3 ms·

The general motivation is the existence of rights. We are born with god-given inalienable rights, constitutions exist to protect those rights from the governmen

The general motivation is the existence of rights. We are born with god-given inalienable rights, constitutions exist to protect those rights from the government. Part of this, is that the government can't illegally infringe upon those rights. If they think that we are doing X they need a warrant to search our property. Where is the threshold is actually an interesting question. Since if for example the man killed the woman, but the video was illegally taken then it would be inadmissable. BUT police are known to construct cases around illegal evidence called parallel construction. So for example the police get an illegal video, they look for evidence find that a woman is missing, get a warrant to then find the video. Where is the threshold I think the US has shown that the threshold is national security. No issues drone striking someone in a foreign country.

janalsncm 2y ago
> We are born with god-given inalienable rights, constitutions exist to protect those rights from the government. The political realist take is that “rights” are not some abstract, static group of protections but the direct result of political activity. Women didn’t have the right to vote until they did. People had the right to drink until they didn’t, and then they did again. 18 year olds didn’t have the right to vote until they did. Secondly, one person’s right usually takes away something from another group or the government. The First Amendment takes away the ability for the government to punish speech they don’t like. The 13th amendment takes away a person’s right to own a slave. Previously, the deciding factor was force or capital. It sounds reductionist but “rights” is more of a description of how the political/legal system actually works than some abstract notion handed down from Heaven. What this means is that this list of rights can expand and contract with time, and it is in our interest to expand it as much as possible for as many people as possible. This takes active political participation because the default is for those who can command force (the government) and those with capital (wealthy people/corporations) to have power.

janalsncm 2y ago

> We are born with god-given inalienable rights, constitutions exist to protect those rights from the government. The political realist take is that “rights” are not some abstract, static group of protections but the direct result of political activity. Women didn’t have the right to vote until they did. People had the right to drink until they didn’t, and then they did again. 18 year olds didn’t have the right to vote until they did. Secondly, one person’s right usually takes away something from another group or the government. The First Amendment takes away the ability for the government to punish speech they don’t like. The 13th amendment takes away a person’s right to own a slave. Previously, the deciding factor was force or capital. It sounds reductionist but “rights” is more of a description of how the political/legal system actually works than some abstract notion handed down from Heaven. What this means is that this list of rights can expand and contract with time, and it is in our interest to expand it as much as possible for as many people as possible. This takes active political participation because the default is for those who can command force (the government) and those with capital (wealthy people/corporations) to have power.