The Limits of Rights?

[DamianTV]

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.

Technically, thats more negotiation, but thats picking nits too...

---

Reading Weston's post...

 

[TheCount]

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"?

Nothing. They're well within their rights as an employer to dictate any and all conditions of employment. Requiring employees to wear a particular uniform, for example, is essentially the same thing.

 

[otherone]

(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...

Employers demand all kinds of stupid shit, like showing up on time and sober. That's why i choose self-employment.

 

[osan]

In general, there seems to be a lot of disagreement over what each of us would want in regards to our own Rights.

Define "a lot". That aside, any disagreement is prima facie evidence that at least one of the parties to the argument suffers a lack of understanding of what rights are and what defines the metes and bounds of those rights. If one understands the principles of proper human relations, the answers to your questions become obvious. That some of the answers to your sample questions may not appeal to you (third-person "you" and not necessarily you personally), it does not follow that they are wrong. It is one's expectations that are wrong any time the answers that the simplicity of the principles yield are unpalatable.

But our Rights are limited by the Equal Rights of others.

True, but only in the most minimal way. Once again, when understanding of this concept is correct and sufficient, clarity becomes abundant. None of this is rocket surgery and yet people decry the complexities, doing so from the depths of their ignorance and the avarice to have X, no matter how wrong it may be in the context of those principles. Commonly, they want things that conflict with the clear, simple, and obvious results of the principles. When those principles highlight the apparent contradictions or "problems", it is always assumed that the principles are wrong because, after all, how can one's most profoundly and avariciously held desires ever be wrong? Banish the thought, yes?

Consider the arguments resolving around capitalism. How many countless millions of people believe that capitalism is a proven failure, those beliefs stemming from an entire host of fallacious and patently untrue assumptions and inferences? And yet, because they perceive results disagreeable to their palates, they blame "capitalism" automatically, never considering even the possibility that their other beliefs and "knowledge" on the matter might be the culprits. Same problem applies here WRT our freedoms.

The principles are simple and it is my contention that in virtually all circumstances where an objectionable result arises from their application in some practical situation, whether real or hypothetical, is it not due to any failing of the principles per sé, but to those of the tacit assumptions held by the one perceiving the trouble and to the inferences to which those assumptions lead him, apparently by the nose.

Your list of sample issues is easy to resolve if you are willing to accept even those results that seem repugnant and are willing to bear in mind that they are disagreeable strictly because you have welded yourself to some rotten notion(s).

• 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.

The simple and generalized answer is that they end at the violation of the rights of others. More specifically, an understanding of what a right is and, perhaps even more importantly, what it is not is a crucial element in one's understanding such that they are able to give chapter and verse the correct assessments when the broader, more basic knowledge is at hand.

"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.

Absolutely, positively, utterly, and without any exception, this is DEAD WRONG. Here I assume that by "rights" you mean "fundamental rights" and not those of a contractual nature. For example, the right to life is fundamental, whereas the right to vote is contractual, which is to say that it is essentially a privilege that may be limited in some way or even denied. There is NO SUCH THING as a fundamental right of groups or corporations. The notion is on its face absurd and worthy of naught but ridicule. Rights are not conveyed, much less inhere to conceptual entities and they most certainly are not additive, which is perhaps the central tacit and hopelessly erroneous assumption held when people speak of the rights of a community or some other group. This dangerous idiocy has been employed with unimaginable success to the detriment, destruction, and misery of countless hundreds of millions of people over the course of the past several thousands of years. That it has worked time after time for millennia is proof positive of the perennial nature of the most rank forms of human ignorance, much of it self-imposed, and the other less-than-flattering qualities of the meaner.

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?

These example questions are not very good, I am afraid. The answers are glaringly obvious.

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.

