4 ms·

> The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8 grants a right to privacy. The Fourth Amendment grants "the right of the people to be secure in their pers

> The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8 grants a right to privacy. The Fourth Amendment grants "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures", except that it doesn't, as evidenced by "Aggressive police take hundreds of millions of dollars from motorists not charged with crimes": http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/st... The moral of the story here is that laws don't actually grant any rights. The rights we have are not bestowed upon us by governments, but are inherent to all of us by virtue of being human. Laws don't apply to the ruling class and their cronies and enforcers. You need to see that there's no room for doubting that claim anymore. Not after zero Wall Street bigwigs have gone to jail for wrecking the world's economy, and not when police officers are actively just plain looting people. Words on a piece of paper somewhere don't magically prevent people with political power from abusing you in the here and now. EDIT: Downvoters? Care to tell me how I'm wrong?

Jekyll 12y ago
I don't really see how people have down-voted you other than the fact that they don't agree with your opinion and I really don't think that should be an excuse to just grey out someone's opinion unless it is downright stupid/misinformed/ or extremely offensive. Is it not better to have the opinion visible and actually have a constructive argument about that vs down-voting it to the point at it is barely readable.
- honeybooboo123 12y ago
  +1 for you, Good Sir :)
vidarh 12y ago
Presumably you were downvoted because the comment completely derails from what was under discussion. (EDIT: For what it's worth, I didn't downvote you, but I did think it was a bit of a weird digression) And while I agree with you in theory that "laws don't "actually grant any rights", that's a matter of ideology. For all practical intents, they do. E.g. in the specific case of the European Convention on Human Rights, it has the effect of granting rights by preventing signatories that have subordinated themselves to it from enforcing laws that try to take those rights away. The UK for example, have had parts of terror legislation struct down as a result, and have complied.
- honeybooboo123 12y ago
  Sure, it was a bit of a weird digression. But I figured it would be useful to you. > And while I agree with you in theory that "laws don't "actually grant any rights", that's a matter of ideology. For all practical intents, they do. Practical intents? Well, here's a practical example: if laws actually affected/defined rights, then the government could just pass a law that says "it's alright to kill innocent bystanders", and people would have no problem with it. But we both know people would consider such a law illegitimate (and insane), exactly because passing a law that says it's alright to kill people doesn't actually make it moral to do so. In other words, rights are not defined by laws, even in practice. > it has the effect of granting rights by preventing signatories that have subordinated themselves to it from enforcing laws that try to take those rights away So once a government signs a paper that says X, it can't sign another paper that says not-X? Or alternatively, if a government promises it'll be good, it can't then be bad? If government A promises to be good, but is bad, will governments B, C and D then invade A to force it to be good? Or will they go give A a stern talking to? Or will they perhaps impose economic sanctions that hurt their own economies too? You see, signing a law that says a government will be good is nothing but PR, in practice.

Jekyll 12y ago

I don't really see how people have down-voted you other than the fact that they don't agree with your opinion and I really don't think that should be an excuse to just grey out someone's opinion unless it is downright stupid/misinformed/ or extremely offensive. Is it not better to have the opinion visible and actually have a constructive argument about that vs down-voting it to the point at it is barely readable.

honeybooboo123 12y ago
+1 for you, Good Sir :)

vidarh 12y ago

Presumably you were downvoted because the comment completely derails from what was under discussion. (EDIT: For what it's worth, I didn't downvote you, but I did think it was a bit of a weird digression) And while I agree with you in theory that "laws don't "actually grant any rights", that's a matter of ideology. For all practical intents, they do. E.g. in the specific case of the European Convention on Human Rights, it has the effect of granting rights by preventing signatories that have subordinated themselves to it from enforcing laws that try to take those rights away. The UK for example, have had parts of terror legislation struct down as a result, and have complied.

honeybooboo123 12y ago
Sure, it was a bit of a weird digression. But I figured it would be useful to you. > And while I agree with you in theory that "laws don't "actually grant any rights", that's a matter of ideology. For all practical intents, they do. Practical intents? Well, here's a practical example: if laws actually affected/defined rights, then the government could just pass a law that says "it's alright to kill innocent bystanders", and people would have no problem with it. But we both know people would consider such a law illegitimate (and insane), exactly because passing a law that says it's alright to kill people doesn't actually make it moral to do so. In other words, rights are not defined by laws, even in practice. > it has the effect of granting rights by preventing signatories that have subordinated themselves to it from enforcing laws that try to take those rights away So once a government signs a paper that says X, it can't sign another paper that says not-X? Or alternatively, if a government promises it'll be good, it can't then be bad? If government A promises to be good, but is bad, will governments B, C and D then invade A to force it to be good? Or will they go give A a stern talking to? Or will they perhaps impose economic sanctions that hurt their own economies too? You see, signing a law that says a government will be good is nothing but PR, in practice.