6 ms·

"Do we really think that some civil liberties are better than others?" Yes, we do. This argument raises some interesting points, but it rests on several false

"Do we really think that some civil liberties are better than others?" Yes, we do. This argument raises some interesting points, but it rests on several false equivalencies. The first is that all liberties are equal in weight, impact, those protected and those affected, etc. This is noticeably untrue, even at a passing glance. Consider the First and Third Amendments, for example. Would anyone credibly argue that the right not to have to quarter soldiers in one's home is equal to the rights to protected speech, a free press, and freedom of religion? No. The latter set of rights is much more broad, encompassing, foundational, and frequently relied upon. The former is incredibly specific, and has become less germane over time. Both are protected liberties, but their impact weights are different. The second false equivalency is that all items written in the Constitution are equivalent in validity, timelessness, applicability, and contextual universality. A piece of paper written in the late 18th century isn't a living, adaptive, self-improving organism. Society is the living, adaptive, self-improving organism. We follow the principles of the Constitution, but we amend it (hence, the purpose of Amendments themselves) as situations arise and circumstances require adaptation. The Constitution is the code; we are the recursively self-improving expression of that code. Please note: capital-L Liberty should not be conflated with specific liberties. An intelligent and self-improving society makes its best attempt to preserve all liberties under the rubric of Liberty, but recognizes that some liberties conflict with others, and that some have net-beneficial or net-detrimental social outcomes, and that the status thereof fluctuates over time and within specific contexts.

crazy1van 14y ago
I don't understand the whole "things were different in the 1800's when they wrote the 2nd amendment" argument. Isn't that why they added the whole Amendment process? The process has been used twenty-something times to great success. I'm frustrated with people advocating reinterpreting an aspect of the Constitution when they don't have the popular support needed to amend it.
- mistercow 14y ago
  While I am pro gun control, I actually agree with you here: we really should have a constitutional amendment to nullify the second amendment. One of the big problems with that is that culturally, the first ten amendments are bulletproof. If the second amendment had been "the right to own slaves shall not be abridged", I think we might be in the same position today of creatively reïnterpreting it rather than besmirching something we have unwisely clad in the nominative armor "Bill of Rights".
- jonnathanson 14y ago
  "I don't understand the whole "things were different in the 1800's when they wrote the 2nd amendment" argument" That's not the argument I'm making. I think you're misreading me, or perhaps I was not perfectly clear. Let's give the reader the benefit of the doubt and assume it's on me. "Isn't that why they added the whole Amendment process?" Yes, and that's part of my point. I'm not arguing for a reinterpretation of the Constitution. I'm arguing against the idea that everything in the Constitution is of equivalent weight and is equally sacrosanct, unchanged by time and circumstances. Amendments are our remedies to said change, if/when the need arises. The author's insinuation -- that you have to take everything in the Constitution at equal value, or else you're a hypocrite -- is a false equivalency.
  - crazy1van 14y ago
    Sorry, I did misinterpret your point. Thanks for being so polite about it. /hat-tip I agree that the importance and relevance of the Constitution does change over time and I agree that Amendments are the tool to deal with those changes.
  - jamieb 14y ago
    "that you have to take everything in the Constitution at equal value, or else you're a hypocrite" That's not the authors point. The authors point is that you have to take the Constitutions statements as having equal legal force. You are quite entitled to disagree with them to varying degrees, and you are entitled to advocate that the 2nd Amendment should be removed. But you are a hypocrite if you say "The 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation and we can totally ignore it but the 1st or 4th or 14th are sacrosanct". When you argue that you can ignore the 2nd Amendment because you don't like it, then you've basically tossed out the whole document. Why should the government pay any attention to those inconvenient 4th and 14th amendments when "90%" of citizens support ignoring the 2nd?
- vec 14y ago
  Yeah, but things _were_ different in the 1700s when they wrote it. At the time there was no standing army, each state had a militia and citizens were often responsible for providing their own equipment. The 2nd amendment seems to have been aimed mostly at state governments, sort of a "when we need your militia, you'd better have one we can use". The reading where being armed is a protected right of each individual _is_ a reinterpretation, and a fairly recent one at that. http://backstoryradio.org/straight-shot-guns-in-america-2/ http://backstoryradio.org/straight-shot-guns-in-america-2/ (podcast, but well worth the time) has a wonderful summary of how this view has evolved over the last 2.5 centuries.
steverb 14y ago
Not to sound like a gun nut, although in some more liberal areas of the country I might qualify as one, how do you propose protecting the other amendments without the right to keep and bear arms? Whether the gun control legislation possibly violates those rights is a different question, and frankly is pretty silly considering how easy it is to manufacture many of the things that legislation attempts to control.
- wvenable 14y ago
  How to propose to use arms to protect the other amendments? What would you do with a gun to protect us from CISPA?
  - hga 14y ago
    There's a maxim with many variations, I'll use "soap box, ballet box, jury box, bullet box". If a government abuses such legislation in a sufficiently intolerable way, and our exercise or attempt to exercise the first three fail, we have not just the right but the duty to use the force of arms to overthrow it. Well, at least if you believe in the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence, e.g. "But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government...."
    - OpieCunningham 14y ago
      The British gov't didn't have tanks in 1776. You'll need to start demanding the right to bear nuclear weapons if you want to throw off the U.S. gov't.
      - hga 14y ago
        Did you know that there are things as anti-tank weapons, or that it's official US Army doctrine that an armored force that attacks a city will get its posterior kicked (they're useful in supporting infantry in urban warfare, and infantry close support is required to keep tanks safe from a lot of the former). And you're betraying more than you realize by focusing on weapons as a proxy for tactics; professionals focus on logistics, and I would hope its relevance in supporting armored forces in this context is obvious. As it was, I've read about, and am about to read a book that covers this, that after we chased the British out of Boston, when they returned in force and landed in New York we got a most unpleasant surprise from their new mobile artillery forces. We proceeded to lose very badly for quite some time. As for nuclear weapons, they're only relevant if you expect the government's response to be the nuking of opposition cities. If you think that's likely, you've certainly made the case that our government could get evil enough to require its (very careful) overthrow.
lmickh 14y ago
The reason why you don't see people try to quarter troops is because of the 3rd amendment. You can't say it doesn't apply to today's society. The reason why today's society adapted to its current form is because it was agreed that it was a very important issue. How is society supposed to self-improve if we dismiss the way we iterate on it? Try practicing the first amendment without the third. It won't go so well for you. While I accept the argument that some liberties conflict, some also rely on each other. Most all of the first ten amendments are interdependent. The system as a whole is what brings the stability and net-benefit. Not cherry picking which ones we feel apply the most to the day at hand. You can argue that freedom of speech is important all you like, but it doesn't mean that it stands on its own without others.
- jonnathanson 14y ago
  "The system as a whole is what brings the stability and net-benefit. Not cherry picking which ones we feel apply the most to the day at hand. You can argue that freedom of speech is important all you like, but it doesn't mean that it stands on its own without others." You're misreading me. I'm not arguing for cherrypicking some and dismissing others. I'm arguing that they have different weights. The first amendment is more important than the third, even if they are interdependent. I'm not saying we throw out the third because of that. [By the same token, I should emphasize that I have not even stated my opinion on the second amendment, let alone called for its revocation.] I'm simply responding to the author's assertion that all the amendments are equal, therefore, we don't have the moral or intellectual right to accept one without accepting all. That's reductive and fallacious logic.
  - lmickh 14y ago
    I guess if I had to restate my point it would be this: We can't determine the equality or value of the Bill of Rights liberties because they are interdependent and it many cases an "apples and oranges" comparison. You can only derive their value as a whole. Now that said, I do agree that the original post is fallacious. I don't believe it is a take or leave it scenario because as you pointed out, we can rewrite the code to better solve the issues at hand. It was my bad for overstating the idea of dismissing specific amendments. I did not misread you. I was trying to make the point that highlighting one amendment over another doesn't do you any good. If the first relies on the third, then how can one be more important? Lack of equality does not equal importance.

