4 ms·

I think your conception of rights is far too narrow. If the government forces me against my will when I am not harming someone, it's a violation of my rights.

by javert 6y ago

I think your conception of rights is far too narrow. If the government forces me against my will when I am not harming someone, it's a violation of my rights. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are not intended to be exhaustive. One reason some people opposed the Bill of Rights was because they feared that it would later be misunderstood to be exhaustive. > Banning Chinese printers don't violate the rights of Americans either. It absolutely does. It prevents me from buying a printer from whoever I want. Look, I get it: like most people, you probably don't care about a theoretical way of looking at rights. Nonetheless, we should all agree that the American government shouldn't do things that harm Americans. Does arbitrarily banning certain businesses, even if owned by foreigners, hurt Americans? Yes, it absolutely does. It's not in our self interest as individual Americans. The point of developing a theoretical way of looking at rights is to delineate, ahead of time, all the things government can do that will be contra the interest of citizens, and disallow them. That's what rights are for.

gruez 6y ago
> I think your conception of rights is far to narrow. If the government forces me against my will when I am not harming someone, it's a violation of my rights. Is this something that's recognized by the courts, or your own headcanon? If it's the latter, there no point arguing because it basically devolves into a generic "what's the role of government" discussion. >Does arbitrarily banning certain businesses, even if owned by foreigners, hurt Americans? Yes, it absolutely does. It's not in our self interest as individual Americans. So does setting tariffs, yet that's widely accepted (as a government power) by both parties. >The point of developing a theoretical way of looking at rights is to delineate, ahead of time, all the things government can do that will be contra the interest of citizens, and disallow them. That's what rights are for. This is probably why you're being downvoted. When you say "x violates your rights", most people take that as to mean it violates your legal rights. They don't mean some amorphous concept that roughly equates to "is the government doing the right thing?".
- javert 6y ago
  It is a generic "what's the role of government" discussion. It already was, even before I commented. Not sure why you got involved if you don't want to have that discussion.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - gruez 6y ago
    >Not sure why you got involved if you don't want to have that discussion. The main issue is that it looks like you're attempting to do a motte and bailey. You start off by making a bold claim (the bailey) of "Banning TikTok violates the rights of Americans" (which is commonly understood by most people to mean it violates the constitution/legal rights of Americans). A few comments later, you retreat back to the motte by saying that what you meant by "violates the rights of Americans" is "harms Americans". [1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey Also, regarding your other comment > You added more to your post after I responded, so here is my new response to the new content. It probably makes more sense to edit your existing comment and delete that one rather than starting two comment trees.
    - javert 6y ago
      > A few comments later, you retreat back to the motte by saying that what you meant by "violates the rights of Americans" is "harms Americans". No, I didn't equivocate between "harms Americans" and "violates rights." The former is an explanation for why we need a theoretical framework of rights. That was pertinent in that part of the discussion. I get that you think that everyone understands "rights" to mean "rights in a narrow legal sense," but as I said before, I don't agree. In fact, I think most people understand "rights" in my sense. Anyway, I needed to say what I said, the way I said it, to make my point. Yes, this is a discussion about political theory, and already was, before I joined it. On your premise about the word "rights," which I disagree with, I would have acted in bad faith, so you are right to raise that as a complaint, from your perspective. I don't think this is a productive conversation anymore, so I am asking you kindly to refrain from responding further, on the presumption that you continue to believe that I have acted at least irrationally, and possibly in bad faith. I will not respond further. > It probably makes more sense to edit your existing comment and delete that one rather than starting two comment trees. I agree, but I couldn't find the link to edit that particular comment, for some reason, so I had to make a new comment. I know how to use HN (been on here for a super long time), but I probably goofed somehow.
- javert 6y ago
  You added more to your post after I responded, so here is my new response to the new content. > So does setting tariffs, yet that's widely accepted (as a government power) by both parties. Not always, and not by me. What the parties accept is irrelevant. We (almost) all believe that one or both of them is fully evil. Almost nobody on the right or left thinks "their" party represents their views (except a vocal minority of Republicans). > This is probably why you're being downvoted. I expected to be downvoted heavily when I posted. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. Sometimes I'm willing to take the hit. > When you say "x violates your rights", most people take that as to mean it violates your legal rights I don't think that's true. Obviously, we have basically no legal rights anymore in America. The ones we do have are tiny procedural things, like Miranda rights. When it comes to legality, it's just a matter of asking if rule X will be enforced in way Y at this particular time, which will certainly not hold at a different time. The Federal government is free to regulate basically anything in basically any way it pleases. I mean, can you name anything that actually, solidly, is a legal right, for Americans? Maybe free speech, but that is under heavy assault. I can't think of much else.

