Rand's view of rights

[ralex]

The right to life trumps the right to privacy while you kill. Sorry you want to do your killing in private. When I sworn an oath to defend the constitution it wasn't to protect your right to kill in privacy.

Klamath, are you under the impression that I was defending the right to an abortion? I was not! Please re-read what I wrote.

- Bob

 

[ralex]

There is no general "right to privacy" contained in the Constitution. There's only a specific right to privacy contained in the 4th Amendment.

The Ninth Amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In other words, people have rights that are not listed in the Constitution. So saith the Founding Fathers.

- Bob

 

[ralex]

I wouldn't worry about Rand on THIS ONE. His record on privacy issues (real ones, not fake ones like R v W) is superb. Its the foreign policy and drug war issues where I'm a bit more apprehensive, not to mention economics to some degree (Rand isn't exactly trying to get rid of entitlements, and entitlements are going to kill us no matter whether Rand Paul or Hillary is President.)

If Rand had said "the right to privacy is not applicable in the case of abortion" (e.g. because there's a third party - the fetus - who is involved) I'd have no problem with it. But Rand is complaining about the court "discovering" a "right to privacy".

- Bob

 

[Rudeman]

What did he say that attacks the right of someone's privacy? Sorry but you're making an accusation without backing it up.

 

[Christian Liberty]

If Rand had said "the right to privacy is not applicable in the case of abortion" (e.g. because there's a third party - the fetus - who is involved) I'd have no problem with it. But Rand is complaining about the court "discovering" a "right to privacy".

- Bob

OK, I think it ultimately goes back to the issue of federalism. Rand doesn't want to give the Supreme Court the right to define rights at the federal level. Which we know by cases like Wickard v Filburn to be a disastrous power to give them.

 

[klamath]

Klamath, are you under the impression that I was defending the right to an abortion? I was not! Please re-read what I wrote.

- Bob

Because the right to privacy you mention is really a found right to "kill in private". It isn't in the constitution. If I want to kill my neighbor can I claim the right to do because of the right to privacy to Kill? Roe v Wade set the ridiculous precedent of bringing privacy into whether person has the right to kill.
Yes you are being questioned for the very reason that you make your first post in the rand forums to attack him. Your posting method follows a tried and true hit and run method that people around here have seen since 2007.

 

[Brett85]

The Ninth Amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In other words, people have rights that are not listed in the Constitution. So saith the Founding Fathers.

- Bob

So then your interpretation of the 9th Amendment is basically that everything is a right? If not, how do you determine what other "rights" there are in the Constitution other than what's in the Bill of Rights?

 

[francisco]

OK, I think it ultimately goes back to the issue of federalism. Rand doesn't want to give the Supreme Court the right to define rights at the federal level. Which we know by cases like Wickard v Filburn to be a disastrous power to give them.

So when there is a dispute between the legislative branch and the executive branch, how should the dispute be resolved?

When a citizen disputes a law or an executive action, how should that be resolved?

 

[ralex]

Gosh, menciusmoldbug, I refused to transcribe a four page letter, then you spew out all this. I'm humbled.

Actually, there are neither, but even assuming that there are rights, the simple fact of the matter is that all so-called "negative rights" can easily be re-framed as positive rights and all "positive rights" can easily be re-framed as negative rights.

Not true. Satisfying a negative right requires no action on the part of others. Satisfying a positive right requires action. If you're the only person on an island, all your negative rights are intact and none of your positive rights are.

A negative right to health care means you may not deny me health care. A negative right to education means you may not deny me schooling.

Right. Which in practice would mean that if I go to a doctor or school and pay them for health care or education, you don't have the right to stop the transaction (as the gov't will do if it disapproves of the doctor's credentials). We don't generally call those negative rights to health care and education, since they're really just the negative right to engage in commerce.

I'm going to skip the rest of your micro-analysis of Rights Theory. It's irrelevant to the fact that you thought the right to health care and welfare was somehow relevant to my defense of the right to privacy.

Says you. The Supreme Court says the right to privacy protects acts that many do not believe to be peaceful and that should not be thought of as private affairs.

Their justification for that is twofold: 1) the fetus does not have a right to life before the third trimester and 2) therefore a woman's right to privacy prohibits the gov't from intervening.

Everyone who opposes abortion, does so because of reason #1, not reason #2! There's no reason to attack the right to privacy when your real argument is that the embryo has the right to life as of conception. Especially since the court itself admitted that if the embryo has a right to life, then the woman's privacy is irrelevant and abortions would be illegal.

