Governments do not protect rights

[Redfish]

You are acknowledging the right of privacy as a fundamental right?

define "fundamental" in the context you use it in.

Fundamental rights are those rights that in America that cannot be infringed by law unless that law can pass the strict scrutiny tests of judicial review.

so "fundamental" rights are those bestowed by the constitution? well, the founders used the words, "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights"..,... siooooo, looks like the founders beleived that "fundamental" rights came from God.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have to admit QW, you are way off base with this one. Your OP really has 2 different parts that I have to separate to respond:

I get accused of living in a fantasy world because I insist that governments do not provide, nor do they protect, our rights.

I would agree that they do not confer out rights but I disagree in that they certainly do protect those rights.

I hereby issue an open challenge that trusts the government to protect our rights. This should be really easy for you, all you have to do is show me a single example of a government that consistently protects the rights of the people who are under its protection.

Then you use the above qualifier. This entire thread you have been pointing out single, narrow examples is an effort (I assume) to show that the US fails in the consistency part of the challenge. I find that disingenuous. As has already pointed out (and accepted) governments are simply not infallible. Mistakes will be made and that is what you are pointing out. Errors where the government has failed in its duty. The vast majority of the time however, the government is in fact protecting your various rights. All you really have to do to understand this is look at other countries that operate for all intents and purposes as anarchies. Do you believe that those places where there is a distinct lack of government (as much as government can be lacking because there is never truly a complete lack of one) that your rights are better protected? I would challenge you to show how such places practice a greater degree of freedom because I assure you that such is not true.

Government may not be good at protecting our rights. It may not get it right all the time. It makes some terrible mistakes. It even tends to slide in the exact opposite direction, leaning to oppression over time but our government does, at least at this juncture, protect our rights. It is really the only purpose government has to start with. As has already been pointed out as well, government is not the sole protector of our rights though and just as much if not more of that duty falls to the individual.

Thanks for missing the entire point of the thread.

What, exactly, is your objection to me using consistently? Everyone should know that locking people in jail is a violation of people's rights. Anyone that denies that simply does not understand the concept of rights at all. The reason I used the word consistently was to enable people to provide examples of governments who, even though they are locking people up out of necessity, are still consistent in protecting their rights in the process. That is the entire idea behind the concept of due process, and it is the one right the government should never violate.

The problem is, that as government gets larger, it becomes more concerned with consolidating its power than protecting the rights of the people subject to its rule. This has been consistently demonstrated throughout history, and has always resulted in the collapse of the government eventually.

The problems I have been pointing out are not single examples, they are symptomatic of the disease of power that has infected the government. Even when people point to the fact that the system works, they usually have to admit that it shouldn't have taken as long as it does to get there. It might seem fine to you that someone who has his home invaded by rogue cops can sue the government over what happened, but I am willing to bet that, if it happened to you, you would not think suing them is an answer.

If the government actually looked out for our rights, and occasionally failed, I could accept it as imperfect and work towards perfection. What we have now is a government that routinely violates people's rights, hides behind procedure manuals, and pretends it is doing its job. That is unacceptable to me.

It should be unacceptable to everyone.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So the Defense of Marriage Act was a step towards tyranny? Universal background checks for all gun purchases would be a step away from tyranny. So is lifting the income cap on Social Security. Eliminating tax exemptions for religious organizations would be another step away from tyranny. Do you have a published manifesto for this utopian egalitarian society of yours? Or are you just plagiarizing Karl Marx?

Feel free to point out where I have defended DOMA.

While you are at it, feel free to point out where I said that the only way to get to tyranny is to make laws apply to different people differently.

He never accuses you of that. You're once again deflecting because you've been put in the uncomfortable position of being shown that you don't even believe your own assertion.

I suggest you read FA_Q2's post right before this one, it sums up the point quite nicely.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I get accused of living in a fantasy world because I insist that governments do not provide, nor do they protect, our rights. Let me show you what hapens when the government sets out to protect us.

Hitler Survivor Condemns Gun Control 'KEEP YOUR GUNS, BUY MORE GUNS' - Katie Worthman - YouTube

I hereby issue an open challenge that trusts the government to protect our rights. This should be really easy for you, all you have to do is show me a single example of a government that consistently protects the rights of the people who are under its protection. Before anyone starts by positing to the USA I want to point out the Japanese Internment camps, Jim Crow laws, and the PATRIOT Act, all of which existed in the last 100 years.

so full of shit!

So those nations which essentially have no government are bastions of freedom, correct? The problem for really stupid ideological stances is reality.

Do you have examples? Everyone knows how horrible it was in Hong Kong when they, essentially, had almost no government at all. Same with Singapore.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not us that claim it, it's the Supreme Court that stated it...on at least three occasions.

Loving v Virginia (1967) - You're familiar with that one, I'm sure. Are you familiar with how society felt about interracial marriage at the time? Are you aware that society didn't approve of these relationships by a majority until the 1990s? Are you also aware that those who were opposed to these relationships tried to use "Judeo/Christian principles" to keep anti-miscegenation laws in place? (A JUDGE even tried....seriously, tried to use the bible to justify keeping races separate) Again, you know how that turned out.

Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978) - This one was about Wisconsin requiring people with previous marriages to prove they could financially support both their previous and future spouse before they could get married. The SCOTUS stated that marriage was "a fundamental right".

Turner v Safley (1987) - This one was about a Missouri law prohibiting convicts from marrying. The SCOTUS did not find it "reasonable".

(BTW, you can Wiki all of these cases if you don't believe my summation of them)

So, when "the gheys" talk about there being a fundamental right to marriage, it's because there is...as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States whose job it is to sort this kind of thing out.

Now, the current challenge is to whether this fundamental right applies to gay and lesbian couples. Those that do not wish to extend this fundamental right to gay and lesbian couples, must come up with a compelling state reason to deny them. They must be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing them.

Can you?

In almost every state where it has been put to a vote of the people, gay marriage has been defeated, even in the left wing state of california--twice.

The people should decide these things by a majority vote. I am perfectly willing to accept the vote of the majority, are you?

You missed the point entirely didn't you? Do you really expect me to answer your question without you first answering mine?

I do not believe that Civil Rights should EVER be put to a majority vote and I'll give you pictures as to why. Now, you know that Loving v Virginia was decided in 1967. Do you know when it would have passed if put to a majority vote?

See where it passes the majority threshold? 1994...27 years after the SCOTUS ruled on it. Should that have been put to a majority vote, yes or no?

Interracial marriage was already legal in more than half the states when the Supreme Court decided Loving, but we do appreciate your display of ignorance about the progression of civil rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

define "fundamental" in the context you use it in.

Fundamental rights are those rights that in America that cannot be infringed by law unless that law can pass the strict scrutiny tests of judicial review.

so "fundamental" rights are those bestowed by the constitution? well, the founders used the words, "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights"..,... siooooo, looks like the founders beleived that "fundamental" rights came from God.

You asked what context I was using it in. I told you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

define "fundamental" in the context you use it in.

Fundamental rights are those rights that in America that cannot be infringed by law unless that law can pass the strict scrutiny tests of judicial review.

so "fundamental" rights are those bestowed by the constitution? well, the founders used the words, "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights"..,... siooooo, looks like the founders beleived that "fundamental" rights came from God.

Who cares? When God reveals himself in a manner that proves his existence, and then when he gives us a list of the rights he endowed us with, then I'll take that theory seriously.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

define "fundamental" in the context you use it in.

Fundamental rights are those rights that in America that cannot be infringed by law unless that law can pass the strict scrutiny tests of judicial review.

so "fundamental" rights are those bestowed by the constitution? well, the founders used the words, "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights"..,... siooooo, looks like the founders beleived that "fundamental" rights came from God.

