Civil Rights and the Right of the State to Remove Them
Guys
I am interested in discovering a general rule for when exceptions to "inalienable rights" apply.
I believe that citizens/humans do/should have rights.
For example, I believe in an armed citizenry but a homidicial maniac citizen clearly should have his automatic assault rifle taken off him.
...ahhh...
It is related to a demonstrated misuse of rights that have impinged on the rights of others.
For example, you impinge on the rights to person/property of others and you lose temporarily or permanently your right to your life/liberty.
You misuse your gun and your gun can be taken away from you.
So, how do we establish some sort of correlation or proportion or both?
How do we stop a fascist government (or merely the majority of citizens) from misusing the power to remove rights due to misuse of those rights?
For example, should you be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread?
Does my right to keep and bear arms mean I can bear them outside the militia? Establish my own private militia? Just own a gun? Automatic, semi-automatic or merely bolt-action? Carry them in public? Carry them concealed in public? What about a rocket launcher? A tank? A jet fighter?
Killing 25 people might disqualify me from life - that seems reasonable. But having a surprise inspection revealing a speck of dust on my rifle - do I lose it for a day? a year? for life?
How do we establish misuse of a right? Who decides? How do we establish which right was misused? Should it be that right that is removed?
For example, why do we deprive the liberty of someone who has deprived someone of their property? Is it because they misused their liberty to steal the property? Isn't that rather a long bow to draw?
Surely restoration of the property plus even a punitive fine would be more appropriate? Why jail? Or is jail appropriate for repeated offences. Why? I can see practical reasons - people fear for their property because this guy with an established pattern of stealing is lurking around. This reduces the efficiency of society.
So, deprive someone of their right to join the Army Reserve because they have a history of shooting people - ok. But because they committed non-violent theft?
How do we enforce these lines of reasoning?
I am interested in discovering a general rule for when exceptions to "inalienable rights" apply.
I believe that citizens/humans do/should have rights.
For example, I believe in an armed citizenry but a homidicial maniac citizen clearly should have his automatic assault rifle taken off him.
...ahhh...
It is related to a demonstrated misuse of rights that have impinged on the rights of others.
For example, you impinge on the rights to person/property of others and you lose temporarily or permanently your right to your life/liberty.
You misuse your gun and your gun can be taken away from you.
So, how do we establish some sort of correlation or proportion or both?
How do we stop a fascist government (or merely the majority of citizens) from misusing the power to remove rights due to misuse of those rights?
For example, should you be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread?
Does my right to keep and bear arms mean I can bear them outside the militia? Establish my own private militia? Just own a gun? Automatic, semi-automatic or merely bolt-action? Carry them in public? Carry them concealed in public? What about a rocket launcher? A tank? A jet fighter?
Killing 25 people might disqualify me from life - that seems reasonable. But having a surprise inspection revealing a speck of dust on my rifle - do I lose it for a day? a year? for life?
How do we establish misuse of a right? Who decides? How do we establish which right was misused? Should it be that right that is removed?
For example, why do we deprive the liberty of someone who has deprived someone of their property? Is it because they misused their liberty to steal the property? Isn't that rather a long bow to draw?
Surely restoration of the property plus even a punitive fine would be more appropriate? Why jail? Or is jail appropriate for repeated offences. Why? I can see practical reasons - people fear for their property because this guy with an established pattern of stealing is lurking around. This reduces the efficiency of society.
So, deprive someone of their right to join the Army Reserve because they have a history of shooting people - ok. But because they committed non-violent theft?
How do we enforce these lines of reasoning?
posted by Patrick Henry at 15:40
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home