Ah, yes, Rand Paul, famous opponent of the right to privacy:

“No one should be allowed to invade your privacy. ...”

And why should no one be allowed to invade our privacy? Could be because it's a right? If so, why is he criticizing the Supreme Court for recognizing it?

None of these arguments are at all compelling if the reasoning of the Supreme Court is upheld.

Roe v. Wade itself contradicts you.

The only way to prevent this process from taking place is by denying the Supreme Court the right to discover or enforce unenumerated rights at all. .... For if a right to privacy can be read into the Constitution, then I assure you that a right to "free" health care can be read into it as well.

OK, now this is a valid concern. But it applies to everything Congress and the President do, too. Give someone a power, and they'll find a way to abuse it. It's been happening in this country for 200+ years.

But if you want to draw a line against government abuse of power, criticizing the right to privacy as mentioned in Roe v. Wade seems like a poor place to start. I say this not to minimize the importance of the abortion issue, but because (as I've pointed out) the right to privacy is not the crux of the abortion issue, and demolishing the right to privacy is not the right way to stop abortions.

With respect, you are now making some false assumptions in your response to me. You assume that I think the distinction between positive and negative rights is meaningful

Actually, your conflation of a right to privacy with a right to health care made me assume you were ignorant of the distinction. Your subsequent analysis convinces me you're merely mistaken.

You also assume that I assumed that you were arguing in favor of abortions. I made no such assumption

Then why did you say "Rand Paul adheres to the radical notion that slaughtering infants is wrong. He doesn't think the Constitution protects anybody's right to kill babies that they don't want. Hope this clears things up for you." It sure sounded like you thought I was talking about abortion.

I detected nothing sinister, only stupid, and see no need for clarification, only education. =)

hope this helps

Then perhaps you should work on your pedagogical skills. Insults and condescension are generally frowned upon in modern educational theory.

- Bob

 

[ralex]

So then your interpretation of the 9th Amendment is basically that everything is a right? If not, how do you determine what other "rights" there are in the Constitution other than what's in the Bill of Rights?

That's where the Tenth Amendment comes in: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

- Bob

 

[ralex]

Because the right to privacy you mention is really a found right to "kill in private". It isn't in the constitution. If I want to kill my neighbor can I claim the right to do because of the right to privacy to Kill? Roe v Wade set the ridiculous precedent of bringing privacy into whether person has the right to kill.
Yes you are being questioned for the very reason that you make your first post in the rand forums to attack him. Your posting method follows a tried and true hit and run method that people around here have seen since 2007.

Klamath, your objection is not to the right to privacy, but to the "right to kill". Roe v. Wade concluded that the fetus doesn't have a right to life before the 3rd trimester so, because there's no right to life involved (according to the court) the right to privacy is the only important issue.

Roe v. Wade should be attacked not on privacy grounds, but on the issue of when an embryo has a right to life.

- Bob

 

[ralex]

OK, I think it ultimately goes back to the issue of federalism. Rand doesn't want to give the Supreme Court the right to define rights at the federal level. Which we know by cases like Wickard v Filburn to be a disastrous power to give them.

Wickard v Filburn granted a power to the government, not a right to the people. It's not a good example in this context.

- Bob

 

[francisco]

The Supreme Court case that FF cites, Wickard v. Filburn will likely not find support by anyone posting here, and certainly not from me.

It's a bad decision, which hopefully will be reversed someday soon. Just like many other bad, anti-Liberty decicions have been reversed, like Dred Scott.

The bad decision in Wilkins does not justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater and eliminating or blurring the separation of powers, or eliminating the power of the judiciary to adjudicate disputes. This is a view that separates minarchists from anarchists.

From Wikipedia:

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.

A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption in Ohio. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy[citation needed] his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.

Read more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v_Filburn

 

[menciusmoldbug]

Gosh, menciusmoldbug, I refused to transcribe a four page letter, then you spew out all this. I'm humbled.

Don't be! My prolixity is legendary and only rarely considered a virtue.

Not true. Satisfying a negative right requires no action on the part of others.

I'm afraid that these bare assertions fly in the face of reality and are in fact flatly false. To see why, it'll be necessary to dig into the definition of one of the words we're using. That word is "action." You assert that "atisfying a negative right requires no action on the part of others." Now, because words are fluid in nature, it is certainly possible to create or construct a definition whereby this statement can become true. However, under the usual meaning of the word "action," we can easily demonstrate that it doesn't hold up. For you see, there exists a little action we hoity-toity lawyers like to call forbearance. The root word is "forbear," which means
1.to refrain or abstain from; desist from.