No, as correctly noted fundamental rights are those subject to a heightened level of judicial review, most often strict scrutiny:

Fundamental rights are those which bear some relation to the right of autonomy or the right of privacy. The rights in this category are also sometimes referred to collectively as liberty interests. The list includes, but is not limited to, the following rights:

The right to marry, and the right to procreate
The right to purchase and use birth control
The right to custody of one’s own children and to raise them as one sees fit
The right to refuse medical treatment
The right to freedom of speech
The right to travel freely among the states
The right the vote
The right to freedom of association
The right to freedom of religion

Substantive Due Process – Fundamental Rights

These rights are not “bestowed by the Constitution,” but are an innate consequence of being human, they can be neither given nor taken by the state, any court, or any person; they are indeed inalienable.

When government seeks to limit, regulate, or deny one’s civil liberties, the state is required to have a compelling governmental interest, to support that interest with objective, documented evidence, and to be free of animus as a motive with regard to adversely effecting a given class of persons.

This is why, for example, a Florida law requiring drug tests of public assistant applicants was struck down as an un-Constitutional violation of citizens’ equal protection rights. The state lacked a compelling governmental interest, there was no evidence those applying for public assistance are more likely to use drugs than the general population, and the measure was clearly motivated by animus toward low income Americans seeking public assistance.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your original allegation was that limiting the variety of weapons you could purchase was a step towards tyranny. What weapons must you be allowed to own in order to stave off tyranny? This question has nothing to do with any legislation. It is a straightforward question intended to determine what you believe will give you sufficient parity to ensure that you can never be subjected to tyranny.

This is a perfectly reasonable request, others would be interested in a response, since it goes to the question as to what weapons would be considered dangerous and unusual, and what weapons in common use.

There is nothing reasonable about that request unless you think straw man arguments are reasonable.

Please establish how the question fits the definition of "straw man" given that you were the one who raised the subject of tyranny and the limitations on number and types of weapons in the first place. Or are you now conceding that limitations on the number and types of weapons you may possess are not a "step towards tyranny"?

 

[Londoner]

When God reveals himself in a manner that proves his existence...

Exactly. Man is fallible and corruptible, yet we are supposed to believe that he is capable of understanding and communicating God's will?

Plus, Ayn Rand, the holy godmother of the new Right, says God is a form of social control.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is a perfectly reasonable request, others would be interested in a response, since it goes to the question as to what weapons would be considered dangerous and unusual, and what weapons in common use.

There is nothing reasonable about that request unless you think straw man arguments are reasonable.

Please establish how the question fits the definition of "straw man" given that you were the one who raised the subject of tyranny and the limitations on number and types of weapons in the first place. Or are you now conceding that limitations on the number and types of weapons you may possess are not a "step towards tyranny"?

Where did I say I need weapons to stave off tyranny? Since I never said that, and that is the position you are knocking down, that is, by definition, a straw man.

Where do I send the bill?

 

[FA_Q2]

Thanks for missing the entire point of the thread.

You’re welcome. I strive to please

What, exactly, is your objection to me using consistently? Everyone should know that locking people in jail is a violation of people's rights. Anyone that denies that simply does not understand the concept of rights at all. The reason I used the word consistently was to enable people to provide examples of governments who, even though they are locking people up out of necessity, are still consistent in protecting their rights in the process. That is the entire idea behind the concept of due process, and it is the one right the government should never violate.

My objection is that governments, as they are ran by people, are fallible and single examples of violations of people’s rights are going to happen everywhere. You are claiming that governments DO NOT protect rights – period. I read that as an affirmative statement. IOW, I read that as government never protect right. If that is not your intention then that would be where the problem lies.

The problem is, that as government gets larger, it becomes more concerned with consolidating its power than protecting the rights of the people subject to its rule. This has been consistently demonstrated throughout history, and has always resulted in the collapse of the government eventually.

Agree whole heartedly. That, however, does not demonstrate that governments do not protect rights. That demonstrates that governments tend to START OUT protecting rights and then slide into tyranny later. I agree completely that is the case and that we are currently in that slide as well. I stated:

“It even tends to slide in the exact opposite direction, leaning to oppression over time”

And that is exactly what I meant with that statement.

The problems I have been pointing out are not single examples, they are symptomatic of the disease of power that has infected the government. Even when people point to the fact that the system works, they usually have to admit that it shouldn't have taken as long as it does to get there. It might seem fine to you that someone who has his home invaded by rogue cops can sue the government over what happened, but I am willing to bet that, if it happened to you, you would not think suing them is an answer.

