rights vs. responsibility - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

hannukah harry · 08-21-2005, 11:14 AM

so i saw this article just a bit ago on fark... thought it brings up some interesting thoughts.

http://torontosun.com/News/Columnist...9/1180425.html

Quote:

Rights-worship fetish ruining our society

By MICHAEL COREN

When British police arrested a highly dangerous terrorist suspect last month, they acted with professionalism and, considering the circumstances, extreme courtesy. "Mohammed," they shouted, "Take your clothes off! Come out with your hands on your head and you will be all right."

He argued with them for some time, demanding to know why he should strip down to his underpants. When he was told the obvious -- that he was thought to be a potential suicide bomber -- he still argued and refused to move.

Eventually the police had to bring the man out by force and he was taken away. But his first response to the police was so deliciously relevant. He shouted it from the balcony. "I have rights," he screamed. "I have rights."

There we have it. Rights. Even for a man who is suspected of trying to murder innocent people and create panic and terror.

The mass of our social difficulties, the majority of our seemingly insoluble problems, arise from the fact that in the Western world (and particularly in Canada) we have engineered a rights-based society rather than a responsibility-based one.

The social contract between the governed and the government, between authority and citizenry, has become degraded and unbalanced. Instead of asking what our duty or responsibility might be in any given situation, we demand to know what are our privileges and rights.

At its most obvious there is the usual list of standard demands. The right to marry whomever you want, the right to be ordained a priest when you don't qualify, the right to claim welfare even if it isn't deserved, the right to have sex with anyone and everyone, the right to die, the right to be wrong.

The list goes on: The right to swear, the right to defy righteous authority, the right to be publicly uncouth, the right to insult a cop, the right to hide behind any excuse to escape punishment, the right to never fail, never lose, never have one's self-esteem challenged, the right to be wrong.

Instructional guides

Recently our Supreme Court was called upon to judge a man who on the Internet had been selling instructional guides on how to make bombs, break into houses and commit credit card fraud. The judges decided that he had the "right" to do this because they did not assume he had the "responsibility" to read the contents of the material before he marketed it.

Nor is this fetish of rights-worship in any way consistent. A 14-year-old girl, for example, has the right to be given the contraceptive pill by her family doctor, but that same doctor has no right to inform the parents of the girl.

The concept of responsibility is entirely removed from the equation. Individual rights, even for a child, supercede the role of family and medical responsibility.

The same applies to self-defence. We've all heard stories of people like the corner store owner who grew tired of repeated burglaries at his business, who fights back against the criminals with, say, a baseball bat.

In such cases, chances are it's the owners who will be charged. Too often, the rights of thieves outweigh the rights -- and responsibilities -- of citizens to protect their own property and livelihoods.

A mere symptom

Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms was supposed to liberate the people of this great nation. What was not noticed was that Canadians were already free. Today, the Charter appears a mere symptom of a deeper dysfunction.

To paraphrase former U.S. president John F. Kennedy, ask not what are your rights in Canada but what are your responsibilities to Canada. And ask now, before the cloud of "rights" chokes us into oblivion.

to be honest, i'm not sure how i feel about this... america seems to be a bastion for the 'me me me' ideology. that we should have the right to do anything and everything, everyone else be damned. and i agree with that, within reason. but for example, the person selling the instruction manual on how to build bombs, etc, i don't know, that seems to be a gray area for me. on the one hand, he's promoting, and making money, off of instructions on how to harm others and break the law, but on the other hand, he himself is not committing a crime. it would seem to me that he could be aiding and abetting (sp?).

i think we do have a responsibility to protect the environment, so why not a responsibility to protect our society? a responsibility to not promote crime, to not profit from the crimes of others and allow criminals to profit from their crimes(like the burgler that feel through a skylight and injured himself and then sued and won), etc?

thoughts?

the_marq · 08-21-2005, 12:15 PM

I saw this on fark eariler as well Harry. I never posted on fark as more often than not the hue and cry is so far left or right wing that a calm voice gets ignored. Nevertheless, I have been thinking about it ever since. While I don't really agree with every word of Mr. Coren's article, I agree that it does raise some very intersting points.

What is more important to you as an individual, your rights or your responsiblities?

Is it more important that you have the right to drive a big ass SUV because it makes you feel safe, or is it more important that you consider your responsiblity to the driver of a Honda Civic whom you will almost certainly kill should have an accident?

Is it more important that you have the right to own a giant dog, or is it more important that you have a responsiblity to your neighbours that your dog won't eat their kid?

I have the right to own a gun (or several). But I also have the responsiblity to ensure that the 'bad guys' can't get guns.

As a homeowner I have the right to enjoy my backyard in the summer time to BBQ and drink beer, however as a citizen I have the responsibility to my neighbours to ensure that they can sleep at night without hearing me pounding AC/DC at 3am.

It's unfortunate that Mr. Coren's article was a little extreme and leads one to belive that we in a free society may have too many rights. I think the real thrust of this article is that our responsiblities to socitey should outweigh our perceived rights.

Maybe I'm too much of an idealist, maybe I'm a blue-sky pollyanna dreamer who thinks that its up to me to make sure my neighbours and friends can enjoy life today and tomorrow.

Maybe I'm the only one who cares, but I fucking hope not.

highthief · 08-21-2005, 12:17 PM

First off, Michael Coren, even if he is correct about something, is certifiably insane. He makes Ann Coulter look reasonable (and not because Coren is a right wing nut, he's just a nut).

I personally feel that we do have a responsibility to the greater good - with individual rights protected. But when a person is doing something like shouting "fire" a in a crowded theatre, his "right" to freedom of expression is trumped by the rights of the citizenry to a safe environment. It's a case by case thing, and there is no one all encompassing answer.

