Civil Rights IV
In Australia we have no such thing as a Bill of Rights like the US does.
There is a lot of debate as to our implied rights, which generally seems to loosely follow the US model, though that is probably just laziness on our part and being more familiar with the US constitution through pop culture.
The thing with rights is that we are genrally all for them until some one elses right reduces our quality of life. So Patrick Henry's right to bear arms interupts my right to walk around without fear of being shot by a "homicidal maniac citizen". How do we determine their homicidal tendency? by having them comit homicide in the first place... sure we could test every citizen prior to getting a gun for homicidal tendencies but what of our right to privacy? which right takes precedent there?
What about my right to play loud music at 3am and my neighbours right to a quiet nites sleep?
There is a risk that we can run of justifying our own behaviour as a right and the behaviour of others as a restriction of our rights if it is in conflict with us.
Or perhaps that more accurately describes the expression of our rights. Sure, I may have a right to play loud music at 3am but that doesn't mean I must express that right at every given opportunity.
Patrick Henry may have a right to carry an AK-47 around to defend himself, but from whom is he defending himself ? Other people defending themselves with AK-47's? it becomes a reductio ad absurdium argument ( you boys with the expensive education feel free to correct my terrible latin) pretty quickly in that case.
What of the Hobbesian pact that is the social contract? We give up some of our rights to have others protected to avoid a life that is "nasty, brutish, and short". I may given up my right to steal from my neighbour but I have gained some abstract protection that my neighbour won't steal from me with out punishment for violating my rights. This then becomes a prisoner's dilemma of working out our rights in relation others in society. We want to be able to determine our own rights, but we don't want the rights of others to disadvantage us.
I got really distracted in that last paragraph and have lost my train of thought so I will leave it there for now.
Crackers
There is a lot of debate as to our implied rights, which generally seems to loosely follow the US model, though that is probably just laziness on our part and being more familiar with the US constitution through pop culture.
The thing with rights is that we are genrally all for them until some one elses right reduces our quality of life. So Patrick Henry's right to bear arms interupts my right to walk around without fear of being shot by a "homicidal maniac citizen". How do we determine their homicidal tendency? by having them comit homicide in the first place... sure we could test every citizen prior to getting a gun for homicidal tendencies but what of our right to privacy? which right takes precedent there?
What about my right to play loud music at 3am and my neighbours right to a quiet nites sleep?
There is a risk that we can run of justifying our own behaviour as a right and the behaviour of others as a restriction of our rights if it is in conflict with us.
Or perhaps that more accurately describes the expression of our rights. Sure, I may have a right to play loud music at 3am but that doesn't mean I must express that right at every given opportunity.
Patrick Henry may have a right to carry an AK-47 around to defend himself, but from whom is he defending himself ? Other people defending themselves with AK-47's? it becomes a reductio ad absurdium argument ( you boys with the expensive education feel free to correct my terrible latin) pretty quickly in that case.
What of the Hobbesian pact that is the social contract? We give up some of our rights to have others protected to avoid a life that is "nasty, brutish, and short". I may given up my right to steal from my neighbour but I have gained some abstract protection that my neighbour won't steal from me with out punishment for violating my rights. This then becomes a prisoner's dilemma of working out our rights in relation others in society. We want to be able to determine our own rights, but we don't want the rights of others to disadvantage us.
I got really distracted in that last paragraph and have lost my train of thought so I will leave it there for now.
Crackers
posted by Patrick Henry at 07:20
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home