Blog Comments

This is literally the most unfunny thing I have ever seen. Thanks.
ornaments

Merry Christmas my friend
كورس اماديوس , كورس اماديوس بالاسكندرية , كورس اماديوس اون لاين , كورس سيبر , كورس سيبر بالاسكندرية , كورس سيبر اون لاين , كورس جاليليو , كورس جاليليو بالاسكندرية , كورس جاليليو اون لاين

You miss the point entirely reaper. All good citizens should take action to maintain their rights but at the same time you must consider the responsibilities that come with them. You cannot accept rights without accepting that all others have those same rights. If you expect the right to own whatever property you see fit eg guns you must also accept my right to own nuclear weapons, chemical warfare agents and the like. If you and the majority don't accept my right to property the surely you cannot refuse the majorities when they decide its not acceptable for you to own guns. At the end of the day a rights first society doesn't work because it allows no room for compromise. Without compromise we return to a state in which strength rules and return to out primitive roots.

Your arguments are highly persuasive and have caused me to question myself in the past reaper but are ultimately flawed.

I'm plenty happy to continue discussing this but only in a debate between two people. Most threads get out of hand and disintegrate into a chaos of TLDR posts.

It really has the potential to become a shitstorm of stupidity. The argument stems from someone's inability to answer a single question (which I answer in the thread that sparked this blog). Running around in circles with semantic arguments isn't getting him anywhere. It's just skirting the issue at the heart of it.

Originally Posted by reaper239

ok, so what you're asking me is why your right to infringe on my rights is less important than my rights you seek to infringe upon? come on dude, that's like saying my right to live in an environment without cars is supreme to your right to own a car. a car is more likely to kill you than a gun. so, let's turn this discussion on it's head, i believe in a world without computers, i believe computers are evil and should not be allowed in public, therefore all laptops and other computing devices must be banned from public. it's my right after all, so why is your right to have your ipod or laptop in public supreme to my right to live in a world without those things.

It seems that you only view your rights as being measurable. That's just ignorance, and inability to see things in a broader spectrum. But keep on keepin' on, man.

Originally Posted by Witch_Doctor

Wow! Where do I begin?

You have plenty of opportunity, I guess ...

Wow! Where do I begin?

The method solving the collision of contrary rights is - at least in the legal theory of Germany's constitution - the so-called "practical concordance", which is used to balance conflicting rights. Since all involved rights have the same weight or importance, each of them has to step back accordingly. Since you cannot break it down so easily in general - why would someone owning and using guns have to stop using guns on his range, because somewhere else people live that don't own or like guns, or why would a gun-hater has to accept someone carrying guns on his own property? -, you have to think in "cases", if you like. That is where the principles of "common sense" come in very handy. This may mean that whatever authority may rule that certain things are or are not allowed in certain areas - for example, which is heavily debated, gun-free zones in schools or other buildings of public services (I wonder: in court rooms, even in the USA, carrying guns is forbidde, right?).

This debate boils down to the arguments provided here and in any other similar discussions: Criminals most likely won't follow the rules; and the people normally carrying or at least owning guns would be kind of helpless if they meet criminals in such regulated areas (or if it is generally forbidden to carry guns), which also means that their means of self-defense is highly limited; and how quickly would police-forces react to 911-calls, and how quickly can people call for help, before lives are taken?

The question for me is: Can situations like these provide a solid base for the broad discussion about general acceptance/ allowance or prohibition of guns? For me in Germany this is simple: We have the right of property, but our constitution does not provide anything regarding ownership and usage of weapons; also the gun-laws here are very tight and strict, which makes things easy for "me" in this moment: We don't have a debate like this, because in Germany there is no comparable fundamental conflict of interests or rights, like what you seem to have in the USA. I fully understand and grab the scope of your discussion; and I admit that I have some sympathy for the pro-gun arguments, although I have no clear depiction why this is so. I guess the main reason for this sympathy is that you actually have a stand-alone right for having guns in your constitution.

