3 ms·

> No, it isn’t, in a country of laws these things have weight and meaning. What is your point? Even if noone cares about what that piece of paper says, it stil

> No, it isn’t, in a country of laws these things have weight and meaning. What is your point? Even if noone cares about what that piece of paper says, it still has "weight and meaning"? Or are you just repeating what I said using slightly different words, i.e., in a country where people care about what that piece of paper says, what that piece of paper says has weight and meaning? > If, on the other hand, we are talking about complete anarchy and the end of laws as our guiding principles then, yes, sure, in that case words on paper do not matter. Until then... So ... a dictatorship is complete anarchy then? Or are you saying that it is inherently impossible for a government to selectively ignore individual laws or sections of the law? Or is it just yet another rephrasing of what I said, i.e., only if sufficiently many people act to recognize, demand, and enforce the rights, will there be rights?

robomartin 7y ago
I don't really understand what you are trying to say. In the US the Bill of Rights is taken very seriously by everyone, from citizens to the heights of government. That's just the way it is. Forgive me, I just don't know what you are trying to communicate.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  The point is that your original statement that these rights don't require government in order to exist ist just false. These rights require that they are taken seriously by everyone, from citizens to the heights of government in order to exist in any meaningful sense. It may well be that having them written down in such a clear form as the Bill of Rights helps in forming that consensus, but in the end, the consensus is what determines whether those rights exist or not, not whether these rights are written down or which exact words were used. And the further point is that there are plenty of people working to undermine those rights, and they don't need to change those words to be successful, they can also change how they are interpreted and how seriously they are taken in order to achieve their goal of undermining those rights, and that is what they usually do.
  - robomartin 7y ago
    The very concept of a civilized society requires everyone to living by the laws and rules that society agreed to as their guiding principles. When you live in the US the Constitution, perhaps, the most important of these rules. If we are going to talk about government derailing and doing as they wish then no piece of paper can protect anyone. At that point it becomes about guns and blood. Which sort of drives the point of the second amendment. That scenario is very, very far from reality in the US for more reasons than one. The US is one of the few (well, I don't think I know of any other) where you can tell a police officer to go to hell and stop harassing you in a public space due to the rights recognized by the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. YouTube is FULL of videos showing these kinds of situations. Anywhere else on earth you are far more likely to end-up in jail or worse. That happens because, at the end of the day, this society is based on a legal set of rules that everyone tends to follow, particularly the important ones. That's the difference. I know someone is going to bring up the topic of cops doing bad things. Guess what? There are bad cops, bad engineers, bad dentists and bad ice skaters. Humans are not a uniform blob of meat with the same brain. When someone behaves badly, more often than not, they face the consequences of their behavior. This includes violating others' rights. I know that if you are not in the US the above can be incomprehensible. And that's OK, there's nothing I can say to make you see this realty. It's like a bird trying to explain to a fish what it is like to fly. The lack of context is too extreme.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
      How does any of that make your original statement true? Also: > If we are going to talk about government derailing and doing as they wish then no piece of paper can protect anyone. At that point it becomes about guns and blood. No, it doesn't, if there is sufficient consensus for authoritarianism. I mean, except for the few people who don't agree, maybe. > That scenario is very, very far from reality in the US for more reasons than one. That seems very naive to me if you look at all the efforts to undermine those rights, including by the president himself. > The US is one of the few (well, I don't think I know of any other) where you can tell a police officer to go to hell and stop harassing you in a public space due to the rights recognized by the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. Then ... you are badly informed? > That happens because, at the end of the day, this society is based on a legal set of rules that everyone tends to follow, particularly the important ones. That's the difference. So ... you are agreeing then that it's about the consensus, not about the piece of paper? > I know someone is going to bring up the topic of cops doing bad things. Guess what? There are bad cops, bad engineers, bad dentists and bad ice skaters. Humans are not a uniform blob of meat with the same brain. When someone behaves badly, more often than not, they face the consequences of their behavior. This includes violating others' rights. And also, more often than not, they don't. But more importantly, you are making the argument against your original claim yourself here. What matters is the consensus, not the piece of paper. What matters is whether consequences are enforced on those who violate rights, not whether some piece of paper says "recognize" or "grant". What matters is whether society at large and government in particular consider those rights important or not, not whether some piece of paper says "recognize" or "grant". > I know that if you are not in the US the above can be incomprehensible. And that's OK, there's nothing I can say to make you see this realty. It's like a bird trying to explain to a fish what it is like to fly. The lack of context is too extreme. Erm ... yeah, sure! I gather that it is perfectly comprehensible to you what it is like to live anywhere else, though, right?

