Liberty and Rights

Sep 2019
1,086
432
Texas
or should it be Rights and Liberty?

Liberty is supposed to be constitutionally protected- the Bill of Rights expressly states lines that are not to be crossed by those elected to ensure our choices aren't restricted legally-

Liberty is the exercising of rights- as long as the exerciser of his rights doesn't cause harm to another person or property then what crime has been committed?

Laws are meant to punish for crimes committed- what crime has been committed if no one was harmed?

How is driving without gov't permission a crime? Who was harmed? What harm has been caused by running a Stop Sign? Or driving over the Speed Limit? Not filing an Income tax Return?

The list of criminal acts that restrict Liberty is long- why is that?

Laws are meant to punish criminal acts- yet, for the most part, they make criminals of those who have caused no harm- why is that?

There have to be rules, so it's said, that have to be adhered to in a "civil society". What causes more harm to a civil society- exercising Liberty or punishing for non-harmful action?

How is harm defined? Hurting another. Is it not hurtful to punish for not hurting? Is it not hurtful to extort money for breaking a rule that hurt no one?

Why, in a Country founded to protect Liberty from a tyrannical gov't, having it's Liberty restricted at every turn? Why do those who are elected to re present our Liberty in an official capacity resort to restricting that Liberty? What does that accomplish?

Do we, in this Country founded to protect Liberty, when exercising our Rights, not believe we have the Right to exercise those Rights-

Who defines Rights? The gov't? I thought the thought was ALL men have certain unalienable right, that among these are- the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness-

Where is it said, in that declaration, or the law of the land, that one can decide for another what his rights are?

Rights are for the Individual to decide- laws are supposed to punish those who violate those rights by harming another- where do we draw the line?

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: YoursTruly
Jun 2018
570
395
La Pine, Oregon
or should it be Rights and Liberty?

Liberty is supposed to be constitutionally protected- the Bill of Rights expressly states lines that are not to be crossed by those elected to ensure our choices aren't restricted legally-

Liberty is the exercising of rights- as long as the exerciser of his rights doesn't cause harm to another person or property then what crime has been committed?

Laws are meant to punish for crimes committed- what crime has been committed if no one was harmed?

How is driving without gov't permission a crime? Who was harmed? What harm has been caused by running a Stop Sign? Or driving over the Speed Limit? Not filing an Income tax Return?

The list of criminal acts that restrict Liberty is long- why is that?

Laws are meant to punish criminal acts- yet, for the most part, they make criminals of those who have caused no harm- why is that?

There have to be rules, so it's said, that have to be adhered to in a "civil society". What causes more harm to a civil society- exercising Liberty or punishing for non-harmful action?

How is harm defined? Hurting another. Is it not hurtful to punish for not hurting? Is it not hurtful to extort money for breaking a rule that hurt no one?

Why, in a Country founded to protect Liberty from a tyrannical gov't, having it's Liberty restricted at every turn? Why do those who are elected to re present our Liberty in an official capacity resort to restricting that Liberty? What does that accomplish?

Do we, in this Country founded to protect Liberty, when exercising our Rights, not believe we have the Right to exercise those Rights-

Who defines Rights? The gov't? I thought the thought was ALL men have certain unalienable right, that among these are- the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness-

Where is it said, in that declaration, or the law of the land, that one can decide for another what his rights are?

Rights are for the Individual to decide- laws are supposed to punish those who violate those rights by harming another- where do we draw the line?

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.​
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.​
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.​
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.​
Get into an accident, and then see what harm was done? Or are you saying it is an infringement on ones liberty/freedom to prevent the accident?

The Constitution, with its Bill of Rights, is a guideline, not the ultimate in its rule making. Have you tried reading the Bill of Rights?
 
Sep 2019
1,086
432
Texas
Get into an accident, and then see what harm was done? Or are you saying it is an infringement on ones liberty/freedom to prevent the accident?

The Constitution, with its Bill of Rights, is a guideline, not the ultimate in its rule making. Have you tried reading the Bill of Rights?
If one is in an accident and causes harm, the crime is causing harm- right? If there is no accident there is no harm. Right?
If a frog had wings he wouldn't bust his butt- the BoR is THE LAW of the land- not a suggestion- the BoR's in the constitution "constitutes" what is NOT to be done by the fed gov't- and what can be done with "enumerated powers"- have you ever read the bill of rights? I'd like for you to cite what passage says they are "guide lines"-
 
Jun 2018
570
395
La Pine, Oregon
If one is in an accident and causes harm, the crime is causing harm- right? If there is no accident there is no harm. Right?
If a frog had wings he wouldn't bust his butt- the BoR is THE LAW of the land- not a suggestion- the BoR's in the constitution "constitutes" what is NOT to be done by the fed gov't- and what can be done with "enumerated powers"- have you ever read the bill of rights? I'd like for you to cite what passage says they are "guide lines"-
Always love taking a low IQ type to task. Seems like it is my career in these forums.

