Reply With Quote
Yoni apparently thinks the 1st ten amendments should be called the Bill of Privileges.
And workers have the right to bargain collectively according to labor laws.
Eh, you'll never understand.
Yoni apparently thinks the 1st ten amendments should be called the Bill of Privileges.
Defined rights in a contract are not the same as legal rights undefined. In a contract, the definition is for that contract. Not for everything outside that contract. It is simply clarifying what the terms mean for that contract.
Even you call them rights.
Are you done?
That's exactly what I said upthread, though. Just because there are limits on a right doesnt make it NOT a right.
For instance, I can't go around threatening schools with bomb threats under the right to freedom of speech.
That doesn't mean that freedom of speech is a privilege.
As I noted before, this entire thread is simply Yonivore attempting to change the terms of the argument to shift it into grounds that he thinks support his political viewpoint.
He does this all the time, and it is as dishonest now as it was all the other times he has tried to do it.
you mention the word "contract" 5 times here.
lol why, when that word has not been mentioned previously in this thread?what imaginary poster are you arguing with?
lol crazy wild cobra
No, it's not exactly what you said upthread.
And, you can go around threatening schools with bomb threats.
I think you're confusing limits with consequences.
You can threaten schools with bombs, but you don't have the right to.
I think you're confusing LnGrrrR with someone who is susceptible to misdirection.
The stupidy in this thread is incredible.
Intentional mistake to see if Viva crawls back out of his hole to correct some more grammar.
It's supposed to be in blue, bi-boy
Shucks. I've been found out. At least I wasn't corrected.
Because the Republican party has stripped that right from people in a rather naked attempt at political gain. It has, for the most part, worked.
I also don't think anybody here doubts that if the "right" of corporations or individual to donate money to political causes were curtailed in some fashion, you would be up there screaming from the rooftops about it.
Pfft.
I think it's humorous given the context of what's happening in the Middle East that certain people in this thread are trying to say that as a human you have certain rights that can't be taken from you in the first place.
"Dead Man Walker"
lol civility
Ok, so you're saying I have the "right" to threaten a school, because there are consequences.
By that logic, I also have the right to kill someone, because there are consequences for that too, right?
Speech and murder are different; as are, threats and actions. You completely butchered that analogy.
The exercise of a right can lead to consequences if such exercise infringes on the rights of another.
It's still legal to yell "Fire" in an unoccupied theater. The violation occurs when others may be harmed by your speech -- someone loses life, liberty, or property -- because you yelled "Fire" and they were killed, injured, or lost possession of some item of property.
No one is saying rights can't be taken, we're just trying to establish what is a right.I think it's humorous given the context of what's happening in the Middle East that certain people in this thread are trying to say that as a human you have certain rights that can't be taken from you in the first place.
Collective bargaining rights.
Not really.
Ok....
But it's not legal to yell "Fire" in an occupied theatre falsely.
Would you say that you have the "right" to do something patently illegal?
No; if by illegal you mean my actions infringe on the rights of another.
Having the right to free speech doesn't translate into having the right to incite action, via speech, that will result in harm to someone else.
The law has taken it one step further and contemplated harm and made yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, illegal. Why? Because, experience had shown that such could lead to the infringement of others' rights.
Which is exactly what I said. You don't have the "right" to speak freely when that right infringes on other's liberty ie. yelling "Fire".
And yet, no one would say that "right" is suddenly a "privilege" because it's limited in certain areas.
So, going back to the OP, just because collective bargaining may be limited by certain instances of the law, it is no less a "right". The right to collectively bargain exists "antecedently to their recognition by positive law", because, as you already noted, "We have the right to be free in our associations with others -- whether it be for commerce or some other exchange or, in fact, for no mutual or selfish benefit at all."
If we have the right to be free in our associations with others, we also have the right to freely associate with each other to collectively bargain for a wage, even if that right to collectively bargain may not be recognized by positive law.
Thanks for helping.
While the right to freely associate with others does exist antecedently to its recognition in positive law; to do so for the purpose of collectively bargaining does not.Which is exactly what I said. You don't have the "right" to speak freely when that right infringes on other's liberty ie. yelling "Fire".
And yet, no one would say that "right" is suddenly a "privilege" because it's limited in certain areas.
So, going back to the OP, just because collective bargaining may be limited by certain instances of the law, it is no less a "right". The right to collectively bargain exists "antecedently to their recognition by positive law", because, as you already noted, "We have the right to be free in our associations with others -- whether it be for commerce or some other exchange or, in fact, for no mutual or selfish benefit at all."
If we have the right to be free in our associations with others, we also have the right to freely associate with each other to collectively bargain for a wage, even if that right to collectively bargain may not be recognized by positive law.
Thanks for helping.
You're still wrong.
Feel free to prove it. I don't think "because I said so" is good enough.
What we commonly think of as rights in the US are usually thought of as explicitly mentioned in the Cons ution. Yes, of course, there are plenty of rights which are granted by federal and state laws which were not so defined explicitly. To the extent that a "right" can be taken away without violating the Cons ution, perhaps that can be thought of as more of a privilege. But a number of 'privileges' have such long-standing and expectations attached that they are tantamount to rights of the first order.
Last edited by Marcus Bryant; 03-14-2011 at 10:41 PM. Reason: misspelling
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
