4 ms·

Hm. It seems like a tricky distinction. What about the 6th amendment? It seems like that gives me the positive right to a trial by jury. The viewpoint seems

Hm. It seems like a tricky distinction. What about the 6th amendment? It seems like that gives me the positive right to a trial by jury. The viewpoint seems to be the reverse of how rights are expressed in the bill of rights, where they're all described from the point of view of the 'end user'. [edit: many, not all in the bill of rights]

steamer25 17y ago
I haven't heard the phrase 'positive' and 'negative' rights before but this is how I understand it: If we were to wash ashore on a desert island, everyone could do whatever they wanted. Inevitably, some people would start to harm each other. The harmed would then gang up to overthrow those who started the fight. The gang is called government and it's members agree to renounce some of their rights to grant it _powers_. Fearing that the gang itself would turn into another oppressor the members wisely choose to limit the newfound powers to only apply against those who initiate force. Thus the purpose and scope of government is maximize the rights of individuals by delineating the boundaries between my rights and yours. I do not have the right to force you to provide me with broadband because you have your own rights. I agree that I do not have this right because I consent to maintaining some government. Another limitation on the power granted to government is that illegitimate force is defined by the people--not the government. The government is an employee of the people that has to check in every so often. If I don't like that you won't take a shovel, dig up a trench to my house and some copper to fill it; I can't extort it from you by accusing you of stealing my car so that the government will punish you on my say-so. This is where juries come in--part of the eternal vigilance we pay to retain freedom. If we as a people want the government to punish wrong-doing, we have to sign off on it. We agree to do it on a case by case basis because we don't trust the police or judges to not abuse their position in any given case. It's another part of the rights that we delegate to create the powers.
maw 17y ago
I guess you could look at the right to a trial by jury as the right to be not tried by a single person. Tangentially related, Richard Dawkins wrote an interesting piece arguing against trials by jury, although I confess that I'm having trouble finding a full copy of it now; http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/04B41355-BD6A-4BB8-A8C6-AB824B61FB55/ http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/04B41355-BD6A-4BB8-A8C6-AB824B... has part of it, but I think that there was more. But is Dawkins right? The jury's still out on that.
- gort 17y ago
  http://www.scribd.com/doc/15747540/Trial-by-Jury http://www.scribd.com/doc/15747540/Trial-by-Jury (I'm not sure if this is being distributed legally. It's in a collection of his essays called "A Devil's Chaplain".)

steamer25 17y ago

I haven't heard the phrase 'positive' and 'negative' rights before but this is how I understand it: If we were to wash ashore on a desert island, everyone could do whatever they wanted. Inevitably, some people would start to harm each other. The harmed would then gang up to overthrow those who started the fight. The gang is called government and it's members agree to renounce some of their rights to grant it _powers_. Fearing that the gang itself would turn into another oppressor the members wisely choose to limit the newfound powers to only apply against those who initiate force. Thus the purpose and scope of government is maximize the rights of individuals by delineating the boundaries between my rights and yours. I do not have the right to force you to provide me with broadband because you have your own rights. I agree that I do not have this right because I consent to maintaining some government. Another limitation on the power granted to government is that illegitimate force is defined by the people--not the government. The government is an employee of the people that has to check in every so often. If I don't like that you won't take a shovel, dig up a trench to my house and some copper to fill it; I can't extort it from you by accusing you of stealing my car so that the government will punish you on my say-so. This is where juries come in--part of the eternal vigilance we pay to retain freedom. If we as a people want the government to punish wrong-doing, we have to sign off on it. We agree to do it on a case by case basis because we don't trust the police or judges to not abuse their position in any given case. It's another part of the rights that we delegate to create the powers.

maw 17y ago

I guess you could look at the right to a trial by jury as the right to be not tried by a single person. Tangentially related, Richard Dawkins wrote an interesting piece arguing against trials by jury, although I confess that I'm having trouble finding a full copy of it now; http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/04B41355-BD6A-4BB8-A8C6-AB824B61FB55/ http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/04B41355-BD6A-4BB8-A8C6-AB824B... has part of it, but I think that there was more. But is Dawkins right? The jury's still out on that.

gort 17y ago
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15747540/Trial-by-Jury http://www.scribd.com/doc/15747540/Trial-by-Jury (I'm not sure if this is being distributed legally. It's in a collection of his essays called "A Devil's Chaplain".)