I agree again. It is not fine by me that rouge cops invade someone’s property. It is also not acceptable to me even if this were isolated and not indicative of a larger problem. What you are missing though is that you did not say THIS government at this time is not protecting our rights. You stated flatly that government (period) does not protect rights. That is my problem with your statement. Governments demonstrably protect rights.

If the government actually looked out for our rights, and occasionally failed, I could accept it as imperfect and work towards perfection. What we have now is a government that routinely violates people's rights, hides behind procedure manuals, and pretends it is doing its job. That is unacceptable to me.

Agree again. The problem, as I see it, is that government does not tend to work twords perfection but rather works to the opposite.

It should be unacceptable to everyone.

It should be.

 

[Seawytch]

In almost every state where it has been put to a vote of the people, gay marriage has been defeated, even in the left wing state of california--twice.

The people should decide these things by a majority vote. I am perfectly willing to accept the vote of the majority, are you?

You missed the point entirely didn't you? Do you really expect me to answer your question without you first answering mine?

I do not believe that Civil Rights should EVER be put to a majority vote and I'll give you pictures as to why. Now, you know that Loving v Virginia was decided in 1967. Do you know when it would have passed if put to a majority vote?

See where it passes the majority threshold? 1994...27 years after the SCOTUS ruled on it. Should that have been put to a majority vote, yes or no?

Interracial marriage was already legal in more than half the states when the Supreme Court decided Loving, but we do appreciate your display of ignorance about the progression of civil rights.

I'm well aware of how many states had already repealed their anti-miscegenation laws. So? They still existed in many states...which is why it had to go to the SCOTUS.

Were you not paying attention to the conversation with Redfish? He was the one that said rights should be a popularity contest. He actually thinks that the SCOTUS shouldn't have ruled and we should have waited for the 90s when it became "popular" for blacks to marry whites.

 

[Redfish]

Fundamental rights are those rights that in America that cannot be infringed by law unless that law can pass the strict scrutiny tests of judicial review.

so "fundamental" rights are those bestowed by the constitution? well, the founders used the words, "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights"..,... siooooo, looks like the founders beleived that "fundamental" rights came from God.

Who cares? When God reveals himself in a manner that proves his existence, and then when he gives us a list of the rights he endowed us with, then I'll take that theory seriously.

people of all religions believe that God has already done that.

 

[Redfish]

You missed the point entirely didn't you? Do you really expect me to answer your question without you first answering mine?

I do not believe that Civil Rights should EVER be put to a majority vote and I'll give you pictures as to why. Now, you know that Loving v Virginia was decided in 1967. Do you know when it would have passed if put to a majority vote?

See where it passes the majority threshold? 1994...27 years after the SCOTUS ruled on it. Should that have been put to a majority vote, yes or no?

Interracial marriage was already legal in more than half the states when the Supreme Court decided Loving, but we do appreciate your display of ignorance about the progression of civil rights.

I'm well aware of how many states had already repealed their anti-miscegenation laws. So? They still existed in many states...which is why it had to go to the SCOTUS.

Were you not paying attention to the conversation with Redfish? He was the one that said rights should be a popularity contest. He actually thinks that the SCOTUS shouldn't have ruled and we should have waited for the 90s when it became "popular" for blacks to marry whites.

you obviously were the one not paying attention. I said that things like gay marriage are not addressed in the constitution and therefore should be left to the individual states and their citizens, not the SCOTUS.

BTW, marriage of any kind is not a RIGHT, it is an an act that is sanctioned by the state and/or some religious organization.

 

[Seawytch]

Interracial marriage was already legal in more than half the states when the Supreme Court decided Loving, but we do appreciate your display of ignorance about the progression of civil rights.

I'm well aware of how many states had already repealed their anti-miscegenation laws. So? They still existed in many states...which is why it had to go to the SCOTUS.

