View Poll Results: My rights end where they begin to infringe the rights of others.

Voters
8. You may not vote on this poll
  • Agree 100%

    7 87.50%
  • Disagree

    0 0%
  • Agree, but thgere are exceptions (please list and explain)

    1 12.50%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 34 of 34

Thread: The "Limits" of Rights

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Logic applies to everything and life is complex.

    Indeed it does. Unfortunately for you, you're not being logical. You have attempted to present a scientific law as being analogous to philosophical principles, and then use that analogy to justify your desired exceptions. However, since the two aren't even remotely analogous, your attempt fails. As does your attempt here to gloss over that failure.

    Your rights extend only to the point where exercising them begins to infringe on any right of any other individual. Period. Full stop. The Founders were unanimous in this position, as were all of the courts for at least the first 60 years of this country's existence. No exceptions.

    If whatever you're doing goes beyond that point, you are not exercising any legitimate right, YOU have become the violator, exactly that which you claim to be against. There's no getting around it. You're left with the choice of either finding a way to accomplish your desired end while fully respecting the rights of others, or becoming the very type of villain you claim to oppose.
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTelander View Post
    Indeed it does. Unfortunately for you, you're not being logical. You have attempted to present a scientific law as being analogous to philosophical principles, and then use that analogy to justify your desired exceptions. However, since the two aren't even remotely analogous, your attempt fails. As does your attempt here to gloss over that failure.

    Your rights extend only to the point where exercising them begins to infringe on any right of any other individual. Period. Full stop. The Founders were unanimous in this position, as were all of the courts for at least the first 60 years of this country's existence. No exceptions.

    If whatever you're doing goes beyond that point, you are not exercising any legitimate right, YOU have become the violator, exactly that which you claim to be against. There's no getting around it. You're left with the choice of either finding a way to accomplish your desired end while fully respecting the rights of others, or becoming the very type of villain you claim to oppose.
    And that applies to those who want to come to my country and impose tyranny on me, their right to travel ends at my border.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTelander View Post
    Some things that have been posted over the last few days got me thinking about this and wondering just where RPF members currently stand on it. If you agree with exception(s), I'd appreciate your listing those exceptions and why you think they're valid. Thanks.

    Since it's too long for the field, here's the actual Poll Question:

    My rights end at precisely that point where exercising them begins to infringe upon any of the equal rights of any other individual.
    While true, so far as the statement goes - which is not quite far enough - the central question that immediately follows like a herpes infection some days after unprotected sex with a transgenderfluid geneto-hooker-freakshow, is "what defines infringement"? The question may seem simple and easy to answer, but as with most things human, I do believe it stands a mite more challenging than "easy".

    Can it be objectively determined? I suspect yes, but that will not stop whiners and whingers from blowing great volumes of hot air-noise as they shriek on without apparent end about how they are being violated. It's all the rage these days - a fad that stands to transcend generations unless something significant disrupts it.

    For example, and this may not be the best - oh and it will be somewhat gross for some, so be warned. Imagine little Joeygenette Trannyooze suddenly decides it just has to masturbate where it stands, on a busy public sidewalk in... oh, pick a place... Manhattan... no... San Fran or Portland... that's the ticket. So it whips up its skirt, slides its tiny little weenie out the leg opening of its panties and proceeds to choke it with a fury that momentarily stuns and even amazes the people fortunate enough to be blessed by this little slice of new-world vaudeville. The initial shock worn away, they return to sense, only to arrive at something suggesting nausea is on the way as the brutishly stropping little creature (and I use the term generously here) comes to HappyFunTime, squirting its unwelcome bodily fluids all over God's acre.

    Is it within its rights to do so? Not so fast with the kneejerk, now.

    On the one hand, you may have passersby who remain unfazed - just another weirdo engaging in something stupid and perhaps mildly objectionable. Others will just be nonplussed, choosing to walk on in a state of non-comprehension. Others still will be disgusted by it, especially the little puddle left behind as the now-finished actor merrily bounds away, satisfied and perhaps relishing the idea that its recent gift to humanity will end up distributed on the bottoms of the shoes of a goodly number of its fellows.

