Rights and Responsibilities

[Ana the Ist]

I want to say that every right has responsibility attached to it. It's easiest to see in the cases of government/citizen relationship and parent/child relationship but I believe it also is true in cases of peer relationships.

I'd say its only present in the case of children....maybe some mentally disabled. Can you give a government/citizen example?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The only government case I could imagine would be congresses responsibility to not pass a law which conflicts with the constitution...but that's an entirely different subject like I said.

There's really no other situation I can think of which it wouldn't be the responsibility of the individual to act to protect his/her rights.

 

[brightlights]

I'd say its only present in the case of children....maybe some mentally disabled. Can you give a government/citizen example?

Yes. We have some rights because the government promises to protect them. If the government did not enforce protection of these rights or did not prosecute when rights are violated then it would be meaningless to say that we have rights. A law without a punishment is not a law.

Let's take the freedom to assemble, for instance. This only functions as a right if the government is willing to take action against parties who are restricting you from assembling. If the government will not defend this right then we can talk about it all day, but the right is meaningless.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes. We have some rights because the government promises to protect them. If the government did not enforce protection of these rights or did not prosecute when rights are violated then it would be meaningless to say that we have rights. A law without a punishment is not a law.

Let's take the freedom to assemble, for instance. This only functions as a right if the government is willing to take action against parties who are restricting you from assembling. If the government will not defend this right then we can talk about it all day, but the right is meaningless.

Laws and rights are not the same thing and I believe this is where some are confused. In your example, you would still have to take it upon yourself to ask the police to protect your freedom to assemble (where asking is you taking responsibility to protect your rights). The police are not obligated to respond. (Did you read the link I posted?) In most cases, the police would respond, but we can of course imagine situations where they might not. Also, your freedom to assemble might be disrupted without breaking any laws at all...Or it could be stopped by police if it breaks a law (this happens a lot actually).

The Constitution guarantees your right to assemble by basically saying that the government won't stop you from doing it. That is really the only promise they are making. (Again, assuming it breaks no laws). Did you want to try another example or just move on to your belief about peer/peer responsibility regarding rights?

 

[brightlights]

I wonder if we could switch sides for a moment. Would you give me examples of some rights you believe we have and I'll try to show the corresponding responsibilities?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I wonder if we could switch sides for a moment. Would you give me examples of some rights you believe we have and I'll try to show the corresponding responsibilities?

Ok. The right to remain silent...as in to not say anything that might incriminate yourself.

 

[brightlights]

Ok. The right to remain silent...as in to not say anything that might incriminate yourself.

I'm trying to think about this right. What would life be like without it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm trying to think about this right. What would life be like without it?

You mean if there was a magical way to make people talk about crimes they committed? Well, catching criminals would be easy for one....so I imagine a lot less crime. This is definitely a right that favors the guilty.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You seemed so sure that I'd thought you'd have an answer by now....

I was really looking forward to reading this....it may sound odd but I like when someone challenges my thinking and gets me to consider something in a way I haven't before. I'll check back again tonight...hopefully you come up with something by tomorrow.

 

[brightlights]

I'm married with a kid. Give me a minute!

 

[Loudmouth]

My point was it didn't require government...

Yes, it did . . .

"No, but like-minded individuals can...the American revolution among others comes to mind."

Like-minded individuals banding together to protect a shared ethos IS A GOVERNMENT!!

I don't think you can say that for sure. Had it failed at Little Rock I think it still would've succeeded elsewhere. Besides, what we're disagreeing on is who is responsible for protecting rights. If you claim it is the government...why was the government enforcing segregation? Why did it require individuals at all? If the government is responsible, then they should've changed the law without any intervention from individuals. That's not how reality works though.

This is how it really worked:

It took government soldiers escorting children into class to end segregation.

The Constitution is a document of negative rights, a list of things
the government can't do.

Then we are reading very different Constitutions. The one I am familiar with gives very specific powers to three branches of government. Shall we start with Article I, Section 8?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;


To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"


That is just a small portion. Should I continue? Do you really know this little about the Constitution?

Even the justice system has admitted it cannot protect your "rights" from being violated. It doesn't have the resources. I'll have to look it up but I remember a case where someone dialed 911 for emergency help...and it came extremely late. The police responded that they were stretched too thin between emergencies. The courts ruled in the favor of the police....and upheld that ruling.

So the National Guard was unable to protect the rights of the Little Rock Nine that broke segregation? Last I checked, they did.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, it did . . .

"No, but like-minded individuals can...the American revolution among others comes to mind."

Like-minded individuals banding together to protect a shared ethos IS A GOVERNMENT!!

This is how it really worked:

It took government soldiers escorting children into class to end segregation.



Then we are reading very different Constitutions. The one I am familiar with gives very specific powers to three branches of government. Shall we start with Article I, Section 8?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;


To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"


That is just a small portion. Should I continue? Do you really know this little about the Constitution?




So the National Guard was unable to protect the rights of the Little Rock Nine that broke segregation? Last I checked, they did.

" Like-minded individuals banding together to protect a shared ethos IS A GOVERNMENT!!"

That is a far too general definition of government to be useful. Under that definition, almost any group that comes together for a common cause could be caller a government....not very realistic. Here's a better definition from freedictionary.com....

" 1. The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit."

Revolutions do not first require the formation of a government....sorry.

" This is how it really worked:"

I see you've avoided addressing any of my points. Instead, you've appealed to emotions by posting pictures. Should I post pictures of segregation at work?
segregation - Google Search
segregation - Google Search

And here's a nice explanation of Jim crow laws that lasted about 90 years, thanks government!
Jim Crow laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, before we continue, I want to be sure...

You think that segregation ended because the national guard was sent to little rock, and that the government deserves credit for ending segregation?

"That is just a small portion. Should I continue? Do you really know this little about the Constitution?"

These would be some very good points if we were discussing the separation of powers, federalism, or the different branches of the federal government...but we aren't, we're discussing rights so let's just stick to that as a topic.

" So the National Guard was unable to protect the rights of the Little Rock Nine that broke segregation? Last I checked, they did."

I never said that...I'm saying it wasn't their responsibility, nor is it now. Read the article I posted earlier...or the beginning of this one.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

In case you aren't a reader it involves a case in Illinois where a car overturned in the street and started burning. The first policeman on scene didn't search for survivors, he began directing traffic. The accident victims burned to death. The families of the victims sued the city, saying they were deprived of the rightt to life. The judge ruled in favor of the police, saying our constitution is a set of negative rights and the government is not bound by duty or obligation (responsibility) to protect them.