You are correct here, not because those organizations have rights but because the vast majority of people are so painfully ignorant that they embarrass themselves and endanger everyone by accepting the wildly idiotic notion that abstract entities possess fundamental rights. There is no description I could provide, regardless of how eloquently and cleverly contrived, that could begin to sufficiently convey the depths to which the willful stupidity of a human being must be driven on order to retain as true the proposition that anything other than a living individual possesses fundamental rights, and yet it is precisely this to which the nitwit meaner subscribes with the vim and ironclad devotion of the screaming believer; the sorts who will fall back on the tired old "I was only following orders" or who will excuse on that basis or otherwise sit idly by as the mayhem unfolds.

 

[osan]

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.

Nicely stated.

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.

Perhaps, but such references are not correct, IMO. In my view, such violations are just that, violations of the fundamental rights of another.

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

Nicely done, all around.

 

[LibForestPaul]

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)

Well we start at property rights of your body, your time, your life. Then we move forward, i.e. we are sovereign.
Employers - no different than any other sovereign. Just to emphasize ...
Cops - no different than any other sovereign.
Negroes - no different than any other sovereign.
Corporations - state granted privileges, not a sovereign.
Abortion - depends on ones view of start of ones humanity...conception, brain stem, higher order function.
Mandatory Vaccinations - mandatory usually means not human, an imposition against ones property and body.
Illegal Immigration - not a "right". More of a tribe mentality. Get off my/our island. Too much to discuss.
Intoxicated driving - I presume you mean DUI on state owned roads. Pretty sure a non-issue on my 20 acres in Maine.
Govt Authority - Farce. Time for Anarcho-capitalism. Defined as an imposed monopoly of force for the resolution of contract and property disputes between sovereigns. In reality, just crony-ism. Every, single, one.
Privacy - Just a concept. The government does not have the authority to demand property from sovereigns without due cause. Left alone. Reality, same reality that happens in every monopoly..

A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity. Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods.[3]
Characteristics

Profit Maximizer: Maximizes profits.
Price Maker: Decides the price of the good or product to be sold, but does so by determining the quantity in order to demand the price desired by the firm.
High Barriers to Entry: Other sellers are unable to enter the market of the monopoly.
Single seller: In a monopoly, there is one seller of the good that produces all the output.[5] Therefore, the whole market is being served by a single company, and for practical purposes, the company is the same as the industry.
Price Discrimination: A monopolist can change the price and quality of the product. He or She sells more quantities charging less price for the product in a very elastic market and sells less quantities charging high price in a less elastic market.

 

[MaxHen]

For example, should an Employer have a Right to dictate whether or not a person can Smoke at home?

No, but he does have a right to choose to stop paying an employee who does so (unless that would violate previously agreed-to contract obligations).

Should a Church have a Right to dictate that Contraception is Sinful?

Yeah, it's called the right to freedom of speech. A church has the right to denounce whatever it wants. Whether it has the right to prevent people from using the things it denounces is a different story.

Should your Neighbor have a Right to dictate whether or not you can have an Abortion?

You could argue that an abortion violates the rights of the embryo/fetus, but either way, your neighbor's opinion has nothing to do with it.

Should a Teacher / School have a Right to dictate that your child must take Medications or be Vaccinated?

No, teachers don't own your child.

Should a Corporation have a Right to dictate what you can do with Intellectual Property, and what usage of that Intellectual Property enables?

As long as whatever you're doing with their intellectual "property" involves your own property (for example, you're writing down a song written by someone else with your own pencil and paper), they have no right to stop you.

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.

All rights are based in property. To determine if an organization is acting within its rights, just look at whether or not it is using its own property. A business has the right to stop paying its own money to certain employees if it wishes to (as I stated above, the exception here is if this would violate previously agreed-to contract obligations. Organizations must adhere to voluntarily agreed upon contracts, just as individuals do). On the other hand, a business does NOT have the right to steal property from a neighboring property-owner via eminent domain. It also doesn't have a right to dictate to others what they may do with their own property (see the pencil and paper example I gave above).