The Limits of Rights?

[DamianTV]

In general, there seems to be a lot of disagreement over what each of us would want in regards to our own Rights. But our Rights are limited by the Equal Rights of others. The statement is easy enough to understand, but people dont seem to agree with each other when we try to get more specific. So just as a meaningful debate, where do you think any persons Rights end in the following categories?

And yes, these are very sensitive subjects so please try to keep away from personal attacks...

• Rights of Employers
• Mandatory Vaccinations
• Authority of Church
• Abortion
• Illegal Immigration
• Smoking / Drinking / Drug Use at Home vs Neighbor or Visitor
• Contract Law
• Property Ownership
• Privacy
• Insurance and General Liability
• Intoxicated Driving
• Govt Authority over an Individual
• Societal Authority over an Individual (IE, Democracy as opposed to a Republic)

Im just looking to see where everyone thinks that Rights end depending on who claims to have those Rights. "Who" can be many things, not just a Person, but sometimes a collective of people that may be represeted as a Corporation, or Law Enforcement, or a Church, a small Community etc. For example, should an Employer have a Right to dictate whether or not a person can Smoke at home? Should a Church have a Right to dictate that Contraception is Sinful? Should your Neighbor have a Right to dictate whether or not you can have an Abortion? Should a Teacher / School have a Right to dictate that your child must take Medications or be Vaccinated? Should a Corporation have a Right to dictate what you can do with Intellectual Property, and what usage of that Intellectual Property enables?

I think we mostly agree on my Rights vs your Rights and your Rights vs my Rights when we refer to ourselves as Individuals, but there seems to be a lot of disagreement when the Context when "who" we are is changed by who we represent as Organizations.

Debate.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Your rights end where my feels begin.

 

[presence]

only individuals have rights

governments, schools, corporations, employers, etc do not have rights.

rights end when they infringe on someone else's liberty

just because something is illegal doesn't mean I don't have the God given right to do it anyway

there is a diffrence between illegal and unlawful; the latter has more to do with the spirit of rights limitation

 

[mad cow]

governments, schools, corporations, employers, etc do not have rights.

So if I hire somebody to mow my lawn,I surrender my rights?

 

[echo1]

Interesting thread, I'll be curious to see some of the replies.

Some say that the Bill of Rights is strictly about limiting governments power. I tend to disagree with that interpretation. I feel our rights are always in place, unless we agree to voluntarily surrender them or put conditions on them. Employment for example. If you agree as a condition of employment that your free speech rights are going to be surrendered, then you are liable for that decision. If, however, giving up your free speech was not a condition of employment, and a company fires you for exercising that "right", there is a problem.

There are no situations that I can think of where the "community" gets to make decisions for the individual. I think that is referred to as fascism, communism or socialism...one of those "ism's" That is bad.

Unless a person has posted on their private property that, by entering their property, you agree to give up ____________, those rights are intact with you. Don't tell me I have to consent to a search at a store unless that store has posted on their property that upon entering that property, I have surrendered my right to refuse search's. The people that own that property have every right to post these types of limitations.

Hope this helps to start the debate.

JMHO

 

[otherone]

Im just looking to see where everyone thinks that Rights end depending on who claims to have those Rights. "Who" can be many things, not just a Person, but sometimes a collective of people that may be represeted as a Corporation, or Law Enforcement, or a Church, a small Community etc. For example, should an Employer have a Right to dictate whether or not a person can Smoke at home? Should a Church have a Right to dictate that Contraception is Sinful?
Debate.

Private organizations can dictate whatever they want. An individual is free to decide whether they will associate with an organization. Where's the problem?

 

[Legend1104]

There are only 3 rights we all possess. Life, liberty, and the right to the product of our labor i.e. justly acquired property.

A right is inherent in the fact that you exist. You cannot get a right from someone or something. I do not have a right to something so there is no right to an education, healthcare, etc. I do have the right to seek those but not to be given them on someone else's dime.

You do not have a right to hurt someone else with your right. Therefore you do not have the right to take from someone else, enslave someone else (in any form), or kill someone else (except in self-defense). This includes abortion. I do not have a right to abort a child from my body anymore than I have a right to kill an infant left on my door step. Also, while I believe you have the right to self-defense, I do not believe you have the right to use more force than what is applied against you unless you have a reasonable assumption that they are attempting to use the said force. So I do not believe you have the right to kill someone that is robbing you if you know that they do not want to kill you, but you do have to right to kill a midnight intruder in most cases because you can reasonably assume that they might intend to kill you.

 

[phill4paul]

There are only 3 rights we all possess. Life, liberty, and the right to the product of our labor i.e. justly acquired property.

ALL none existent in AmeriKa.

 

[Legend1104]

Interesting thread, I'll be curious to see some of the replies.

Some say that the Bill of Rights is strictly about limiting governments power. I tend to disagree with that interpretation. I feel our rights are always in place, unless we agree to voluntarily surrender them or put conditions on them. Employment for example. If you agree as a condition of employment that your free speech rights are going to be surrendered, then you are liable for that decision. If, however, giving up your free speech was not a condition of employment, and a company fires you for exercising that "right", there is a problem.

There are no situations that I can think of where the "community" gets to make decisions for the individual. I think that is referred to as fascism, communism or socialism...one of those "ism's" That is bad.

Unless a person has posted on their private property that, by entering their property, you agree to give up ____________, those rights are intact with you. Don't tell me I have to consent to a search at a store unless that store has posted on their property that upon entering that property, I have surrendered my right to refuse search's. The people that own that property have every right to post these types of limitations.

Hope this helps to start the debate.

JMHO

I mostly agree. I do not believe you can ever lose a right but yeah when someone tells you that you can not do X on my property if you enter it, then you cannot exercise said action but the right is still intact even then.

I know most will disagree with me on this but I do believe that there are occasions where taxation is not theft. If you had a government that only protected rights and was perfect in every way possible in that they did not do anything else except protect rights of the people living in that jurisdiction, then that system is just in taxing everyone in it evenly to pay for its up keep. If someone did not want to pay the tax and lived inside of the jurisdiction of that system they should still be made to pay in my opinion and here is why.

Let us say that this person claimed that he did not belong to that society (only that he lived inside of it). Let us say that he lived off of a job outside of the system, did not use any roads because he had a helicopter, never left home so he did no interact with other people except to get in his helicopter and leave, etc. In other words he did not receive any benefit from the government or the people. He would still be required to pay because otherwise he would be a moocher because he would still be receiving benefit from the government and not paying for it. The reason is that he would still be protected by the system. If an enemy tried to invade and kill everyone in the system, the government would protect him as well as everyone else with the army. There is no way they could protect everyone else but not him.

So in the end you either have total voluntarism where some people are moochers and steal from others or you have a system where everyone that lives in a society has to pay a base tax to support the protection of their rights through the government and this would include those that do not want too. These people would technically be robbed by the government (even though they still receive the protection the government offers). So there is no perfect answer and in my opinion the latter has the less evil answer of the two.

 

[Legend1104]

ALL none existent in AmeriKa.

You never lose them. Even if someone kills you, enslaves you, or steals your property they have not taken away your rights. They merely infringe upon them but you never lose them. If they could take them then that would mean that they are really the ones that allowed you to have them in the first place.

 

[presence]

So if I hire somebody to mow my lawn,I surrender my rights?

No... you still have your personal individual rights... you just don't get any extra "employer rights".

Employer just follows in suit with women, gays, blacks, white, handicapped people, elderly, children... etc.

Self ownership, not group membership creates rights.

 

[phill4paul]

You never lose them. Even if someone kills you, enslaves you, or steals your property they have not taken away your rights. They merely infringe upon them but you never lose them. If they could take them then that would mean that they are really the ones that allowed you to have them in the first place.

Fair enough and a big ole +rep.

 

[PierzStyx]

• Authority of Church

• 
  
  "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."
  
  -Doctrine and Covenants 134:10
  
  https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/134.10?lang=eng#9

 

[Henry Rogue]

What is a Right? Define please.

 

[DamianTV]

Private organizations can dictate whatever they want. An individual is free to decide whether they will associate with an organization. Where's the problem?

(Devil's Advocate reply, I dont actually believe my own statement here...)

So an Individual can and should have Limits on their Rights, but any Organization has Unlimited Rights? What prevents the Organization from dictating something like "you must be Chipped to be an Employee"? Id support Free Market, if we had one...

 

[mad cow]

No... you still have you personal individual rights... you just don't get any extra "employer rights".

Employer just follows in suit with women, gays, blacks, white, handicapped people, elderly, children... etc.

Self ownership, not group membership creates rights.

