Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
False, you do not have the right to determine what your rights are or are not. It is not your place or the place of any individual.
You may have a thing called a constitution, and the common law, but the fact is that the rights affording to the people of any land are decided by the state and enforced by the state. The state decides what the constitution is and may amend it at any time. They also decide entirely how it should be interpreted and applied.
The police are the armed forces and the agents of the state, it is for the state to determine what your rights are and how the rights they offer you are to be interpretated in every facet and every moment of your life and existence. It is even for the state to decide the rules which govern what may be done with our bodies when we die.
Whatever room there is in the margins is merely a matter of the present and temporary weakness of the state. Of course, in this margin exists all crime and most human misery. True happiness will come when each individual is ruled completely by a compassionate state. Although Huxley couldnt quite make his mind up about it you might call that a brave new world.
As an aside, the disarmement of the people will be a necessary and obvious step taken in this process.
-----Added 20/2/2009 at 04 : 56 : 41-----
And of course that has happened and happens all the time - certainly round here. Most pubs dont allow people in with soccer jerseys and definitely not on Friday and Saturday nights. Ive been told I cant walk down a certain street wearing a Norwich shirt and instead herded along with the Away Fans many times.
At least once a week you hear about someone being forced to take off a tee shirt with Arabic writing on an air plane.
|
so are you saying that they aren't infringing upon a person's right to wear a shirt? There's a big difference between pubs saying you can't wear a football jersey and a cop telling you you can't wear it when you're on your step or just walking down the street.
The police are servants of the people and to the state. They do not have any bearing on what rights we have. They are supposed to ensure public safety and civil order. Taking away a right is not giving due civil order. If, the law, or the state in your example sets a boundary and declares that something is a right, then why would anyone not use that right just because a servant of the state instructed something differently? If the state hands down that it is lawful for a person to carry a 'metal' in their yard, properly holstered and secured, then why would someone not take advantage of their right because two cops did not want to uphold this right to an individual?
Just because an individual is an agent of the state does not mean they have full and just jurisdiction to waive the rights of the people.