2.to keep back; withhold.

3.Obsolete . to endure.


Your argument hinges on denying that forbearance constitutes an "action." However, as some German guy once wrote, "man cannot not act as long as he is alive, and he must use scarce means to do so." So it seems to me that accepting your claim requires us to engage in a linguistic game that strikes me as both unnecessarily confusing and not very fun. While we're at it, why not say that staying out of prison requires us to murder people every day? Obviously, by "murder" we really mean "not murder." Wait, was that not obvious? Huh.

In the same vein, we may say that "atisfying a negative right requires no action on the part of others." Of course, by "no action" we really mean "some action." OBVIOUSLY. I mean, like, DUH.

Satisfying a positive right requires action.

On this point, at least, we are in complete agreement!

If you're the only person on an island, all your negative rights are intact and none of your positive rights are.

I'm afraid this still leaves me at a loss as to how I'm meant to identify positive and negative rights! Do I have the negative right to exclusive possession of an island? Do I have a positive right to be left alone? It's all so confusing!

Right. Which in practice would mean that if I go to a doctor or school and pay them for health care or education, you don't have the right to stop the transaction (as the gov't will do if it disapproves of the doctor's credentials).

Actually, in practice it means that you have to pony up some tax dollars to pay for my health care and education! If you don't, you'll go to prison. I'd say I'm sorry, but actually I'm not, because you see, I have a negative right to health care and education, which means that you may not deny me either health care or education, and if YOU don't pay for those things, *I* won't be able to afford them! So obviously justice demands that you pay for my health care/education, and if you violate my rights by refusing to, it is just and proper that you be sent to prison. Locking you up is an act of self-defense, you see, because you tried to violate my negative rights by denying me access to health care/education.

We don't generally call those negative rights to health care and education, since they're really just the negative right to engage in commerce.

"Uhh...who do you mean we, pale-face?"

I'm going to skip the rest of your micro-analysis of Rights Theory.

Of course you are! Because learning is hard, and besides, you already know everything, so why should you bother wasting your valuable time talking to someone who disagrees with you? After all, if I actually knew anything, I'd see things your way, right? The possibility that your worldview is fundamentally broken is just, like, crazy talk.

It's irrelevant to the fact that you thought the right to health care and welfare was somehow relevant to my defense of the right to privacy.

If only it were so! Alas, your blindness to a thing's relevance has no more power to make it irrelevant than a blind man's inability to see a car coming will prevent him from getting run over by it.

You basically have two options at this point. You may either stridently seek to discover ways in which reality might differ from your perception of it (my comments thus far would be a good guide, and I'm happy to make more if you need additional help), or you may shut your mind and flee from the light like a cockroach.

Their justification for that is twofold: 1) the fetus does not have a right to life before the third trimester and 2) therefore a woman's right to privacy prohibits the gov't from intervening.

I must offer a mild corrective here - their stated justification for that was as you say. Their actual justification for it was that they wanted abortions to be legal. Do you see why the distinction is important? Here's a hint: If the Supreme Court orders Barack Obama to deliver his next press conference standing on his head, he has to do it.

Everyone who opposes abortion, does so because of reason #1, not reason #2! There's no reason to attack the right to privacy when your real argument is that the embryo has the right to life as of conception. Especially since the court itself admitted that if the embryo has a right to life, then the woman's privacy is irrelevant and abortions would be illegal.

The Court itself "admitted" that because it cost them nothing to do so and they'd have looked silly if they didn't. The simple fact of the matter is that if you want to overturn Roe v. Wade, you are stuck arguing that the Court has no power to read rights into the Constitution that are not actually a part of the text. If you fail to, you merely leave the door open to some other justification for mandating legal abortion. If you imagine that another cannot be constructed out of whole cloth, then you don't know much about the history of constitutional law.

And why should no one be allowed to invade our privacy? Could be because it's a right?

Could be because he just doesn't think it's a very good idea! Could also be because he thinks the Fourth Amendment is directly applicable to the issue in question. There is no need to suppose that opposition to NSA spying necessarily implies belief in the ephemeral "right to privacy" that you keep going on about.

If so, why is he criticizing the Supreme Court for recognizing it?

Because he doesn't believe it's the Supreme Court's job to "recognize" (i.e. invent) rights. Do you? If so, why?

Roe v. Wade itself contradicts you.

It does no such thing. Your mistake is to assume that the Court's stated reasoning is its actual reasoning. As a bit of a Constitutional scholar, allow me to dissuade you of this wild and unsupported notion. The Court does what it wants. Sometimes it wants to do things that it knows are "unconstitutional" according to a strict reading of the text, and so it invents flimsy but defensible justifications for reaching certain conclusions. In these cases, the text of the decision is irrelevant. All that matters is the end result. Or did you forget about National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius?

OK, now this is a valid concern. But it applies to everything Congress and the President do, too. Give someone a power, and they'll find a way to abuse it. It's been happening in this country for 200+ years.

But if you want to draw a line against government abuse of power, criticizing the right to privacy as mentioned in Roe v. Wade seems like a poor place to start.

Says you, in all your infinite wisdom.

Rest assured that smarter men than you or I (well, you anyway) have given a lot of thought to how best they might draw a line against government abuse of power, and they decided that criticizing the right to privacy as mentioned in Roe v. Wade was a good way to go. If you want to argue otherwise, then go for it. But your efforts here have been less than stellar.

I say this not to minimize the importance of the abortion issue, but because (as I've pointed out) the right to privacy is not the crux of the abortion issue, and demolishing the right to privacy is not the right way to stop abortions.

The Supreme Court's authority to create a "right to privacy" is the crux of the abortion issue.

Why is demolishing the so-called "right to privacy" not the right way to stop abortions?

And finally, what is the so-called "right to privacy?" What has it done for you lately? Did it prevent the NSA from engaging in domestic spying? Hell, not even the Fourth Amendment managed that. You keep mentioning this phrase, "right to privacy," but I'm afraid I have no idea to what it could possibly refer. What is it? What effect does the so-called "right to privacy" have on the world? If it went away tomorrow, what would change? Well, besides the slaughter of infants I mean.

Actually, your conflation of a right to privacy with a right to health care made me assume you were ignorant of the distinction. Your subsequent analysis convinces me you're merely mistaken.

Pro tip: Any time you imagine me to be either ignorant or mistaken, check your work.

I know what you think. I've thought what you think. I don't think it anymore.

My advice is to read books.

Then why did you say "Rand Paul adheres to the radical notion that slaughtering infants is wrong. He doesn't think the Constitution protects anybody's right to kill babies that they don't want. Hope this clears things up for you." It sure sounded like you thought I was talking about abortion.

Because you asked the following:

But I get pro-life letters signed by Rand Paul that criticize Roe v.Wade for "discovering" a right to privacy. I, for one, think it would be great if the US government had to respect a right to privacy. So why is Rand Paul criticizing it??!!

The answer is that

Rand Paul adheres to the radical notion that slaughtering infants is wrong. He doesn't think the Constitution protects anybody's right to kill babies that they don't want.

As it stands, the "right to privacy" protects a woman's right to have an abortion through the second trimester of her pregnancy. Even if you weren't "talking about abortion," the answer to your question had to do with abortion. If a person asks what the plot of the highest-grossing movie of all time is, and I start talking about blue aliens, it would be a bit weird for the questioner to then say, "You made some false assumptions in your response to me. You assumed that I wanted to know the plot of Avatar. Please re-read my original question. I never even mentioned Avatar!"

do you see that you are intellectually outclassed and should back away from the microphone yet, or must this continue

Then perhaps you should work on your pedagogical skills. Insults and condescension are generally frowned upon in modern educational theory.

 

[Vanguard101]

Should we create a why should we reject Rand thread to see some legitimate responses?

 

[ralex]

Don't be! My prolixity is legendary and only rarely considered a virtue.

Yeah, I can see why.

OK, let's say that you're right about everything. All your verbiage is still irrelevant in this thread, because this isn't about what you think, it's about what Rand Paul thinks.

My original post said "Rand Paul is undoubtedly familiar with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. I had hoped he would interpret them broadly, assuming that people have many rights beyond those listed in the Bill of Rights, unless it says otherwise in the Constitution." So what do you think is Rand Paul's theory of rights? Does he believe that the 9th and 10th Amendments have any legal significance at all? Does he believe that people have a right to privacy and that the government must respect it? And if so, why would he criticize the Supreme Court for doing so?

(BTW, Rand Paul thinks that privacy is not the problem with Roe v.Wade - the definition of life is. This is clear from the National Pro-Life Alliance's strategy, which is to pass a law defining human life beginning at conception. Now, I've already conceded that you're right about everything, and you've said that the problem with RvW is the right to privacy, so clearly Rand is wrong about this. But as I said, this isn't about your views, it's about his.)

Or, does he have a narrow view of rights, e.g. that the only protectable rights are those enumerated in the Constitution? If so, I won't waste time arguing whether he's right or wrong. I'll just factor it into my decision about whether to support him.

 

[klamath]

Yeah, I can see why.

OK, let's say that you're right about everything. All your verbiage is still irrelevant in this thread, because this isn't about what you think, it's about what Rand Paul thinks.

My original post said "Rand Paul is undoubtedly familiar with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. I had hoped he would interpret them broadly, assuming that people have many rights beyond those listed in the Bill of Rights, unless it says otherwise in the Constitution." So what do you think is Rand Paul's theory of rights? Does he believe that the 9th and 10th Amendments have any legal significance at all? Does he believe that people have a right to privacy and that the government must respect it? And if so, why would he criticize the Supreme Court for doing so?

(BTW, Rand Paul thinks that privacy is not the problem with Roe v.Wade - the definition of life is. This is clear from the National Pro-Life Alliance's strategy, which is to pass a law defining human life beginning at conception. Now, I've already conceded that you're right about everything, and you've said that the problem with RvW is the right to privacy, so clearly Rand is wrong about this. But as I said, this isn't about your views, it's about his.)

Or, does he have a narrow view of rights, e.g. that the only protectable rights are those enumerated in the Constitution? If so, I won't waste time arguing whether he's right or wrong. I'll just factor it into my decision about whether to support him.

It is you that has the narrow view. This document is higher than the bill of rights.
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Rand is using the real broad document of freedom you are not. But go ahead and keep on your trolling.

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

Yeah, I can see why.

OK, let's say that you're right about everything. All your verbiage is still irrelevant in this thread, because this isn't about what you think, it's about what Rand Paul thinks.

My original post said "Rand Paul is undoubtedly familiar with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. I had hoped he would interpret them broadly, assuming that people have many rights beyond those listed in the Bill of Rights, unless it says otherwise in the Constitution." So what do you think is Rand Paul's theory of rights? Does he believe that the 9th and 10th Amendments have any legal significance at all? Does he believe that people have a right to privacy and that the government must respect it? And if so, why would he criticize the Supreme Court for doing so?

As interminably fascinating as this discussion of positive/negative rights may be, you're right that it's likely irrelevant. For some idea of Rand Paul's views, I think you should look elsewhere - specifically to his intellectual (and physical) forbear:

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution (my emphasis). There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.
...
The real tragedy is that our founders did not intend a separation of church and state, and never envisioned a rigidly secular public life for America. They simply wanted to prevent Congress from establishing a state religion, as England had. The First amendment says “Congress shall make no law” — a phrase that cannot possibly be interpreted to apply to the city of San Diego.​

- Ron Paul http://archive.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html​

Rand Paul reflects his father's reliance on "rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments," and his unwillingness to accept the 14th Amendment's plain wording and clear intent: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

This same impulse leads the younger Paul to throw the question of gay marriage to the states, for example. If you're looking for penumbras and emanations to reject, why not discuss this bit of unlibertarian hypocrisy, where the question of any possible victim doesn't intrude?

 

[ralex]

It is you that has the narrow view. This document is higher than the bill of rights.
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Rand is using the real broad document of freedom you are not. But go ahead and keep on your trolling.

1) The Declaration of Independence, while a wonderful statement of principles, has no legal standing in the U.S.. So in that sense, it is not "higher".

2) The Supreme Court said - rightly or wrongly - that a right to life wasn't at issue before the third trimester. Thus, they said, privacy is the reigning issue in the first two trimesters, and life is the reigning issue in the final trimester.

I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that: they said privacy is important, but life is more important. Don't we all agree with that? The problem is when the court said that there's no right to life before the third trimester. That's what pro-lifers disagree with!

And if there is a right to life from conception, then the right to privacy becomes moot - not because there's no such right, but because everyone agrees that a right to life supersedes a right to privacy.

This isn't just me saying this. Rand Paul himself is pushing this in his strategy to end abortions. Rand Paul's bill in Congress defines the right to life as beginning at conception. Rand Paul is not trying to abolish the right to privacy. He doesn't think that's necessary to end abortions. Which makes it all the more puzzling to me why he criticizes it.

 

[LibertyEagle]

The Ninth Amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In other words, people have rights that are not listed in the Constitution. So saith the Founding Fathers.

- Bob

Bob, I'm pretty sure that Rand believes that too.