Home > Uncategorized > Rights

Rights

I am interested in the intellectual acrobatics necessary to come to the conclusion that my right to free speech is limited but not my right to free religion. In the same vein, I would like to know how my right to bear arms is limited, but not the federal government’s right to regulate commerce.

Some people are either full of shit or…

No. Some people are full of shit, there is no “or”.

Please, don’t get me wrong here, I only advocate one restriction on any right with which we have been graced by our creator in having. (if nonreligious you should still grasp the concept I’m touching on there)

Your right to swing ends at my nose.

If your religious beliefs require you to beat yourself in the head with a steel dildo, I have no issues with that. On the other hand, if your religion requires you to beat me in the head with a steel dildo, I have news for you. My religion requires me to put 115 grains of lead into your head upon your coming at me with a steel dildo. Choose your savior wisely, says I.

I merely wonder at this because as I said, I do recognize reasonable limits on rights. But in doing so, I also include the governments rights, and the ability to require the purchase of something merely because I happen to be a citizen of the several states, grates against my sensibilities like a tax on tea. If rights have limits, that means all rights, because reason does not provide any criteria for us to decide what rights have limits and which don’t. All do, or none do.  This must include the governments rights.

Rights have limits for one reason. Men, humans, are not infallible, given that, one must also accept that governments, regardless of how, when or why constituted, must also have limits, as they are constituted by men and therefore suffer all the same faults and limitations.

Including limits on the rights granted to them.

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. Tom Hunt
    2012/08/15 at 23:29

    I like the point you’re making here, but it kind of invites confusion to use “rights” for both the negative rights mentioned in the Bill thereof, and for the positive “right” of the government to regulate us. The latter is not in the same class of entity as the former; in fact, they are directly opposed, each ability of the government to regulate us being a direct assault on our negative “rights”. This is a debate with enough confusion in it already, with people going on about the ‘right’ to health care or whatever; it’s not useful to be muddying the waters further.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: