[Deucaon]

Drug legality is a question of law, and yes it is handled at the state level. Rights as in those discussed in the Constitution and its ammendments are created at a government level: some by Presidents; others by Congress; still others by the Senate. They are ratified by a majority vote of the Federal Courts.

By and large the ammendments that affect the people were created to overturn or limit decisions made by the Supreme Court. So no, rights are not determined by the Supreme Court. It is imaginable that an ammendment to the US Constitution could focus on the use of drugs, but I doubt that will happen. I suspect that will always remain an article of state law.

What determines rights in Australia? Is it Thunderdome?

So its rights by decree in America... I don't think that's feasible. More on that below.

Deucaon: I misread you; I thought you were asking why some things are considered right (as opposed to wrong) when you meant how people determine what is a right (I missed the a). In that case, you need to look into over two thousand years of social and political philosophy for other people's thoughts, posit an ideal for whoever you're governing based on whatever you decide, and determine how to enact that. I still think it's a rather silly question, but I have answered you srsly now that I think I understand your question better. I also need to point out that I distinctly said the legislative branch of government, NOT the judicial system. The courts administer justice, and at times do indeed determine the unfairness of a law after a lengthy appeals process, but the laws don't usually start there, and if the government is functioning correctly, the judicial system does not and can not legislate from the bench.

I figured that determining what is a right when it is not explicitly stated in the constitution would be a case to case basis. Its not like law makers would sit around an office all day dreaming up scenarios to determine if they can deride a fundamental human right from that imaginary experience. And if the idea of human rights is derided from experience then I think a case to case basis would be more logical.

For my part I understood your question, it just didnt deserve a real answer. I do however still say that my idea about the D&D core rulebook is far better than Thunderdome. Australia should adopt the D&D system of fundamental rights.

"Well none of you are allowed to express your opinion unless you're a member of parliament but at least you're allowed to marry a horse" said our prime minister after introducing the "JMH System" to Australian law.

And yes, it was Deuacon who first confused legislative with judicial. How those two can be switched I don't know. What determines what is a right in modern society largely goes back to social contract theory and Hobbes and Voltaire and Locke, and of course the Magna Carta, and from there to the greek states. So to find out you'll have to go all the way back to ancient Sparta. and hang around a lot of open pits.*

*Emphasis on this part. For learning.

I'm sure that Spartans would be able to determine how much privacy a person should be allowed to have when surfing online and the Normans would know if a government should allow a person to destroy themselves with narcotics. Come to think of it, perhaps we should consider Caligula's opinion on the right to bestiality or Mohammed's opinion on the right to paedophilia... or perhaps not as this isn't the Iron Age nor is it the Middle Ages so perhaps we should take the opinion of ancient philosophers with a grain of salt. Perhaps.

[J m HofMarN]

I figured that determining what is a right when it is not explicitly stated in the constitution would be a case to case basis. Its not like law makers would sit around an office all day dreaming up scenarios to determine if they can deride a fundamental human right from that imaginary experience. And if the idea of human rights is derided from experience then I think a case to case basis would be more logical.

I don't really believe that there are that many rights that were skipped in the constitution. The fundamental human rights of a man in 1800 are the same as those of a man today. Privacy is privacy, whether it keeps the local farm boy from peering in your house's one oilcloth window, or whether it keeps the government from having a satellite focused on you. The supreme court has done a fine job of deciding how those rights are to be interpreted as times change.

And the interpretation of the laws and rights is left to the judicial. Writing of those laws and any new ammendments to the constitution is the job of the legislative and executive. Also, it's deriVe, not deriDe. Derision is what we routinely pour on your arguments.

"Well none of you are allowed to express your opinion unless you're a member of parliament but at least you're allowed to marry a horse" said our prime minister after introducing the "JMH System" to Australian law.

Dude must have rolled a one. Being prime minister you get an automatic will save though, so I think he can fix that.

blablabla lets call all the old governmental philosophers pedophiles bla bla

Locke is not ancient history, and since the US system was created not long after his time, it's very sensible to study Locke, Voltaire and Hobbs and the Magna Carta if you want to understand US government and the theories that it runs on. But since you clearly don't and are just interested in causing nonsensical arguments, hey, whatever floats your boat.

[Deucaon]

You want to play this game? FINE!

BLAH BLAH BLAH I cant read BLAH BLAH BLAH

It seems that you are questioning whether you are being serious with your statements or you are merely pulling a clever ruse to fool yourself for your own personal amusement.

[Spoon Poetic]

Wot? Jm had a perfectly sensible response to your post. Don't be difficult, please.

Yes, the specific definition of what is a "Human Right" does change with the times, as new technologies are introduced, etc. However the basic definition of a Human Right has always been the same.

Basically, anything that hurts someone else or infringes upon someone else's rights is not a right. How hard is that?

Stealing is not a right because it harms/infringes upon others. Same with killing, child porn, rape, etc.

So I personally don't see the point in your obtuse argument.

The only time that rights start getting hard to define is when one right infringes upon another right. Then the courts have to decide which right takes precedence, or how the rights should compromise with each other. Example: http://lawactually.b...man-rights.html

[Deucaon]

Wot? Jm had a perfectly sensible response to your post. Don't be difficult, please.

I'm not the one being difficult. He keeps trolling (this not being the first thread he has ruined) and I cant stand it anymore.

Yes, the specific definition of what is a "Human Right" does change with the times, as new technologies are introduced, etc. However the basic definition of a Human Right has always been the same.

Basically, anything that hurts someone else or infringes upon someone else's rights is not a right. How hard is that?

Stealing is not a right because it harms/infringes upon others. Same with killing, child porn, rape, etc.

So I personally don't see the point in your obtuse argument.

The only time that rights start getting hard to define is when one right infringes upon another right. Then the courts have to decide which right takes precedence, or how the rights should compromise with each other. Example: http://lawactually.b...man-rights.html

I argue not what is a human right (in your opinion a person has the right to abuse themselves which to me is preposterous) but how law makers come to a conclusion as to what is a human right when they don't have strict (or any) guidelines to dictate how they come to that conclusion.

I also don't believe that human rights stay the same since back in the day you would kill to please pagan gods but now everyone has a "right to life" (except unborn foetuses) which doesn't count when those who champion human rights bomb or starve a people in the name of a word the majority of people don't give a shit about. Not a complaint, just an observation.

[J m HofMarN]

this not being the first thread he has ruined

I think the words you're looking for are "You meddling kids!" IE: "I would have scared everyone off with my wolf god/ayn rand philosophy and claimed the silver mine under the forums if not for you meddling kids."

in your opinion a person has the right to abuse themselves which to me is preposterous

Hehehehe.

but how law makers come to a conclusion as to what is a human right when they don't have strict (or any) guidelines to dictate how they come to that conclusion.

And here we are back at the classic Deuacon circle! Gentlemen, start yor engines again:

Law makers have the spirit of the US constitution to look to as well as the political philosophers who helped to shape the ideas of our government. Once more, Locke, Hobbs and Voltaire. Why do you continue to suggest that they have no guidelines?

I also don't believe that human rights stay the same since back in the day you would kill to please pagan gods but now everyone has a "right to life"

Hasn't everyone pretty much always had the right to life except in extenuating circumstances when it is necessary for that right to be revoked for the greater good of all? In prehistory it might have been sensible to believe that unless I carved out your heart with a sharp piece of obsydian, the crops would not grow and everyone would starve. So the rights of the many are put before those of the few. In current history it might have seemed sensible that people suspected of spying for the reds had to die or the crops would not grow and everyone would starve, so they had to die too.

Are you quite getting it yet?

And abortion has existed throughout time, usually performed by using an herbal potion involving Pennyroyal or other substances. That was a function of so-called witches or herbalists and a reason that they were primarily women. Whether it was accepted or not largely depends on how patriarchal the society was. It was always done rather quietely, since usually the goal of the abortion was for no one to know that a child was conceived in the first place.

everyone has a "right to life" (except unborn foetuses) which doesn't count when those who champion human rights bomb or starve a people in the name of a word the majority of people don't give a shit about. Not a complaint, just an observation.

Ok. What is your point with this observation that definately isn't a random complaint? How does it relate to your argument that the US system of determining what rights our people have is fundamentally flawed in comparison to Thunderdome/AD&D?

[Deucaon]

I think the words you're looking for are "You meddling kids!" IE: "I would have scared everyone off with my wolf god/ayn rand philosophy and claimed the silver mine under the forums if not for you meddling kids."

I'm sick of your fucking bullshit. I'm sick of giving you evidence that proves that you are wrong while you dismiss it and continue trolling. I'm sick of your ridicule. I'm sick of your wild assumptions. I'm sick of your baseless accusations. I'm sick of you, period. Do me a favour and fuck off.

[Spoon Poetic]

Calm down, there. Don't want to have to start editing things.

Jm isn't trolling. He's throwing some sarcasm and humour in with actual debates. Some of it is kinda dumb, I admit; but it's not trolling. Just because you don't agree with him doesn't mean he's automatically a troll. It means he has something I like to call a different opinion. I don't even see where you think he's giving evidence that proves himself wrong. Do me a favour and point these instances out please? I'd like to see what I missed.

The rights of the many over the rights of the few. That was a perfectly sensible response. Going to war and killing Nazis to protect the U.S., rest of Europe, Jews, et al. If you don't agree with that, fine. That doesn't mean anyone is being a troll. Geezus.

And my "the definition of human rights has always been the same" refers to the time where people actually believed in such a thing. When did you ever hear the Roman Empire or the ancient pagans champion the idea of basic rights that every human being should have? I'm talking about Human Rights since that term became a buzz word. That's not hard to grasp.

And yep, people have a right to abuse themselves. I don't see why that's so preposterous. *shrug* If you wanna go band your head on a wall, no one's gonna arrest you unless you're breaking a sound ordinance or damaging someone else's property. Go ahead and try to prove me wrong.

If you can't handle things in here and are "sick" of everything, why the fuck stick around?

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 28 August 2008 - 10:42 PM

[civilian_number_two]

Deucaon, I don't understand:

1) why you're getting so worked up. I am ok with keeping this a mystery.

2) your general argument. This is interesting enough to pursue. It seems that you believe that rights are decided on a case-to-case basis, and that there is no foundation to law. This is in fact not the case. Rights are decided in the US at the Legislative level and they have been written down in the Constitution. The Constitution is a work of philosophy and it was written by people. The case-to-case basis you prefer would also be worked out by people, so I can't tell why you think it should be superior. It may be that you are confusing yourself, and thinking that all court decisions are based on the rights layed out in the Constitution. This is not the case. Once it is determined that a right exists or that it should be abridged, then decisions regarding that topic will be made on a case-by-case basis. This is the rule of law you seem to be referring to. While this rule of law has a more immediate effect in court cases, generally speaking it is subordinate to the rights determined in the Constitution.

I think you have failed convincingly to argue that things are much different in Australia. As far as I have been able to determine, you have a Constitution which describes how a political system ought to function, yet your Constitution does not contain a Bill of Rights. However, case law and the role of a supreme court appear to be identical. So you have similar rights, legally protected, in Austrailia; you simply don't have a single body of work to tell you what they are. Do you think this makes you more/ less free? Do you think this simple distinction makes legal issues in your country more/ less easily resolved?

I don't follow your general argument. By this I mean I can't make out what it is you are trying to prove, nor what it is you are trying to ask.

[J m HofMarN]

I'm sick of your fucking bullshit. I'm sick of giving you evidence that proves that you are wrong while you dismiss it and continue trolling. I'm sick of your ridicule. I'm sick of your wild assumptions. I'm sick of your baseless accusations. I'm sick of you, period. Do me a favour and fuck off.

That wasn't bullshit, it was cow shit. And I was less fucking it than I was investigating it in an intimate manner.

Also, what evidence have you given me that proves that US administrators have no guidelines for determining what should be a human right? I don't know what your evidence can prove because you've barely articulated your stance on this issue, if it is indeed an issue. All I'm able to discern is you think that the way we decide how human rights should be applied is inefficient in some fashion, possibly because of the Judicial branch, or the bill of rights, or the legislative branch, or Thunderdome. If I am infact denying your greater argument, then I'm doing a good job of blind debating cuz I have no idea what your broader thesis is.

Ridicule, yeah ok, guilty as charged. But I also recall you ridiculing my argument that US lawmakers could base decisions on human rights on the political philosophers of the past by saying something about Muhammed molesting children, or something. So it's kinda a two way street.

What wild assumptions have I made? You claimed that US law and human rights policy was largely based upon nothing, and I figured if that's how you're used to things working, maybe Australia uses the D&D system. If you can make baseless assumptions about the US government, we're all going to make the same assumptions about Australia's. Or at least it's sociology, civics and world history teachers.

And I'm really lost on the baseless accusations part. I don't believe I've accused you of anything, especially not baselessly. Although that kind or reminds me of Bart Simpson complaining about how "I don't have to listen to these wild accusations!"

As for that last bit, no.

[Deucaon]

The case-to-case basis you prefer would also be worked out by people, so I can't tell why you think it should be superior.

In regards to the 9th amendment. Perhaps you all think I mean the constitution in general, if so you are all wrong. Probably a break down in communication which happened when you all didn't read a single word I wrote and then you assumed what I wrote by reading an argument of someone else who hasn't read my argument/statement properly.

[civilian_number_two]

Deuc, you haven't said anything of the sort. You asked open questions about the "rights by decree" system that you believe is unique to the United States, and then made some observations that philosophers contemporary with the framers of the Constitution and its ammendments should also be considered contemporary with Classical philosophers as well as with dictators of times past. Along the way you got upset and used the "fuck" word.

If you're talking NOW about specifically only the 9th ammendment, which is a catch-all describing unenumerated rights, based on the notion that some time n the future people will be able to do things that they have no enumerated right to do ... well fire away.

[Deucaon]

Deuc, you haven't said anything of the sort. You asked open questions about the "rights by decree" system that you believe is unique to the United States, and then made some observations that philosophers contemporary with the framers of the Constitution and its ammendments should also be considered contemporary with Classical philosophers as well as with dictators of times past. Along the way you got upset and used the "fuck" word.

If you're talking NOW about specifically only the 9th ammendment, which is a catch-all describing unenumerated rights, based on the notion that some time n the future people will be able to do things that they have no enumerated right to do ... well fire away.

How do law makers determine what is a right [in regards to the 9th amendment] and what isn't?

It seems I am in the wrong, I didn't know that I had to spell it out for everyone.

[J m HofMarN]

Ok. The 9th basically says that if the constitution doesnt say that the federal government CAN do something, and it doesn't say that the people CAN'T do something, than courts ought to side with the people. It ensures that just because something isnt in the bill of rights, that no one can say it isn't a right. One good example would be abortion. The 9th popped up in Roe V Wade quite a bit, and thats why a woman can have an abortion in the US. Because the constitution didnt say the government can stop abortions, nor does it say that women cant have them, so we side with the rights of the people and abortions for all(within reason). Does that help?

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 31 August 2008 - 03:25 AM

[Ninja Duck]

That helps me. I didn't know that about Row v. Wade. I thought that case was just to determine the best way of crossing a river.

But even without that amendment, judicial review would still be unethical, and Deucaon's question is about lawmakers, not judges. I still think it's safe to claim that lawmakers don't care about the 9th amendment. So the Bill of Rights gives us an enumeration of rights, plus a guarantee(?) that we have rights that aren't enumerated. Spiffy.

If I remember correctly, one of Alexander Hamilton's worries about the Bill of Rights is that it specifies things the government can't do which it has no power to do in the first place. So, not only is it redundant, but it implies the government does have the power to do such things, effectively granting them that power.

Well, I'm convinced that the Bill of Rights does make a difference, but I'm not all convinced that the difference is for the better. Even without it, the Patriot Act would still be on the illegal side (I'm thinking of the 4th amendment), right? Maybe not?