On the other hand I was raised in the belief of considering guns as one of many sources of evil; and I thank my parents as well as my people for this. And although we have some gun-based criminal actions in Germany, they are very rare in comparison with many other crimes being comitted. As long as you are not a sportsman in marksmanship, a police-officer, or a soldier, most of the time you don't get in touch with guns. This makes guns, their ownership and usage kind of alien to me and literally almost anyone else in Germany, which automatically raises a certain excitement and - the German Angst empowered - concerns about them and the people having guns. This is very weird.

One thing remains for sure: If there are a gun and its ammo, this leaves the opportunity for the one person holding them to shoot the gun. The question is: What is his intention to do so? I may react to what I see - like I could avoid someone with a gun - if there is enough room. But I cannot look into the person's head. In 99,9% this may be no problem at all, since the person might be at least as far law-abiding as it is required not to shoot other people without cause (like self-defense). But in the 0,1% of cases he may raise the gun, point the muzzle at me and then release the bullet firing at me. Even if I have a gun myself, would I be quick enough to stop him before he pulls the trigger or to avoid his shot by jumping behind a cover? I am not certain about it. And actually I would imagine to freeze in the moment of realization that my life is next to its ending, because I would not fathom the whole understanding of the situation - i.e. I'd be shocked.

Therefore the whole discussion about freedom in or control of gun-ownership and -usage boils down to a risk-assessment, right? And this also leads to the question, how heavily even small risks are the justification for the general limitation of rights, right?

This really is a very challenging questing.

[QUOTE=Osiris;bt1136][COLOR=#008080]Interesting interpretations, but I 't believe you're imposing context for the sake of supporting your viewpoint, especially be equating my advocacy of the right to freedom for ALL individuals to indentured servitude. That's a grasping of straws if ever I've seen one. You are continuing to argue that I'm encroaching on your rights, while you encroach on my own. Hell, the language you've used supports it in the very definition of self-determination. What you present is your interpretation of that definition. Still, it's an interesting interpretation of rights. The question that I've posed, that you still have yet to answer is:

What sets the rights of one above another?

My right to live in a gun free environment versus your right to bear arms. I'm glad that you've done your homework, but you're still not answering the question, instead furthering the semantics. As I've said already, it's a really good debate, and the thread raises interesting question, as does the blog. Good work, bro . . . expect some rep coming your way for it.
[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

ok, so what you're asking me is why your right to infringe on my rights is less important than my rights you seek to infringe upon? come on dude, that's like saying my right to live in an environment without cars is supreme to your right to own a car. a car is more likely to kill you than a gun. so, let's turn this discussion on it's head, i believe in a world without computers, i believe computers are evil and should not be allowed in public, therefore all laptops and other computing devices must be banned from public. it's my right after all, so why is your right to have your ipod or laptop in public supreme to my right to live in a world without those things.

Great discussion here and in the forums on this. Good work folks.

Just to add a little something here. As reaper points out, the basic "rights" have to stem from somewhere. May believe that it is from a Creator (god/gods/God). In the ancient and not so ancient past, most cultures were pretty homogenous in their beliefs so they had very similar opinions/thoughts on what constitutes right and wrong.

That's not really the case now. Just in America alone you can walk into just about any building and find people that differ (in some way) on just about any right that you want to talk about. And with the shrinking globe, we have more cultures and belief system coming in contact every day.

This dilutes the concept of a common set of agreed upon rights. So we have some one or ones that become the arbiters of the rights people have and when those rights can/cannot be abridged.

In many cases, this is done by a body of elected people representing the population fairly so that the majority opinion is allowed to dictate most of how this is done with controls in place to protect the minority.

In other cases, it is done at the whim of a despot who is really only interested in himself.

Either way, the "hierarchy" of rights is being set: whether at a international, national, regional, local, or hyper-local scale.

So, in an attempt to answer Osiris' question "What sets the rights of one above another?" I would have to say that the governmental rules that you either choose to live under or are forced to live under sets this hierarchy of rights.

In the one model, if you don't like the way it works there is usually a mechanism that allows you to try and affect change in the current code. In the other model, not so much.

So, in most places in the USA today, your right to live in a gun free environment has been set lower than my right to lawfully carry a firearm on my person in public. The number of areas like this (again in the USA) is growing and so far this all falls within the legal system the citizenry have decided on.

So "What sets the rights of one above another?" People do. Should they? That's a loaded question because it goes right back to the diverse and differing sets of beliefs and morality in the world today.

On a personal level, I'm more inclined to allow much more freedom for individuals and have less control by governmental bodies. The government should have a more narrow scope of control and the individual a wider one. The drawback is that, just I mentioned above, this pretty much only works completely when everyone agrees on the same right and wrong things.

But it can work to a greater degree with the judicious election of representatives and governing officials. Something that seems to be happening less and less often, unfortunately....

Originally Posted by Osiris

It does raise interesting notions about justification, doesn't it? There are no clear lines in the sand, if there were there would never be any debate over rights, which there are--ad nauseam. Still, it's a fantastic way to push the boundaries of one's ideology.

Yeah, this is kind of odd. And it becomes more interesting:

Most rights and freedom based on the German constitution are conditionally, which means: most freedoms can be limited by law or by actions based on law, while they are also limited by the freedoms of each person. And to make things more complicated: Even those conditions are under restriction of commensurability.
In much simpler words: All three branches - the legislative, executive, and judicial - may limit or restrict your freedoms or rights based on law or through law (the latter by the legislative only), while each action is limited in itself to prevent arbitrariness.

Even such general basic rights like freedom of action or right of property may be limited. A few examples:

- put someone in jail or custody; forbid someone to enter a certain location; forbid usage of certain products (example: selling of serious medications, drugs, usage of cells while driving a car ...); ...
- compulsory enforcement; condemnation; collecting evidence; ...

Just to name a few things ... Similar things you find on freedom of speech (insults are not covered by the basic right), religion (not every rite or ritual is covered by and thus under the protection of the base right), freedom to choose an occupation or foundation of a business (immoral activities or businesses supporting administrative offenses are not protected by the constitution) ... And there are much more things you can think of.

The challenge to ones mind is: In the end everything boils down to the question who decides what is wrong or right. So, who is it?

In theory things might come down to what is described in the concepts reaper239 has mentioned. And yet there is kind of an instance that still meets certain decision - with what jurisdiction or justification and with what kind of acceptance does someone or a legal body decide?

In Germany things are "pretty simple", thus still kind of a Gordian knot: the constitution not only establishes the fundamental or basic rights of people and citizens living on the territory of Germany, but it also provides many rules about the three branches of the legislative, executive, and judicial; and these rules also include how these branches get empowered and are allowed to modify the basic rights.
In the case of Germany the 'constitutional theory' comes to the conclusion that in the end the power of those branches roots in the election of the legislative by the people; the people transfer all the legislative power to the legislative branch. Thus any decision (law, action) by the legislative branch is a decision by the people itself; the executive is voted by the legislative, and the judicial is empowered by the legislative and the executive branch; therefore anything any of those three branches does can be rooted back to the people and is therefore considered to be an act based on the will of the people. (I simplified a lot; I hope you don't mind the haziness on things, which are much more complicated ...)

But does the 'constitutional theory' depict the reality? More then just sometimes you get the impression that the decision-makers in any of the three branches behave like a certain, neo-nobility-like elite with no connection to the people at all. Thus remains the question: Is it a fair assumption that any decision made in the three branches is based on the will of the people; do therefore the people decide what is right or wrong? Or is the reality much different and do decisions about right or wrong develop only within certain elites?
And how do the answers to these two questions relate to the fundamental human rights or at least the two fundamental prinicples of freedom of action and right to property?

All the best!
Liam

It does raise interesting notions about justification, doesn't it? There are no clear lines in the sand, if there were there would never be any debate over rights, which there are--ad nauseam. Still, it's a fantastic way to push the boundaries of one's ideology.

Originally Posted by Osiris

Everyone should.

It may seem odd that I, since I study law, have not yet done so. But the answer to this is fairly simple: In the German system or hierarchy of legal code the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is considered to be below the German constitution. The hierarchy from top to down looks like this:

1. Constitution (base law)
2. laws provided by the legislative of the Federal Republic of Germany and law of the nations (i.e. treaties between the FGR and other nations or international organizations)*
3. regulations of Federal Agencys
4. the 16 constitutions of the sixteens states on the territory of the FRG
5. laws provided by the legislative of the sixteen states
6. regulations of state agencies
7. by-laws of the municipalis

* Here, I think, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would be situated in the German legal system, but ...

In the articles 1 through 19 the German base-law proides the freedoms and rights of the people. And here things become interesting. On the one hand: These rights and freedoms - afaik - were oriented along the lines of the Universal Decleration of Human Rights; but the legal understanding is not transferred into German law as well. On the other hand: The freedoms and rights provided by the base-law are to be interpreted in the light of European Law; and Europe itself provides two different legal sources for rights and freedoms for individuals - the European Charta of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights; the latter one is based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which means: after all the German constitution and especially the rights and freedoms for the individual people are Human Rights - in general and but ...

As you see: Things are quite confusing down here in Germany. Although the rights and freedoms provided in our constitution basically are comparable with what is provided in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but the question for me now is: Are there any differences? And this is the task I have to pass, I guess ...

Exciting.

Originally Posted by Osiris

Did you miss the part where we discussed human rights, or the part where we invoked the right to liberty, and self-determination? This is global, not based in the American Constitution; since this is inclusive of more than a single territory or country. So, Article Three of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Sorry, missed the other discussion i guess.... i wasn't going global, i was speaking of USA constitutional rights. Not a big supporter of the UN, so honestly cant say much to any of their declarations.

Everyone should.

Maybe I should read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ... Haven't done this yet ...

Originally Posted by REZombie

Which Amendment states the right to live in a gun free environment outside of ones own property?

Did you miss the part where we discussed human rights, or the part where we invoked the right to liberty, and self-determination? This is global, not based in the American Constitution; since this is inclusive of more than a single territory or country. So, Article Three of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Originally Posted by Osiris

What sets the rights of one above another?

My right to live in a gun free environment versus your right to bear arms.

Which Amendment states the right to live in a gun free environment outside of ones own property?

Interesting interpretations, but I 't believe you're imposing context for the sake of supporting your viewpoint, especially be equating my advocacy of the right to freedom for ALL individuals to indentured servitude. That's a grasping of straws if ever I've seen one. You are continuing to argue that I'm encroaching on your rights, while you encroach on my own. Hell, the language you've used supports it in the very definition of self-determination. What you present is your interpretation of that definition. Still, it's an interesting interpretation of rights. The question that I've posed, that you still have yet to answer is:

What sets the rights of one above another?

My right to live in a gun free environment versus your right to bear arms. I'm glad that you've done your homework, but you're still not answering the question, instead furthering the semantics. As I've said already, it's a really good debate, and the thread raises interesting question, as does the blog. Good work, bro . . . expect some rep coming your way for it.

Hi there,

now that this article is available here as well, I will raise the same questions I raised on reaper239's original posting and blog again - slightly corrected though.

About right of property ...

In other legal systems, which are based on the corpus iuris civile, i.e. Roman law, on the one and natural law, i.e. the law drawn from the philosophies which sprang from the French Revolution, on the other hand, property is not as free as what you describe here.
In Germany for example the right of property is regulated in article 14 of the German constitution, the so-called "base law". On the one hand this article provides the guarantee that anyone on German territory has the right of property for anything that belongs to him. But according to the same article the legislative is empowered to "form" what exactly "property" is and in what way "property" may even be limited.

This leads me to the question, if the anglo-saxon legal systems have something similar to the German rule or if there is a difference between the legal concepts of property in the USA on the one side and the UK on the other?

This is important for the proper understanding of the legal concepts evolving around property. If the US-American constitution provides the power for the legislative, jurisprudence, or in a broader sense "the State" or "public authorities" in general, to define the scope of property and/ or in what way property may be restricted or directed, then this would put a certain relativity to the freedom or right of property, doesn't it? And wouldn't this then mean that the freedom of men would not be rooted in property as well?

For the sake of clarification: I don't challenge what reaper239 has written; I just wonder if there are more things to keep in mind, because I simply don't know enough about the Anglo-Saxon legal systems.

And I don't want to rely on wikipedia-articles too much

All the best!
Liam