crazy1van 14y ago

I don't understand the whole "things were different in the 1800's when they wrote the 2nd amendment" argument. Isn't that why they added the whole Amendment process? The process has been used twenty-something times to great success. I'm frustrated with people advocating reinterpreting an aspect of the Constitution when they don't have the popular support needed to amend it.

mistercow 14y ago
While I am pro gun control, I actually agree with you here: we really should have a constitutional amendment to nullify the second amendment. One of the big problems with that is that culturally, the first ten amendments are bulletproof. If the second amendment had been "the right to own slaves shall not be abridged", I think we might be in the same position today of creatively reïnterpreting it rather than besmirching something we have unwisely clad in the nominative armor "Bill of Rights".
jonnathanson 14y ago
"I don't understand the whole "things were different in the 1800's when they wrote the 2nd amendment" argument" That's not the argument I'm making. I think you're misreading me, or perhaps I was not perfectly clear. Let's give the reader the benefit of the doubt and assume it's on me. "Isn't that why they added the whole Amendment process?" Yes, and that's part of my point. I'm not arguing for a reinterpretation of the Constitution. I'm arguing against the idea that everything in the Constitution is of equivalent weight and is equally sacrosanct, unchanged by time and circumstances. Amendments are our remedies to said change, if/when the need arises. The author's insinuation -- that you have to take everything in the Constitution at equal value, or else you're a hypocrite -- is a false equivalency.
- crazy1van 14y ago
  Sorry, I did misinterpret your point. Thanks for being so polite about it. /hat-tip I agree that the importance and relevance of the Constitution does change over time and I agree that Amendments are the tool to deal with those changes.
- jamieb 14y ago
  "that you have to take everything in the Constitution at equal value, or else you're a hypocrite" That's not the authors point. The authors point is that you have to take the Constitutions statements as having equal legal force. You are quite entitled to disagree with them to varying degrees, and you are entitled to advocate that the 2nd Amendment should be removed. But you are a hypocrite if you say "The 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation and we can totally ignore it but the 1st or 4th or 14th are sacrosanct". When you argue that you can ignore the 2nd Amendment because you don't like it, then you've basically tossed out the whole document. Why should the government pay any attention to those inconvenient 4th and 14th amendments when "90%" of citizens support ignoring the 2nd?
vec 14y ago
Yeah, but things _were_ different in the 1700s when they wrote it. At the time there was no standing army, each state had a militia and citizens were often responsible for providing their own equipment. The 2nd amendment seems to have been aimed mostly at state governments, sort of a "when we need your militia, you'd better have one we can use". The reading where being armed is a protected right of each individual _is_ a reinterpretation, and a fairly recent one at that. http://backstoryradio.org/straight-shot-guns-in-america-2/ http://backstoryradio.org/straight-shot-guns-in-america-2/ (podcast, but well worth the time) has a wonderful summary of how this view has evolved over the last 2.5 centuries.

