10 ms·
It's not clear to me how slaves not being considered part of "the people" implies the BOR's governmental prohibitions only apply to acts on U.S. soil.
by ataggart 14y ago
It's not clear to me how slaves not being considered part of "the people" implies the BOR's governmental prohibitions only apply to acts on U.S. soil.
- pdonis 14y agoThe Constitution itself explicitly says that it's for the United States of America. That applies to the whole document, including the Amendments.
- michaelfeathers 14y agoSometimes people say that we don't have to respect people's rights if they aren't Americans. I think that we should respect their rights because we are Americans.
- rayiner 14y agoA "right" is a legal rule applicable between two people within a framework of law. Foreigners don't have any "rights" as against the American people not because they're bad or we're more important or anything like that, but because they are not part of a common legal framework with us.
- michaelfeathers 14y agoNo, that's just one definition of rights. There are many. I was speaking from the natural rights perspective.
- rayiner 14y agoUnless you believe in a God, the concept of "natural rights" is utterly ridiculous. Lots of people believe in them, unfortunately, but then again at one point many very smart people believed there were four elements: earth, air, fire, and water.
- michaelfeathers 14y agoI don't see that way. They are all value judgements. Earth, air, fire and water all exist and people can consider them primary if they want to. The same is true with rights. It depends upon what you value.
- rayiner 14y agoThere is a difference between thinking that something is important and thinking that something expresses a deeper physical reality. That earth, wind, fire, and water are primary is a value judgment--that everything else is made of one of these four elements is a (false) factual assertion. The same thing with natural rights. You might think it's important not to kill people, no matter if they're American or not. That's a value judgment. But to assert they have a "natural right" not to be killed--that's a factual assertion. If you do kill them and do an autopsy, you won't find any "natural right" in there.
- michaelfeathers 14y agoI don't link the notion of a "natural right" to "expressing a deeper physical reality." That's your definition. In any case, I stand by what I said: respecting human life should be considered part of our values. It was a foundational idea at the start of our country.
- pdonis 14y agoThat's not the same as saying the Constitution gives non-Americans the same protections as Americans.