I can't walk up to some stranger on the street and fire him because I am unhappy with the quality of his work.

Are you saying I don't have the extra "employer rights" of firing the dude I hired for mowing my lawn after he weed whacks my tulips down to ground level?

 

[presence]

I can't walk up to some stranger on the street and fire him because I am unhappy with the quality of his work.

Are you saying I don't have the extra "employer rights" of firing the dude I hired for mowing my lawn after he weed whacks my tulips down to ground level?

No I'm saying your right to "fire that dude" comes from your natural right of free association and possession of your personal space not your membership to the employer's club.

 

[DamianTV]

I can't walk up to some stranger on the street and fire him because I am unhappy with the quality of his work.

Are you saying I don't have the extra "employer rights" of firing the dude I hired for mowing my lawn after he weed whacks my tulips down to ground level?

Now that there have been enough posts in general, I think I can reply.

Employment is an agreement between two parties. For that agreement to be satisfied, the conditions of the agreement must be met. In this particular case, dude you hired did not satisfy the conditions of the agreement, thus, payment for unsatisfactory work is not called for. It doesnt require "extra employer rights".

Flip the coin. Employee does the work that satisfies the conditions of the agreement and employer does not pay. I think the employee is deserving of fair compensation in this case.

---

So what else could we talk about to stir up debate? How about employers being able to demand / dictate that employees speak a certain language? Always flipping the coin to look at both sides. Is Target in the wrong for demanding that employees speak english at work? Would Target have valid authority?

Which side do you take on this one? (general response)

 

[mad cow]

So what else could we talk about to stir up debate? How about employers being able to demand / dictate that employees speak a certain language?

Call or do not call them Employer Rights,but yes,they are able to demand/dictate anything they want from an employee just as an employee is able to demand/dictate anything he wants from an employer.

They are then both free to come to an agreement or not.

 

[Weston White]

What an intriguing topic. Here are my own thoughts (I hope I did not stray too far off point):

• Rights of Employers
  
  Strictly limited to the employer-employee relationship, which extends to employee acts that result in adversely affecting one’s employer (e.g., posting how badly you hate your job, that your boss is an idiot, or pictures of you at the Super Bowl when you are supposedly sick on Twitter, exchanging trade-secrets, siphoning clients to other businesses, etc.), and contractual obligations (time theft, embezzlement, working with an employer’s competition, etc.) The extent of an employer and employees rights extent to tort law under civil court actions (with exception to federal or state protective acts, such as discrimination, employee safety requirements, rest and meal periods, pay requirements, etc.)
  
  The totality of this relationship is defined, either through verbal agreement or written contract, by the reasonably mutual needs of both the employer and employee, for example, an employer can demand its employees not smoke (at least during work hours), show up to work dirty or intoxicated, be physically fit, etc.; and likewise an employee can demand to have Sundays off, be justly compensated, etc.
  
  The control of power falls upon the employer in relation to the skills or popularity proffered by the employee seeking employment with them.
  
  
• Mandatory Vaccinations
  
  State governments do possess the power, such as through martial law, to institute forced vaccinations or otherwise establish public safety quarantines of infected individuals to be tested during instances of declared outbreaks of contagious diseases, i.e., noting the distinctions between a bird flu and a bubonic plague, for example—however, all throughout this process all American individuals should still retain their inherent due process rights.
  
  The federal government possesses controlling power with respect to international customs enforcement and the like.
  
  
• Authority of Church
  
  Churches, as a religious organization, may dictate their own gospel as they are so determined, and may beset its flock within its own reasonable standards and expectations so far as they are members of that congregation visiting their private premises, the same as a friend or relative visiting within your home. Churches in themselves possess no legal authority per se, at least in America.
  
  
• Abortion
  
  With exception to serious medical conditions that greatly endanger a pregnant female’s own life if the pregnancy continues and unwanted pregnancies attributed to molestation or rape, I feel it is a just balance in morality between the needs of the mother and of the life within her coming into being to permit lawful abortions so long as they are commenced within a stringent timeframe (e.g., prior to achieving the advanced stages of being), otherwise the pregnancy should be mandated to continue and state programs should exist permitting the newborn to be anonymously and freely turned over to state custody at the joint discretion of its parents or otherwise the mother if the father is unknown or uncooperative in the process yet does not object, or otherwise refuses to take sole custody and care of the newborn or to make such arrangements himself.
  