Were you not paying attention to the conversation with Redfish? He was the one that said rights should be a popularity contest. He actually thinks that the SCOTUS shouldn't have ruled and we should have waited for the 90s when it became "popular" for blacks to marry whites.

you obviously were the one not paying attention. I said that things like gay marriage are not addressed in the constitution and therefore should be left to the individual states and their citizens, not the SCOTUS.

BTW, marriage of any kind is not a RIGHT, it is an an act that is sanctioned by the state and/or some religious organization.

Have you forgotten what you wrote already? Have you seen a doctor about this short term memory loss?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/283957-governments-do-not-protect-rights-3.html#post6992912

 

[Derideo_Te]

There is nothing reasonable about that request unless you think straw man arguments are reasonable.

Please establish how the question fits the definition of "straw man" given that you were the one who raised the subject of tyranny and the limitations on number and types of weapons in the first place. Or are you now conceding that limitations on the number and types of weapons you may possess are not a "step towards tyranny"?

Where did I say I need weapons to stave off tyranny?

Right here...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-not-protect-rights-post6961265.html#poststop

Originally Posted by Quantum Windbag on 03-16-2013, 04:30 PM

Feinstein's bill allows us to own over 2000 different weapons, but specifically exempts police, firemen, government employees, and various other groups from those restrictions.

If her bill was reasonable it would apply to everyone. The fact that it doesn't apply to everyone means that it is a step toward tyranny, just like everything Hitler did.

Since I never said that, and that is the position you are knocking down, that is, by definition, a straw man.

Where do I send the bill?

 

[Redfish]

I'm well aware of how many states had already repealed their anti-miscegenation laws. So? They still existed in many states...which is why it had to go to the SCOTUS.

Were you not paying attention to the conversation with Redfish? He was the one that said rights should be a popularity contest. He actually thinks that the SCOTUS shouldn't have ruled and we should have waited for the 90s when it became "popular" for blacks to marry whites.

you obviously were the one not paying attention. I said that things like gay marriage are not addressed in the constitution and therefore should be left to the individual states and their citizens, not the SCOTUS.

BTW, marriage of any kind is not a RIGHT, it is an an act that is sanctioned by the state and/or some religious organization.

Have you forgotten what you wrote already? Have you seen a doctor about this short term memory loss?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/283957-governments-do-not-protect-rights-3.html#post6992912

I am not going back and rereading the thread, but I think I have been consistent in my opinions. I don't think I ever said that any kind of marriage was a "right" guaranteed by the constitution.

 

[Seawytch]

you obviously were the one not paying attention. I said that things like gay marriage are not addressed in the constitution and therefore should be left to the individual states and their citizens, not the SCOTUS.

BTW, marriage of any kind is not a RIGHT, it is an an act that is sanctioned by the state and/or some religious organization.

Have you forgotten what you wrote already? Have you seen a doctor about this short term memory loss?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/283957-governments-do-not-protect-rights-3.html#post6992912

I am not going back and rereading the thread, but I think I have been consistent in my opinions. I don't think I ever said that any kind of marriage was a "right" guaranteed by the constitution.

And you were subsequently shown that the SCOTUS had declared marriage a fundamental right and they cited the 14th Amendment in doing so.

You actually said that the SCOTUS should not have ruled on Loving v Virginia and that it should have been put to a popular vote. You actually said it, that civil rights should be put to a popular vote.

 

[Redfish]

Have you forgotten what you wrote already? Have you seen a doctor about this short term memory loss?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/283957-governments-do-not-protect-rights-3.html#post6992912

I am not going back and rereading the thread, but I think I have been consistent in my opinions. I don't think I ever said that any kind of marriage was a "right" guaranteed by the constitution.

And you were subsequently shown that the SCOTUS had declared marriage a fundamental right and they cited the 14th Amendment in doing so.

You actually said that the SCOTUS should not have ruled on Loving v Virginia and that it should have been put to a popular vote. You actually said it, that civil rights should be put to a popular vote.

Loving was about the legality of interracial marriage, was it not? ruling on the legality of a type of marriage is different from ruling on the "right" to marriage.

I did not say that civil rights should be voted on. I said that things like gay marriage, and polygamy should be left to the states and decided by the voters