[Aardwolf]

Ooo... I heard about that on the radio.

[Mongoose]

Maybe it's just my complete apathy about most things political talking, but I'm seeing a lot of Chicken Little behavior in here.

I don't know if that was supposed to impress us, how "devout" you are to your cause, but let me tell you in all seriousness: that was not funny.  
It was not impressive.  
It was not motivating.  
I don't know what you wanted to accomplish by telling us that, but one thing is clear - you need help.  And i'm not just saying that.  
By 'help' i don't mean coming onto an online community where 99.999% of the people you have never met nor ever will.  
I mean serious, psychological help.

Anyone that 'temporarily' loses his/her mind, loads guns and ammo in their vehicle, and plots a course for the government capital needs. help..  
Yes it's very very probable you're just telling us you did that so we can see just how serious you are, and how strongly you feel for your cause, but it's also possible that you really are tellin the truth.

But the next time you 'black out' for 10 minutes, maybe you won't 'wake up' and notice your gun in the back seat.  Maybe you'll have seriously hurt someone.

Not impressive at all buddy, not one bit.

And a hundred times this.  Nuclear1, if what you said was really the case, you need to get help now.  I don't care if it's military, civilian, whatever...talk to a professional.  Those sorts of actions aren't normal in the least, and like Stealth said, none of us wants to wake up tomorrow and see you in the news just because you "blacked out" again.

Seriously, none of the rest of you called him out on this?  You just started spewing whatever political bull**** came to mind and didn't stop and think about this?  What the ****, guys.

[Leeko]

Personally I didn't mention it because A) being aware of his own strange behavior he probably knows he ought to talk to someone and B) if he's yanking our collective chains I didn't want to reward it. But while we're stating the painfully obvious, as we humans have a habit of doing... yes, seek help if you really flipped out like that.

[Bobboau]

I figured he was quoting a chain email when I read that part.

[General Battuta]

I figured it was poetic license. But if serious, yeah, talk to somebody.

Meanwhile, I'm moving to the Culture.

[Woolie Wool]

It's my personal belief that the Bill of Rights is the most perfect set of man-made laws ever written.

You know, the right to think freely, speak freely, be yourself, defend yourself, etc. Yeah, generally the right to be human.

...This unfortunately does not seem to compute with many modern/upcoming world-wide/US policies or proposals...

The Bill of Rights is an elegant piece of writing but it makes for crappy law. A good declaration of rights would be exhaustively detailed, use very precise and specific language, and cover the implementation of these rights, the priority of the rights (inevitably two rights will end up conflicting in some cases and one will have to override the other), and the duties required to protect them (a right is meaningless without an accompanying duty--a right to live means a duty not to kill, a right to free speech means a duty not to silence people for saying something you don't like, a right to healthcare means a duty to provide/finance it, a right to education means a duty to finance it and a duty to go to class, etc.). Consider all the myriad interpretations of the Constitution courts have come up with over the years. Such widely varying interpretation is the sign of a poorly-constructed legal document.

[Scotty]

It does not follow that right necessitates duty.  Not in the strictest sense, at least.  Anyone can refuse to invoke a right of or for something.  A right to free speech does not imply a duty not to silence someone, unless you think that a restriction is considered a "duty."  A right to education means that one can attend class, not that one is automatically obligated to pay for it, nor that one is compelled to attend.

Where, in the Constitution, do two rights legitimately clash?  I can't find one for the life of me.

[SpardaSon21]

Well, the first ten amendments are all pretty non-conflicting and reasonably clear (you just have to take them in historical context), but there may be some later stuff that causes conflicts.

[Woolie Wool]

It does not follow that right necessitates duty.  Not in the strictest sense, at least.  Anyone can refuse to invoke a right of or for something.  A right to free speech does not imply a duty not to silence someone, unless you think that a restriction is considered a "duty."  A right to education means that one can attend class, not that one is automatically obligated to pay for it, nor that one is compelled to attend.

Incorrect. A right to education means that the government must at least provide you with one should you want it. However, education is not free. The government pays for education by giving people a duty to pay for it, in the form of taxes (since the government is not a business and does not generate wealth). You want a retirement pension? That will cost you money in taxes too. And yes, the restrictions are "duties". A right to free speech cannot exist if you are not required to refrain from preventing people from saying things you disapprove of. Rights are really defined by the responsibilities they put on people (even the government itself is saddled with many such responsibilities), not the other way around.

Where, in the Constitution, do two rights legitimately clash?  I can't find one for the life of me.

The 15th Amendment can override the 1st--verbally intimidate a black man trying to vote in an election and you will probably be arrested.

The US Constitution has pretty few conflicts because it doesn't enumerate that many rights. Let's try the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 17
Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

vs.

Article 23 s. 2
Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
You have the right to own your business but your right to exercise your ownership over the business and decide how much to pay people is limited by other people's right to be treated equally by your business regardless of skin color, gender, sexuality, or other factors. And according to Article 24, instituting a 180-hour work week in your business is right out:

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

The more rights you include (especially for things like healthcare and education that don't just appear out of nowhere) the greater the potential for conflict.