robomartin 7y ago

I don't really understand what you are trying to say. In the US the Bill of Rights is taken very seriously by everyone, from citizens to the heights of government. That's just the way it is. Forgive me, I just don't know what you are trying to communicate.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
The point is that your original statement that these rights don't require government in order to exist ist just false. These rights require that they are taken seriously by everyone, from citizens to the heights of government in order to exist in any meaningful sense. It may well be that having them written down in such a clear form as the Bill of Rights helps in forming that consensus, but in the end, the consensus is what determines whether those rights exist or not, not whether these rights are written down or which exact words were used. And the further point is that there are plenty of people working to undermine those rights, and they don't need to change those words to be successful, they can also change how they are interpreted and how seriously they are taken in order to achieve their goal of undermining those rights, and that is what they usually do.
- robomartin 7y ago
  The very concept of a civilized society requires everyone to living by the laws and rules that society agreed to as their guiding principles. When you live in the US the Constitution, perhaps, the most important of these rules. If we are going to talk about government derailing and doing as they wish then no piece of paper can protect anyone. At that point it becomes about guns and blood. Which sort of drives the point of the second amendment. That scenario is very, very far from reality in the US for more reasons than one. The US is one of the few (well, I don't think I know of any other) where you can tell a police officer to go to hell and stop harassing you in a public space due to the rights recognized by the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. YouTube is FULL of videos showing these kinds of situations. Anywhere else on earth you are far more likely to end-up in jail or worse. That happens because, at the end of the day, this society is based on a legal set of rules that everyone tends to follow, particularly the important ones. That's the difference. I know someone is going to bring up the topic of cops doing bad things. Guess what? There are bad cops, bad engineers, bad dentists and bad ice skaters. Humans are not a uniform blob of meat with the same brain. When someone behaves badly, more often than not, they face the consequences of their behavior. This includes violating others' rights. I know that if you are not in the US the above can be incomprehensible. And that's OK, there's nothing I can say to make you see this realty. It's like a bird trying to explain to a fish what it is like to fly. The lack of context is too extreme.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    How does any of that make your original statement true? Also: > If we are going to talk about government derailing and doing as they wish then no piece of paper can protect anyone. At that point it becomes about guns and blood. No, it doesn't, if there is sufficient consensus for authoritarianism. I mean, except for the few people who don't agree, maybe. > That scenario is very, very far from reality in the US for more reasons than one. That seems very naive to me if you look at all the efforts to undermine those rights, including by the president himself. > The US is one of the few (well, I don't think I know of any other) where you can tell a police officer to go to hell and stop harassing you in a public space due to the rights recognized by the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. Then ... you are badly informed? > That happens because, at the end of the day, this society is based on a legal set of rules that everyone tends to follow, particularly the important ones. That's the difference. So ... you are agreeing then that it's about the consensus, not about the piece of paper? > I know someone is going to bring up the topic of cops doing bad things. Guess what? There are bad cops, bad engineers, bad dentists and bad ice skaters. Humans are not a uniform blob of meat with the same brain. When someone behaves badly, more often than not, they face the consequences of their behavior. This includes violating others' rights. And also, more often than not, they don't. But more importantly, you are making the argument against your original claim yourself here. What matters is the consensus, not the piece of paper. What matters is whether consequences are enforced on those who violate rights, not whether some piece of paper says "recognize" or "grant". What matters is whether society at large and government in particular consider those rights important or not, not whether some piece of paper says "recognize" or "grant". > I know that if you are not in the US the above can be incomprehensible. And that's OK, there's nothing I can say to make you see this realty. It's like a bird trying to explain to a fish what it is like to fly. The lack of context is too extreme. Erm ... yeah, sure! I gather that it is perfectly comprehensible to you what it is like to live anywhere else, though, right?