]

I never said "others". Wry catcher did. If you did t leave out his quotes, you would have a better understanding.

I wasn't quoting Wry. I was quoting the 9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The 9th amendment clearly makes reference to other rights. You say there are none.

Ok, I see. I thought you were referring to him and thinking I said that.

The ninth puts further restrictions on the government as far as rights go but I imagine it may mean that there may be a right that individual states and or communities decide they need.

States don't have rights in the constitution. They have powers. Only people have rights.

And the 9th makes it pretty clear there are other rights. Do you still insist there are none?

I did not say that states had rights, I said that in some states the people might want some rights that aren't covered in the Bill if Rights.

The 9th amendment doesn't say a thing about the States. It speaks only about people and the rights they possess. The BIll of Rights didn't even apply to the States in the era of the founders. So where did you get the idea that these 'other rights' are predicated on 'individual states'?

The States are probably the least relevant to the 9th amendment.

Look, you are confused. Do you have a point?

 

[Skylar]

I wasn't quoting Wry. I was quoting the 9th amendment.

The 9th amendment clearly makes reference to other rights. You say there are none.

Ok, I see. I thought you were referring to him and thinking I said that.

The ninth puts further restrictions on the government as far as rights go but I imagine it may mean that there may be a right that individual states and or communities decide they need.

States don't have rights in the constitution. They have powers. Only people have rights.

And the 9th makes it pretty clear there are other rights. Do you still insist there are none?

I did not say that states had rights, I said that in some states the people might want some rights that aren't covered in the Bill if Rights.

The 9th amendment doesn't say a thing about the States. It speaks only about people and the rights they possess. The BIll of Rights didn't even apply to the States in the era of the founders. So where did you get the idea that these 'other rights' are predicated on 'individual states'?

The States are probably the least relevant to the 9th amendment.

Look, you are confused.

Nope. I've actually read the 9th amendment. It doesn't say what you do.

Do you have a point?

Yup. That there are other rights than those articulated in the Bill of Rights.

 

[dblack]

Ok, I see. I thought you were referring to him and thinking I said that.

The ninth puts further restrictions on the government as far as rights go but I imagine it may mean that there may be a right that individual states and or communities decide they need.

States don't have rights in the constitution. They have powers. Only people have rights.

And the 9th makes it pretty clear there are other rights. Do you still insist there are none?

I did not say that states had rights, I said that in some states the people might want some rights that aren't covered in the Bill if Rights.

The 9th amendment doesn't say a thing about the States. It speaks only about people and the rights they possess. The BIll of Rights didn't even apply to the States in the era of the founders. So where did you get the idea that these 'other rights' are predicated on 'individual states'?

The States are probably the least relevant to the 9th amendment.

Look, you are confused.

Nope. I've actually read the 9th amendment. It doesn't say what you do.

Do you have a point?

Yup. That there are other rights than those articulated in the Bill of Rights.

Exactly. The list of our rights is limitless.

 

[Skylar]

States don't have rights in the constitution. They have powers. Only people have rights.

And the 9th makes it pretty clear there are other rights. Do you still insist there are none?

I did not say that states had rights, I said that in some states the people might want some rights that aren't covered in the Bill if Rights.

The 9th amendment doesn't say a thing about the States. It speaks only about people and the rights they possess. The BIll of Rights didn't even apply to the States in the era of the founders. So where did you get the idea that these 'other rights' are predicated on 'individual states'?

The States are probably the least relevant to the 9th amendment.

Look, you are confused.

Nope. I've actually read the 9th amendment. It doesn't say what you do.

Do you have a point?

Yup. That there are other rights than those articulated in the Bill of Rights.

Exactly. The list of our rights is limitless.

Not limitless. But certainly not exhausted by the Bill of Rights.

 

[dblack]

I did not say that states had rights, I said that in some states the people might want some rights that aren't covered in the Bill if Rights.

The 9th amendment doesn't say a thing about the States. It speaks only about people and the rights they possess. The BIll of Rights didn't even apply to the States in the era of the founders. So where did you get the idea that these 'other rights' are predicated on 'individual states'?

The States are probably the least relevant to the 9th amendment.

Look, you are confused.

Nope. I've actually read the 9th amendment. It doesn't say what you do.

Do you have a point?

Yup. That there are other rights than those articulated in the Bill of Rights.

Exactly. The list of our rights is limitless.

Not limitless. But certainly not exhausted by the Bill of Rights.

What limits them?