by javert 6y ago

gruez 6y ago

> I think your conception of rights is far to narrow. If the government forces me against my will when I am not harming someone, it's a violation of my rights. Is this something that's recognized by the courts, or your own headcanon? If it's the latter, there no point arguing because it basically devolves into a generic "what's the role of government" discussion. >Does arbitrarily banning certain businesses, even if owned by foreigners, hurt Americans? Yes, it absolutely does. It's not in our self interest as individual Americans. So does setting tariffs, yet that's widely accepted (as a government power) by both parties. >The point of developing a theoretical way of looking at rights is to delineate, ahead of time, all the things government can do that will be contra the interest of citizens, and disallow them. That's what rights are for. This is probably why you're being downvoted. When you say "x violates your rights", most people take that as to mean it violates your legal rights. They don't mean some amorphous concept that roughly equates to "is the government doing the right thing?".

javert 6y ago
It is a generic "what's the role of government" discussion. It already was, even before I commented. Not sure why you got involved if you don't want to have that discussion.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- gruez 6y ago
  >Not sure why you got involved if you don't want to have that discussion. The main issue is that it looks like you're attempting to do a motte and bailey. You start off by making a bold claim (the bailey) of "Banning TikTok violates the rights of Americans" (which is commonly understood by most people to mean it violates the constitution/legal rights of Americans). A few comments later, you retreat back to the motte by saying that what you meant by "violates the rights of Americans" is "harms Americans". [1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey Also, regarding your other comment > You added more to your post after I responded, so here is my new response to the new content. It probably makes more sense to edit your existing comment and delete that one rather than starting two comment trees.
  - javert 6y ago
    > A few comments later, you retreat back to the motte by saying that what you meant by "violates the rights of Americans" is "harms Americans". No, I didn't equivocate between "harms Americans" and "violates rights." The former is an explanation for why we need a theoretical framework of rights. That was pertinent in that part of the discussion. I get that you think that everyone understands "rights" to mean "rights in a narrow legal sense," but as I said before, I don't agree. In fact, I think most people understand "rights" in my sense. Anyway, I needed to say what I said, the way I said it, to make my point. Yes, this is a discussion about political theory, and already was, before I joined it. On your premise about the word "rights," which I disagree with, I would have acted in bad faith, so you are right to raise that as a complaint, from your perspective. I don't think this is a productive conversation anymore, so I am asking you kindly to refrain from responding further, on the presumption that you continue to believe that I have acted at least irrationally, and possibly in bad faith. I will not respond further. > It probably makes more sense to edit your existing comment and delete that one rather than starting two comment trees. I agree, but I couldn't find the link to edit that particular comment, for some reason, so I had to make a new comment. I know how to use HN (been on here for a super long time), but I probably goofed somehow.
javert 6y ago
You added more to your post after I responded, so here is my new response to the new content. > So does setting tariffs, yet that's widely accepted (as a government power) by both parties. Not always, and not by me. What the parties accept is irrelevant. We (almost) all believe that one or both of them is fully evil. Almost nobody on the right or left thinks "their" party represents their views (except a vocal minority of Republicans). > This is probably why you're being downvoted. I expected to be downvoted heavily when I posted. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. Sometimes I'm willing to take the hit. > When you say "x violates your rights", most people take that as to mean it violates your legal rights I don't think that's true. Obviously, we have basically no legal rights anymore in America. The ones we do have are tiny procedural things, like Miranda rights. When it comes to legality, it's just a matter of asking if rule X will be enforced in way Y at this particular time, which will certainly not hold at a different time. The Federal government is free to regulate basically anything in basically any way it pleases. I mean, can you name anything that actually, solidly, is a legal right, for Americans? Maybe free speech, but that is under heavy assault. I can't think of much else.