  
• Illegal Immigration
  
  They have all the rights and immunities of any other person, including American citizens; however, that does not provide them any exceptions from the laws of a nation they have trespassed into (e.g., possessing a firearm in violation of a state’s firearm registration requirements, operating a vehicle to freely travel without a state driver’s license, committing criminal acts with impunity, passing false documents to work, rent a dwelling, access a bank account, etc.)
  
  
• Smoking / Drinking / Drug Use at Home vs Neighbor or Visitor
  
  The responsible of an estate has complete discretion to dictate what is and what is not to be consumed on their premise, by whom, at which times, and in what areas. Within the confines of their dwelling it is they who are acting king or queen and may opt to alert the law (and provide consent to enter) to remove those acting in an illegal manner or who are trespassing, loitering, or disturbing their peace.
  
  
• Contract Law
  
  So long that the exchange is and remains quid pro quo, it is legally binding; with exception to being under the employ of government (e.g., military personnel) one may not generally contract away their individual rights. Such law is primarily existent as civil under adjudicated tort law.
  
  
• Property Ownership
  
  Property belongs to the owner as much as they are responsible for it, be it a land, houses, or automobiles, or a tree fallen onto a neighbor’s roof, loose dog that bit child, or a cow that wondered into the roadway and got ran over by a passing vehicle.
  
  There are exceptions of course following, shared property (e.g., spousal, professional partnerships, etc.), executed court orders (righting past wrongs vis-à-vis injunctions, levies, awards of damages, etc.), eminent domain (e.g., legitimate use includes taking private lands to connect a highway, canal, or transmission lines, versus taking land to give to Walmart in exchange for guaranteeing local jobs), etc.
  
  
• Privacy
  
  All individuals have a right to unfettered privacy in relation to the totality of privacy that can be reasonably expected given the degree of privacy affordable to them within their present circumstance (e.g., the difference between: using a private restroom and a public restroom, conversing with one’s attorney privately in a room versus on a golf course near a group of people, using DuckDuckGo or using Google, walking down the street with a firearm displayed at one’s side or concealed inside of one’s backpack, postings one’s personal photos within their family photo album versus on Facebook, etc.)
  
  
• Insurance and General Liability
  
  Given to specific circumstances this would pertain to a combination of existing contractual obligations and tort obligations. Insurance coverage is a manmade for-profit industry and thereby is a privilege not a right; while personal or professional liability through fault or negligence is recoverable through adjudication without regard to insurance coverage (although court ordered awards may not be necessarily recoverable given to individual circumstance, such as the wrongdoer lacking finances and assets to cover judgment, etc.)
  
  
• Intoxicated Driving
  
  Drinking while driving should be legalized so long as one is not legally drunk at the time, there is no notable distinction between drinking a beer or root beer while driving.
  
  BAC levels should be increased to levels that are actually indicative of being intoxicated enough that the operation of vehicles or machinery is undoubtedly inhibited.
  
  As with all vehicle code violations (e.g., speeding, red light running, Cali-stops, speed exhibitions, etc.), criminal or civil punishments for drunken driving should be contingent upon vehicle operating negligent resulting in a bona fide victim, including damage to public or private property. Otherwise, the vehicle should be left in a safe place or otherwise towed at the owner’s expense and the driver and vehicle occupants should either be called a taxi or for someone to respond and pick them up or drive them and their vehicle for them, be driven to their destination, or left to walk away or call their own ride; only returning at a later time to retrieve their vehicle when they have sobered up. Vehicle code violations should never be implemented as an excuse to expand revenue streams.
  
  
• Govt Authority over an Individual
  
  The authority of government extends throughout society only so far that it exists within its delegated jurisdiction to further the betterment and advancing interests of its own people. The separation of governmental powers (should) exist in a perpetual competition to upholding social solidarity. The rightful authority of a just government is contingent upon its staunch affinity for sustaining the natural birthrights of its people.
  
  
• Societal Authority over an Individual (IE, Democracy as opposed to a Republic)
  
  The authority of society to rule over itself, as by democracy or ochlocracy, is to be confined and bound within the lesser authority mandating government over its people. That is to mean that the demands being sought after by the masses do not extend past the limited grant of powers privileged upon those governing (e.g., a majority of the people cannot selectively vote to subjugate their rights to keep and bear arms, because its government lacks the authority to implement that desire into public law in the first place).