steverb 14y ago

Not to sound like a gun nut, although in some more liberal areas of the country I might qualify as one, how do you propose protecting the other amendments without the right to keep and bear arms? Whether the gun control legislation possibly violates those rights is a different question, and frankly is pretty silly considering how easy it is to manufacture many of the things that legislation attempts to control.

wvenable 14y ago
How to propose to use arms to protect the other amendments? What would you do with a gun to protect us from CISPA?
- hga 14y ago
  There's a maxim with many variations, I'll use "soap box, ballet box, jury box, bullet box". If a government abuses such legislation in a sufficiently intolerable way, and our exercise or attempt to exercise the first three fail, we have not just the right but the duty to use the force of arms to overthrow it. Well, at least if you believe in the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence, e.g. "But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government...."
  - OpieCunningham 14y ago
    The British gov't didn't have tanks in 1776. You'll need to start demanding the right to bear nuclear weapons if you want to throw off the U.S. gov't.
    - hga 14y ago
      Did you know that there are things as anti-tank weapons, or that it's official US Army doctrine that an armored force that attacks a city will get its posterior kicked (they're useful in supporting infantry in urban warfare, and infantry close support is required to keep tanks safe from a lot of the former). And you're betraying more than you realize by focusing on weapons as a proxy for tactics; professionals focus on logistics, and I would hope its relevance in supporting armored forces in this context is obvious. As it was, I've read about, and am about to read a book that covers this, that after we chased the British out of Boston, when they returned in force and landed in New York we got a most unpleasant surprise from their new mobile artillery forces. We proceeded to lose very badly for quite some time. As for nuclear weapons, they're only relevant if you expect the government's response to be the nuking of opposition cities. If you think that's likely, you've certainly made the case that our government could get evil enough to require its (very careful) overthrow.

lmickh 14y ago

The reason why you don't see people try to quarter troops is because of the 3rd amendment. You can't say it doesn't apply to today's society. The reason why today's society adapted to its current form is because it was agreed that it was a very important issue. How is society supposed to self-improve if we dismiss the way we iterate on it? Try practicing the first amendment without the third. It won't go so well for you. While I accept the argument that some liberties conflict, some also rely on each other. Most all of the first ten amendments are interdependent. The system as a whole is what brings the stability and net-benefit. Not cherry picking which ones we feel apply the most to the day at hand. You can argue that freedom of speech is important all you like, but it doesn't mean that it stands on its own without others.

jonnathanson 14y ago
"The system as a whole is what brings the stability and net-benefit. Not cherry picking which ones we feel apply the most to the day at hand. You can argue that freedom of speech is important all you like, but it doesn't mean that it stands on its own without others." You're misreading me. I'm not arguing for cherrypicking some and dismissing others. I'm arguing that they have different weights. The first amendment is more important than the third, even if they are interdependent. I'm not saying we throw out the third because of that. [By the same token, I should emphasize that I have not even stated my opinion on the second amendment, let alone called for its revocation.] I'm simply responding to the author's assertion that all the amendments are equal, therefore, we don't have the moral or intellectual right to accept one without accepting all. That's reductive and fallacious logic.
- lmickh 14y ago
  I guess if I had to restate my point it would be this: We can't determine the equality or value of the Bill of Rights liberties because they are interdependent and it many cases an "apples and oranges" comparison. You can only derive their value as a whole. Now that said, I do agree that the original post is fallacious. I don't believe it is a take or leave it scenario because as you pointed out, we can rewrite the code to better solve the issues at hand. It was my bad for overstating the idea of dismissing specific amendments. I did not misread you. I was trying to make the point that highlighting one amendment over another doesn't do you any good. If the first relies on the third, then how can one be more important? Lack of equality does not equal importance.