What you are implying is that the Bill of Rights is absolute which it is not. Article II has been interpreted in many different ways. Article VIII is consistently violated, and has no relevance. And wile the unborn child has been declared to have no rights, corporations are declared to be "persons" with all of the relevant rights. Each of the Bill of Rights has been modified to suit the fancies of society, or the Courts.

That makes them a "suggestion".
 
Sep 2019
1,086
432
Texas
Always love taking a low IQ type to task. Seems like it is my career in these forums.

What you are implying is that the Bill of Rights is absolute which it is not. Article II has been interpreted in many different ways. Article VIII is consistently violated, and has no relevance. And wile the unborn child has been declared to have no rights, corporations are declared to be "persons" with all of the relevant rights. Each of the Bill of Rights has been modified to suit the fancies of society, or the Courts.

That makes them a "suggestion".
Interpretation cannot exist without definition- words mean things- I may not have an equal IQ but I can read- Unborn babies and corporations having rights are interpretations- based on subjective evidence- subjective evidence renders subjective analysis- the Law is supposed to be objective, meaning ALL evidence is to be considered, not cherry picked interpretations- the BoR's is absolutely the Law governing the fed gov't actions against citizens- against being the key-

Sadly, pseudo intellectuals (look in the mirror) pretend their's is an esoteric endeavor requiring a deeper (usually flawed) understanding- simple English is easy to comprehend- the true intellectual (like the founders) made the complicated look simple- vs the pseudo intellectual (look in the mirror) whose being depends on making the simple complicated-
 
Sep 2019
1,086
432
Texas
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

Protection of Individual Rights

An immediate issue that the new Congress took up was how to modify the Constitution. Representatives were responding to calls for amendments that had emerged as a chief issue during the ratification process. Crucial states of Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York (among others) had all ultimately supported the Constitution — but only with the expectation that explicit protections for individual rights would be added to the highest law of the land. Now that supporters of the Constitution controlled the federal government, what would they do?

The legal tradition of having a precise statement of individual rights had deep roots in Anglo-American custom. So it's not surprising that the first Congress amended the Constitution by adding what became known as the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights [ushistory.org]
 
Jun 2018
570
395
La Pine, Oregon
Interpretation cannot exist without definition- words mean things- I may not have an equal IQ but I can read- Unborn babies and corporations having rights are interpretations- based on subjective evidence- subjective evidence renders subjective analysis- the Law is supposed to be objective, meaning ALL evidence is to be considered, not cherry picked interpretations- the BoR's is absolutely the Law governing the fed gov't actions against citizens- against being the key-

Sadly, pseudo intellectuals (look in the mirror) pretend their's is an esoteric endeavor requiring a deeper (usually flawed) understanding- simple English is easy to comprehend- the true intellectual (like the founders) made the complicated look simple- vs the pseudo intellectual (look in the mirror) whose being depends on making the simple complicated-
Sorry if you do not undrstand what was said. The Bill of Rights is a suggestion as I have shown, and has been "modified" dependent on the one having the power to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YoursTruly
Sep 2019
1,086
432
Texas
Sorry if you do not undrstand what was said. The Bill of Rights is a suggestion as I have shown, and has been "modified" dependent on the one having the power to do so.
Sorry you don't understand words mean things- all you've shown is arrogance.
Next.
 
Jun 2018
570
395
La Pine, Oregon
Sorry you don't understand words mean things- all you've shown is arrogance.
Next.
Do you mean "Words have Meaning"?

You were way off base with your first comment, and when you said:

"How is driving without gov't permission a crime? Who was harmed? What harm has been caused by running a Stop Sign? Or driving over the Speed Limit? "

These issues are what causes accidents, and thus harm to others. So the drivers license becomes a method by which the government can attempt to prevent such incidents. Under that concept, the Bill of Rights does not list each, and every, unalienable right, and thus becomes a list of suggestions, or a guideline, not an absolute.

Sorry if that is too hard for you to grasp.

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3591&context=wmlr
 
Dec 2018
3,977
1,135
New England
Laws are meant to punish for crimes committed- what crime has been committed if no one was harmed?
Harm need not be proven. Creating a risk of harm is enough. For example, just because no one was hurt in the mad rush out of the theater that wasn't on fire, you're not off the legal hook for knowingly, falsely yelling "fire!" and starting the stampede.


How is driving without gov't permission a crime? Who was harmed? What harm has been caused by running a Stop Sign? Or driving over the Speed Limit? Not filing an Income tax Return?
To my point above, an unqualified driver presents a risk to others. The need to eliminate that risk creates the compelling interest to curb the liberty of driving unlicensed. This is also true for most of the rest of the questions you raise. They proceed from the false premise that laws are only just when they address actual harm done. That is not the only criterion for law, and it never has been.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MichaelT