    Have the rights of the disgusted been infringed? Have they no right to NOT be subjected to the uncontrolled urges of a freakshow member? And if they cry out, "HALT!" to our little gem in mid-stroke, causing its abnormally-small "male" member (or is it an abnormally large "female" member?) to wither away into comical cooked-spaghetti-like flaccidity, will its ear-splitting shrieks about how its rights have been infringed be valid? Either way, how will you know? Does it have a right to yank the crank and create a grease-spill on a public thoroughfare? If not, WHY not?

    We could go on for quite some time with this idiotic little vignette. We could dredge up a million more every bit as stupid, extreme, and possibly disgusting.

    Here's one: a man shoots a deer and decides to cape it out on the very spot the trannyfreak left his grease-stain the day before. Guts spilling onto the concrete, flaying, slicing, chopping, removing the head, and so forth... all a non-event to a great many people and a horror beyond words for a far larger majority. Where's the boundary that defines "infringement"? It's not as easily answered when one stops himself and starts thinking prior to talking.

    The more corrupted people become, the more blurred the lines in question, what with idiocy, ignorance, and avarice ruling the opinions of the human wad. Simple sense as once it may have existed between men has moved out of town... or more likely been run out on a rail. Brute emotion has taken over the roost and is reigning with iron in its eyes. A vast majority of humanity wants to march into their neighbors' territories and claim it as their own with great wailing and gnashing of teeth. The race of men have chosen a path that leads nowhere good and with every step further, redouble their determination to remain thereupon.

    I would ask the insane hordes to explain to the rest of us by what means this death-march brings us to the sunny days of bunnies, light, unicorn poo, and great squirting penises with which they so stridently demand to be provided.

    "Doom" seems to find its way into my thoughts with increasing frequency these days because the presumably sane people who remain appear to have no intentions of settling these basic issues in any manner whatsoever, apparently having been corrupted with the brand of attitude that expects someone else to do all the heavy lifting. I this, they are no different from the "left".
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    "Itís just interesting to note how constant government oppression can kill peopleís fighting spirit." - Withur We




    Pray for reset.


  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I have bent over backwards to "give" liberty to a whole host of grievance groups, most of whom I am personally very much opposed to, from weirdosexuals to Occupy Wall Streeters to convicts and others caught up in the criminal justice system, and everything in between.

    Have tried to "live and let live" in true libertarian fashion and not interfere with their rights, their issues or to come to understandings, to honestly listen and understand.

    The result?

    The development of a well organized mob of Jacobins that are openly calling for my elimination, either figuratively or literally, and a continued erosion and loss of my liberty.

    With the daily bull$#@! now piling up so fast you need wings to stay above it, I no longer care about other's liberty as they obviously do not care about mine.

    This is now a war of survival, a last ditch effort, that will likely fail anyway, to prevent becoming a second class citizen, an "untouchable" in the land me and my family built.

    And along with me and mine, when we die out or killed off, so will any highfalutin ideas about limited government, individual rights, property rights, rule of law and all those other racist notions left behind by patriarchal dead white guys.

    And this is precisely why we will either be subsumed by the horde or we will kill them off.

    Don't fool yourselves, that choice is upon us and you WILL choose, whether positively or through inaction, but choose you will.

    Let that sink in for a moment. Take as much time as you need.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    "Itís just interesting to note how constant government oppression can kill peopleís fighting spirit." - Withur We




    Pray for reset.


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Similar Threads

  1. Newt Gingrich Ronald Reagan - "Legitimate rights of the Palestinians" & "Peace"
    By Paulitics 2011 in forum 2012 Presidential Election
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-17-2011, 06:43 PM
  2. Obama Reports America To U.N On Human Rights Abuse Over "Unionization Rights"?
    By Immortal Technique in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-04-2010, 08:39 PM
  3. Property "rights" vs. potential to secure other "rights"
    By Kludge in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-22-2009, 05:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •