4 ms·

No, that isn’t how rights work. They are guarantees that cannot be violated, no matter how democratically popular they are.

ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
aside from the trade-off discussion above, it looks like you also have opinions about the constitutionality of this move it is, of course, totally okay to have an opinion on that, but an opinion does not necessarily grant decision power, or even veto power, so ultimately you aren't the one who gets to decide what constitutes a right, and you aren't the one who gets to decide what constitutes a violation or an infringement of a right I'm not trying to slam you here, because I am also not the one who gets to decide that -- I'm just one of hundreds of millions of Americans, the majority of which do not have a problem with this move now, of course, if someone/you believes this move is an unconstitutional violation of rights, they/you can bring it to SCOTUS, who will let them/you know if they/you are right and if SCOTUS does ultimately say that this specific mandate is unconstitutional, then of course I agree with you that such a decision should be respected unless and until We The People change the constitution, which would be okay, too
- disneygibson 5y ago
  No I’m simply rejecting your framing of the discussion. Rights are not a question of votes. It is not up for deciding democratically. To frame the question this way is to fundamentally misunderstand how rights work.
  - ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
    your framing is that anything you say is a right/violation/infringement is one that framing does not reflect reality if and when a SCOTUS ruling says that this specific mandate is a violation of constitutional rights, you will be correct until then, you are not correct, by default otherwise any random dude on the internet could just declare _anything_ a "right" and declare _anything_ an "infringement" I still respect you as a person, though -- have a great day
    - disneygibson 5y ago
      It has nothing to do with SCOTUS specifically. I can’t keep repeating the same thing over and over again.
      - ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
        it does -- SCOTUS is the one who will decide whether or not you are correct when claiming this move is a violation or an infringement on constitutional rights I can't keep repeating the same thing over and over again
- TechBro8615 5y ago
  Just to be extra clear — the constitution does not grant rights. It acknowledges rights that were “endowed by our creator.” They exist by default, and they… oh, you know, the thing…
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Just to be extra clear — the constitution does not grant rights Just to be clear, it absolutely does establish such rights in law and thereby grant them as legal rights. It may be that some of authors and ratifiers (and some current constituents) of the Constitution have a (quasi- or literally) religious belief about the metaphysical preexistence of and/or independent ethical universal necessity of exactly such rights (or a super- or subset of them) against any legitimate government, but that's...largely immaterial except in terms of arguments between people sharing such views as to what rights should be established in law, or social science analysis of why the particular rights chosen were established in the Constitution.
amanaplanacanal 5y ago
That is certainly one theory of government, but it is not the only one, or probably even the most popular one. For instance, we have many laws that infringe free speech rights, and the great majority of people are perfectly fine with that. Your platonic ideal of “rights” isn’t the way rights actually work in the real world.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  "We violate rights therefore it is fine to violate rights" The whole idea of rights is that they cannot be violated, period. There's no reason to even have for example a UN Declaration on Human Rights if they can just be violated for Good Reasons™. Rights are absolute or they don't exist.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    By your logic then they don’t exist. There is no place in the world that rights have been absolute, and there never has been.
    - betwixthewires 5y ago
      You miss my point. It doesn't matter if it has never happened, that just means we have failed ourselves. What matters is defining the concept of rights, exploring what they mean and what they are. I'm not talking about if they exist in practice in any specific country, I'm talking about "what are rights?" Rights are things reserved for individuals to hold unilaterally, sovereign over them, no democratic process or other consideration can take them away. That's the whole idea. That's at the core of the definition of the concept. Without that, the concept of rights doesn't exist.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > For instance, we have many laws that infringe free speech rights, and the great majority of people are perfectly fine with that. I think you'll find that most people who are okay with the laws you are referencing likewise disagree that those laws infringe free speech rights, rather, they view them as operating in a space outside of the proper conception of the right to free speech; the complexity isn't as much in the operation of rights as in the parameters of rights.

ImPostingOnHN 5y ago

aside from the trade-off discussion above, it looks like you also have opinions about the constitutionality of this move it is, of course, totally okay to have an opinion on that, but an opinion does not necessarily grant decision power, or even veto power, so ultimately you aren't the one who gets to decide what constitutes a right, and you aren't the one who gets to decide what constitutes a violation or an infringement of a right I'm not trying to slam you here, because I am also not the one who gets to decide that -- I'm just one of hundreds of millions of Americans, the majority of which do not have a problem with this move now, of course, if someone/you believes this move is an unconstitutional violation of rights, they/you can bring it to SCOTUS, who will let them/you know if they/you are right and if SCOTUS does ultimately say that this specific mandate is unconstitutional, then of course I agree with you that such a decision should be respected unless and until We The People change the constitution, which would be okay, too

disneygibson 5y ago
No I’m simply rejecting your framing of the discussion. Rights are not a question of votes. It is not up for deciding democratically. To frame the question this way is to fundamentally misunderstand how rights work.
- ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
  your framing is that anything you say is a right/violation/infringement is one that framing does not reflect reality if and when a SCOTUS ruling says that this specific mandate is a violation of constitutional rights, you will be correct until then, you are not correct, by default otherwise any random dude on the internet could just declare _anything_ a "right" and declare _anything_ an "infringement" I still respect you as a person, though -- have a great day
  - disneygibson 5y ago
    It has nothing to do with SCOTUS specifically. I can’t keep repeating the same thing over and over again.
    - ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
      it does -- SCOTUS is the one who will decide whether or not you are correct when claiming this move is a violation or an infringement on constitutional rights I can't keep repeating the same thing over and over again
TechBro8615 5y ago
Just to be extra clear — the constitution does not grant rights. It acknowledges rights that were “endowed by our creator.” They exist by default, and they… oh, you know, the thing…
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Just to be extra clear — the constitution does not grant rights Just to be clear, it absolutely does establish such rights in law and thereby grant them as legal rights. It may be that some of authors and ratifiers (and some current constituents) of the Constitution have a (quasi- or literally) religious belief about the metaphysical preexistence of and/or independent ethical universal necessity of exactly such rights (or a super- or subset of them) against any legitimate government, but that's...largely immaterial except in terms of arguments between people sharing such views as to what rights should be established in law, or social science analysis of why the particular rights chosen were established in the Constitution.

amanaplanacanal 5y ago

That is certainly one theory of government, but it is not the only one, or probably even the most popular one. For instance, we have many laws that infringe free speech rights, and the great majority of people are perfectly fine with that. Your platonic ideal of “rights” isn’t the way rights actually work in the real world.

betwixthewires 5y ago
"We violate rights therefore it is fine to violate rights" The whole idea of rights is that they cannot be violated, period. There's no reason to even have for example a UN Declaration on Human Rights if they can just be violated for Good Reasons™. Rights are absolute or they don't exist.
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  By your logic then they don’t exist. There is no place in the world that rights have been absolute, and there never has been.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    You miss my point. It doesn't matter if it has never happened, that just means we have failed ourselves. What matters is defining the concept of rights, exploring what they mean and what they are. I'm not talking about if they exist in practice in any specific country, I'm talking about "what are rights?" Rights are things reserved for individuals to hold unilaterally, sovereign over them, no democratic process or other consideration can take them away. That's the whole idea. That's at the core of the definition of the concept. Without that, the concept of rights doesn't exist.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> For instance, we have many laws that infringe free speech rights, and the great majority of people are perfectly fine with that. I think you'll find that most people who are okay with the laws you are referencing likewise disagree that those laws infringe free speech rights, rather, they view them as operating in a space outside of the proper conception of the right to free speech; the complexity isn't as much in the operation of rights as in the parameters of rights.