Let's clear something up here, because I'm pretty sure I know where you're going. Our rights aren't an explicit list of things we have "permission" to do. The general conception of inalienable rights implies that we have the right to do anything that isn't prohibited for just cause. And "just cause" is carefully proscribed by the enumerated powers granted to government under the Constitution.

The key here as that we, as a people, claim all freedoms that don't interfere with others as our rights. We grant government the power to limit those rights only under explicit circumstances, for explicit reasons. That's what the Constitution is all about.

The ninth amendment reiterates that fact, and was added because many of the founders worried that the Bill of Rights would be misconstrued. They worried that by listing certain rights that government could, under no circumstances, be allowed to limit, some would see the list as an indication that anything else was fair game.

They were right to worry, because that has become the common conception. Most people today think of our rights as itemized freedoms, and see government power as essentially limitless. When in fact, the opposite was intended. Government power was meant to be constrained to specific powers, and our freedoms were to be essentially limitless. Fucking that up has been our worst blunder as a nation.

 

[Skylar]

The 9th amendment doesn't say a thing about the States. It speaks only about people and the rights they possess. The BIll of Rights didn't even apply to the States in the era of the founders. So where did you get the idea that these 'other rights' are predicated on 'individual states'?

The States are probably the least relevant to the 9th amendment.

Look, you are confused.

Nope. I've actually read the 9th amendment. It doesn't say what you do.

Do you have a point?

Yup. That there are other rights than those articulated in the Bill of Rights.

Exactly. The list of our rights is limitless.

Not limitless. But certainly not exhausted by the Bill of Rights.

What limits them?

Most limits to rights come in impact to other people's rights. Screaming 'fire' in a crowded theater and the like. The 'right to fire a gun into a crowd as long as you don't hit anyone' for example would probably not be protected constitutionally.

Let's clear something up here, because I'm pretty sure I know where you're going. Our rights aren't an explicit list of things we have "permission" to do. The general conception of inalienable rights implies that we have the right to do anything that isn't prohibited for just cause. And "just cause" is carefully proscribed by the enumerated powers granted to government under the Constitution.

You really don't know where I'm going. You might want to check out my first post in this thread regarding the changing idea of rights. That might give you an idea.

The key here as that we, as a people, claim all freedoms that don't interfere with others as our rights. We grant government the power to limit those rights only under explicit circumstances, for explicit reasons. That's what the Constitution is all about.

The ninth amendment reiterates that fact, and was added because many of the founders worried that the Bill of Rights would be misconstrued. They worried that by listing certain rights that government could, under no circumstances, be allowed to limit, some would see the list as an indication that anything else was fair game.

It was a sound worry. As many ill informed folks have done exactly that: assume the constitution is an exhaustive list of rights. They're wrong. Its an exhaustive list of powers. The 9th amendment makes clear it enumeration isn't required for a right to be retained by the people.

 

[dblack]

Look, you are confused.

Nope. I've actually read the 9th amendment. It doesn't say what you do.

Do you have a point?

Yup. That there are other rights than those articulated in the Bill of Rights.

Exactly. The list of our rights is limitless.

Not limitless. But certainly not exhausted by the Bill of Rights.

What limits them?

Most limits to rights come in impact to other people's rights. Screaming 'fire' in a crowded theater and the like. The 'right to fire a gun into a crowd as long as you don't hit anyone' for example would probably not be protected constitutionally.

Let's clear something up here, because I'm pretty sure I know where you're going. Our rights aren't an explicit list of things we have "permission" to do. The general conception of inalienable rights implies that we have the right to do anything that isn't prohibited for just cause. And "just cause" is carefully proscribed by the enumerated powers granted to government under the Constitution.

You really don't know where I'm going. You might want to check out my first post in this thread regarding the changing idea of rights. That might give you an idea.

The key here as that we, as a people, claim all freedoms that don't interfere with others as our rights. We grant government the power to limit those rights only under explicit circumstances, for explicit reasons. That's what the Constitution is all about.

The ninth amendment reiterates that fact, and was added because many of the founders worried that the Bill of Rights would be misconstrued. They worried that by listing certain rights that government could, under no circumstances, be allowed to limit, some would see the list as an indication that anything else was fair game.

It was a sound worry. As many ill informed folks have done exactly that: assume the constitution is an exhaustive list of rights. They're wrong. Its an exhaustive list of powers. The 9th amendment makes clear it enumeration isn't required for a right to be retained by the people.

Completely agree! It's surprising to me though, based on your positions on other issues. But it wouldn't be the first time I've misunderstood another poster. Thanks for clarifying.