11th Commandment, "Right to Abuse"

It seems in this country that there are a lot of people who not only take for granted their rights, but also use, and abuse, them to the fullest extent possible. I am not finger pointing at any group, person, idea, or special interest. I am one of these people. Are we within our rights by abusing our rights and using them for sometimes perverse reasons, or is that going to far? Furthermore, would further, and possibly worse, abuse give somebody the right to take away these rights that many of us take for granted anyway? Do you feel you have too many rights, or do you feel like you have more rights than are "granted" by the governing members where you are? My personal view is that along with "free will" comes the "right" to do whatever you want. It may be bad, have consequences, upset somebody, result in death, or whatever, that is our born right. To act. Not as actors on a stage, but to act anyway we deem fit in the course of life. What do you think of your rights as not just a citizen of a country, but as a human in general?


And yes I know this has nothing to do with the 10 commandments, so save your ignorance for somebody else.

 

For a while I was wondereth about that 11th commandent thingie here. Sometimes I tendeth to lose memory at my age.

 

in this country we are restricted to exercising only those rights that goverment officials deem as appropriate, which really isn't a right at all it's a restriction. Yet restrictions that give rights to others aren't mandated. You get away with physically assaulting your spouse in some counties yet in those same couties you're put away for years for possesion. makes no sense to me.

 

I am so suprised more people aren't responding to this thread I found it so interesting...sigh or maybe I am stoned off my ass at 11 in the morning sigh

 

oh shit too bad that it's 12 and I have to be at work in a couple of hours ):

 

I think people in this country have a lot of rights, actually. The thing is, you can't give people "total freedom" because people will take THAT for granted, and there will be such chaos. In a perfect, utopian world, there would be no restrictions. But the truth is, there has to be to ensure that everyone is as safe as possible.

Yes, I think some people have the tendency to abuse their rights. You're going to find that anywhere.

 

That's why I usually just don't bother. If it's more than 5 lines and requires thought, most people don't want to take the time to read it.

 

That is unfortunate because you do ask some important questions.

 

Yeah, I'll probably repost it in the politics forum. It's just that no other part of the forums gets this much activity, and I really wanted to know how people felt.

 

my rights are unlimited until the infringe on your rights. I can use them to my benifit or my expense as I see fit. wish the man agreed with that formula.

 

He does to an extent. That's what "Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" clause is for. Our rights are ranked in that order of importance. I remember I heard the quote "Your right to swing your fist, stops where another mans nose begins", and I haven't started a physical fight since.

 

freedom ISN'T something that can be givin:
it is something that can only be avoided taking away!

the maximum freedom it is physicly, tangably, naturaly possible for everyone to simultaniously have, is where swinging you arms stops BEFORE it intersects with some one else's nose. anyone who pretends not to realize this is either deceiving themselves or not playing with a full deck.

(and the REAL 11th commandment is "though shalt make backups", although "though shalt always have a plan B" might make a pretty good 12th. and the REAL first commandmant ought to be: "though shalt connect the friggin dots and NOT instead lie to yourself about refusing to")

and if people can't be bothered to read anything longer then five lines or that requires them to use their god given brains, that's their problem and not mine!

=^^=
.../\...

 

You know what is funny rummy? The man does agree with that formula.

In the most influential political literature on the formation of the state, the Second Treatise of Civil Government, Locke argues that very point. It is used, unfortunately, as the basis for the construction of ‘the man’. Locke argues (and your founding fathers agreed) that: because man is born with the right to do anything; is equal in that there is no authority over him; and that the state of equality and freedom is not a state of license (meaning you can do what you want but ought not to impoverish the freedom or equality of another), an agreement between the public and the new political should be forged so to ensure that when people take the state of nature as a state of license, you do not have to make a judgement and take punishment on your own. You give up your freedom and equality in order that you may function free from the perilous licensed actors.

 

Shit, your 12th commandment is my first. I have a plan B for everything from retail theft to which side of the bed I'll get up on.

 

if that was true, drugs would be legal.

 

Drugs are illegal because we haven't held up our end of the bargain.

It was a social contract between us and them. They do that for us and we listen as long as they don't abuse their position.

Banal nationalism got in the way.

I have been arguing for this forever, no one seems to care.

 

all of my drug arrests were 100% based on the fact that they were illegal, and had nothing to do with me infringing on anothers rights.

 

And, you would agree that such arrests were absurd?

 

yup. but I also dont see how the man or the fuzzz or the courts agreed that I was within my rights, ergo the MAN does not see things as I see them.

 

Then, by the same argument that gives the government the right to lord their laws over you, you are given the right to raise hell.

The grounds for revolution, under the Social Contract Theories, is a recognition that the government has gone too far in restriction of rights.

You should be able to do whatever drugs you like as long as you are doing them responsibly.

Restricting that must be reasonable and be in your best interest for such restriction to be justified.