[Scotty]

If the government is instituting the duty, it does not follow that it is part and parcel with the right.  What if I were to refuse the right to education?  The tax is still there.  Regardless of whether the right itself even exists, the duty is still there.  I further take issue with your use of the word duty.  The "duty" to not prevent people from saying something is not a duty, it is an incentive.  If the incentive is to not be sent to jail, it's still an incentive, not a duty.  Rights are defined as a universal freedom, not a responsibility.  Any responsibilities that result are not necessarily directly caused by the right itself.

I have to take issue with your clash of rights example.  The rights in the Constitution are not the rights that all people should afford all other people, they are the rights that the government must afford people (hence the term rights instead of privileges).  If I were to verbally intimidate said black man, I would not be arrested for violating an Amendment, but rather for violating some other legislation.

If we could, I would prefer to keep this domestic instead of international.  The rights laid down in the U.S. Constitution do their best to be rights, not the at-best flimsy guidlines the UN uses.

[General Battuta]

If we could, I would prefer to keep this domestic instead of international.  The rights laid down in the U.S. Constitution do their best to be rights, not the at-best flimsy guidlines the UN uses.

The fact that they're not well-enforced does not make the universal human rights in the Declaration any more flimsy than those in the Bill of Rights.

The only difference lies in the perceived authority of the institution behind the paperwork.

[Flipside]

Thing is Nuclear, someone has to stay behind and pick uip the pieces when it all hits the fan, and I think anyone who's got half an ounce of premonition knows its heading that way. When a government manages to win a massive majority and still be totally paralyzed when they come up against corporate interests, and that is really what this is about, then it will get to the point where people will have change, and if they cannot believe in the Governmental form of Change, then they will find another way.

To be honest, I think we are in the final days of the Mega-corporation, be it Pharmacutical, Oil, News or any other type, it's becoming increasingly obvious to the public as they clamour to keep hold of their slice of the pie just how much power they have taken away from the people, voters no longer dictate policies, Corporations dictate them to voters via TV and other Media, and then the voters believe what they are told. The government simply pre-empts that by cutting out the middle-man, i.e. the voter.

[Woolie Wool]

If the government is instituting the duty, it does not follow that it is part and parcel with the right.  What if I were to refuse the right to education?  The tax is still there.  Regardless of whether the right itself even exists, the duty is still there.  I further take issue with your use of the word duty.  The "duty" to not prevent people from saying something is not a duty, it is an incentive.  If the incentive is to not be sent to jail, it's still an incentive, not a duty.  Rights are defined as a universal freedom, not a responsibility.  Any responsibilities that result are not necessarily directly caused by the right itself.

I have to take issue with your clash of rights example.  The rights in the Constitution are not the rights that all people should afford all other people, they are the rights that the government must afford people (hence the term rights instead of privileges).  If I were to verbally intimidate said black man, I would not be arrested for violating an Amendment, but rather for violating some other legislation.

If we could, I would prefer to keep this domestic instead of international.  The rights laid down in the U.S. Constitution do their best to be rights, not the at-best flimsy guidlines the UN uses.

You don't get it. You cannot "refuse the right to an education". The right does not go away. You just decline the education itself. Choosing not to say something doesn't mean you lose the right to say it. In a state with universal healthcare, not going to the doctor when you have a problem does not mean you lose the right to healthcare. Also, a private individual is fully capable of infringing on your rights. A private citizen can intimidate you, shut you up, discriminate against you, take your property, torture you, and even kill you. Thus, the rights must be respected by the people as well as the government. Also, not all rights can be defined as anything like a "universal freedom". The right to an education is the right to a thing. Someone must pay for this thing and everything that comes with it--teachers, facilities, staff. That someone is the taxpaying public (in other words, you).

There is no such thing as a right that does not come with a responsibility. A right without a responsibility is merely a suggestion. It only becomes a right when there are negative consequences for infringing on it. I was not saying that the UN Declaration of Human Rights really had any power, just as an indication that if you were to define a lot of rights, many of which are to material things, some of them will eventually come into conflict.

[Scotty]

Threat of negative consequences does not by itself constitute responsibility.  Were that true, it would be my duty to avoid anything that could ever possibly be dangerous like the plague, since anything dangerous carries with it an inherent threat of negative consequences.  If I may ask, what is the threat of negative consequences to not quartering troops in my home when not in a time of war?  Where is my responsibility there?

I can indeed "refuse the right" to something.  Apparently the law agrees with this, since people can refuse their rights all the time when it comes to legal counsel.  Don't get me wrong, refusing something does not magically make it not exist.  I know that.  Refusing != losing.  However, whether I accept the right to education or not, the tax is still there.  What about someone who has already finished high school?  His/her schooling is no longer provided by the government, but the tax still exists.  Yes, they can still go to college, but that is independent of the government, and money is given to the college instead, but the government still takes the money for a "right" he/she can no longer exercise.

Also, a private individual is fully capable of infringing on your rights.

You missed my point here.  My point was that people do not guarantee rights to each other.  Only the government declares and guarantees rights.  The government enforces them.

Also, not all rights can be defined as anything like a "universal freedom".

Personally, I think that anything that is a "right" and not an overblown privilege should be defined as such.

[SpardaSon21]

Only the government declares and guarantees rights.  The government enforces them.

That's not the way rights should be.  Rights should merely exist, not be granted by the government.  What the government grants the government can take away.  Rights should instead be preserved by the government.

[Leeko]

In an ideal world...

[Woolie Wool]

Threat of negative consequences does not by itself constitute responsibility.  Were that true, it would be my duty to avoid anything that could ever possibly be dangerous like the plague, since anything dangerous carries with it an inherent threat of negative consequences.  If I may ask, what is the threat of negative consequences to not quartering troops in my home when not in a time of war?  Where is my responsibility there?

The negative consequences of the plague are not handed down by an authority. A right cannot have any meaning unless an authority exists to make people respect it. And an authority holding you to a certain behavior is most definitely a responsibility.

I can indeed "refuse the right" to something.  Apparently the law agrees with this, since people can refuse their rights all the time when it comes to legal counsel.  Don't get me wrong, refusing something does not magically make it not exist.  I know that.  Refusing != losing.  However, whether I accept the right to education or not, the tax is still there.  What about someone who has already finished high school?  His/her schooling is no longer provided by the government, but the tax still exists.  Yes, they can still go to college, but that is independent of the government, and money is given to the college instead, but the government still takes the money for a "right" he/she can no longer exercise.

The right to an "education", as understood by most governments today, does not include tertiary education. Once you graduate twelfth grade you have completed your guaranteed education. You can no longer exercise your right to an education because you have already received it in full. Now it's your turn to provide for the education of the next generation, as part of your responsibility to the society that gave you yours.

You missed my point here.  My point was that people do not guarantee rights to each other.  Only the government declares and guarantees rights.  The government enforces them.

A government guarantees rights, but a constitution creates them, and the government is itself bound by the constitution. The constitution thus (unless the system becomes perverted) is the supreme authority, which overrides even the will of the government. This is where the phrase "rule of law" comes from--the law is above the state.

Personally, I think that anything that is a "right" and not an overblown privilege should be defined as such.

Your definition as a "right" as something you just get out of nowhere with no strings attached does not exist, anywhere. Rights exist because they are created by a constitution or other declaration and protected, maintained, and safeguarded by a government, by creating a network of duties among the individual, other individuals, and the government. Each has responsibilities towards the other. The constitution is the supreme authority by which government and citizen are bound. "Freedom is not free" is a trite cliche, but there is truth to it--you have the right to speak your mind because no one is allowed to shut you up.

[Kosh]

Sorry, hold the phone. What's so wrong with self-sufficiency? What's wrong with trying to avoid handouts? Apparently I've been brainwashed, because in my book those are definitely Good Things. Care to explain why I'm wrong?

If everything does go all wahooni-shaped, it's the self-sufficient ones who will survive...

Self-sufficiency for a lot of those people is just a myth. Read the book, then comment.

For the last time, that's an illusion. Among the parties themselves there is little real disagreement. It's just factionalism to them.

You still didn't address any of my points.

[karajorma]

I can indeed "refuse the right" to something.  Apparently the law agrees with this, since people can refuse their rights all the time when it comes to legal counsel.  Don't get me wrong, refusing something does not magically make it not exist.  I know that.  Refusing != losing.  However, whether I accept the right to education or not, the tax is still there.  What about someone who has already finished high school?  His/her schooling is no longer provided by the government, but the tax still exists.  Yes, they can still go to college, but that is independent of the government, and money is given to the college instead, but the government still takes the money for a "right" he/she can no longer exercise.

Which means you've pretty much proved Woolie's point.

With the right to a free education comes the duty on the electorate to pay for it regardless of whether or not they can use it any more. Any system which allowed members of the electorate to opt out of paying for education would pretty quickly result in large numbers opting out of paying the tax and that would result in the end of the right to a free education.

The right to an "education", as understood by most governments today, does not include tertiary education. Once you graduate twelfth grade you have completed your guaranteed education. You can no longer exercise your right to an education because you have already received it in full.

Don't know if that's true. Of the countries that do provide a free education for all, quite a few believe in that including university. Most European countries certainly do.

To be honest I think you were closer to the real reason earlier when you said that it is your duty to pay for a free education because it is your right to have one.

[Woolie Wool]

Don't know if that's true. Of the countries that do provide a free education for all, quite a few believe in that including university. Most European countries certainly do.

Point taken, although it still only applies for primary and secondary in the US, which is the focus of the conversation.

To be honest I think you were closer to the real reason earlier when you said that it is your duty to pay for a free education because it is your right to have one.

I was more specifically addressing his part about "not being able to use his right to education" when in fact he has already used it.