Charlatan · 08-21-2005, 03:52 PM

What is needed is a balance between the two. As the marq pointed out, we all have certain rights but with those rights comes responsibility. They go hand in hand.

People like Coren would rather we had no defined rights. He would chuck the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and rely on Grampa Joe's book of common sense and expect people to be responsible to a certain way of thinking and a certain way of living.

Unfortunately we do not live in a homogenous society. People are different just as much as they are the same. Many people like to trod on others ability to do something. When they have the "right" to do something it becomes a little more difficult to stop.

Again... balance is the key to just about everything.

alansmithee · 08-22-2005, 01:00 AM

I think he is only 110% correct. All that all these "rights" are doing is ensuring that we live in a dangerous society. If there is a possiblility for someone to make a wrong/harmful choice, someone always will make that choice, even when they don't have that right. When you are thinking about allowing someone to do something, you should always consider the worst possible outcome, and assume that's the one that will happen.

Also, I see people here criticizing Coren because of his right-leaning views. What I've never understood though, is how someone will be criticized because of wanting to set limitations on what people have the right to do in social situations, but have no hesitation on placing limits on people's economic freedoms (as many in the left seem to want to do, through environmental regulations or higher/progressive taxes). To me it seems blatant hypocricy, but maybe someone can explain the doublethink for me.

Cynthetiq · 08-22-2005, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

I think he is only 110% correct. All that all these "rights" are doing is ensuring that we live in a dangerous society. If there is a possiblility for someone to make a wrong/harmful choice, someone always will make that choice, even when they don't have that right. When you are thinking about allowing someone to do something, you should always consider the worst possible outcome, and assume that's the one that will happen.

Also, I see people here criticizing Coren because of his right-leaning views. What I've never understood though, is how someone will be criticized because of wanting to set limitations on what people have the right to do in social situations, but have no hesitation on placing limits on people's economic freedoms (as many in the left seem to want to do, through environmental regulations or higher/progressive taxes). To me it seems blatant hypocricy, but maybe someone can explain the doublethink for me.

I agree 100% with what you've stated. I too do not understand any longer where the role of responsibility comes into play with one's "rights".

I personally have always view my "rights' as being trumped by my "responsibilty" to the rest of the community, even when those rights are in direct conflict with the responsibility, i.e. freedom to write and purchase literature on production of bombs. Yes, I read them when I was younger at survival bookstores, but even then it was more of a curiousity than a desire to act upon.

highthief · 08-22-2005, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

I think he is only 110% correct. All that all these "rights" are doing is ensuring that we live in a dangerous society. If there is a possiblility for someone to make a wrong/harmful choice, someone always will make that choice, even when they don't have that right. When you are thinking about allowing someone to do something, you should always consider the worst possible outcome, and assume that's the one that will happen.

Also, I see people here criticizing Coren because of his right-leaning views. What I've never understood though, is how someone will be criticized because of wanting to set limitations on what people have the right to do in social situations, but have no hesitation on placing limits on people's economic freedoms (as many in the left seem to want to do, through environmental regulations or higher/progressive taxes). To me it seems blatant hypocricy, but maybe someone can explain the doublethink for me.

I'm not sure where you get people are busting on Coren for his "right leaning views" - Coren is actually a big NDP (socialist party) supporter, however, socially, he's to the right of the evengelicals on a lot of issues.

joshbaumgartner · 08-22-2005, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

I think he is only 110% correct. All that all these "rights" are doing is ensuring that we live in a dangerous society. If there is a possiblility for someone to make a wrong/harmful choice, someone always will make that choice, even when they don't have that right. When you are thinking about allowing someone to do something, you should always consider the worst possible outcome, and assume that's the one that will happen.

Of course people will make bad decisions, that is a given when one has free choice. If they don't have the opportunity to make mistakes, then they don't really have freedom. If people are allowed to drive, they will have accidents and people will die. If people are allowed to drink, they will get drunk and cause trouble. If people are alloed both, they will put them together, drink and drive, and kill innocent people.

But if we want a responsible society, we hold those who transgress accountable, but we don't take away rights for everyone. In a responsible society, people have the freedom to dictate the path of their own lives, and face the consequences of their choices.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Also, I see people here criticizing Coren because of his right-leaning views. What I've never understood though, is how someone will be criticized because of wanting to set limitations on what people have the right to do in social situations, but have no hesitation on placing limits on people's economic freedoms (as many in the left seem to want to do, through environmental regulations or higher/progressive taxes). To me it seems blatant hypocricy, but maybe someone can explain the doublethink for me.

First, I think folks have already said here that it is "not because Coren is a right wing nut, he's just a nut" (highthief), and right-wing, left-wing, or outer space, he has chosen a very slanted set of 'desired rights' that supposedly are being sought, couching a few controversial but legitimate isseues amongst an array of very extreme ones that most people would consider fringe.

That aside, you are putting up a strawman by asserting that anyone here is criticizing Cohen's social limitations while having no hesitation with economic restrictions. That is an attempt to play on a myth proposed by the right to misrepresent the left's approach to business and commerce. The simple fact is that almost every liberal I know is very concerned about ensuring that every person has the most economic freedom possible. I haven't seen anyone here promote the evisceration of economic rights, and certainly not 'without hesitation' as you proclaim.

alansmithee · 08-22-2005, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

I'm not sure where you get people are busting on Coren for his "right leaning views" - Coren is actually a big NDP (socialist party) supporter, however, socially, he's to the right of the evengelicals on a lot of issues.

So what don't you see? You said yourself that his views are to the right of many evangelicals, which are often considered far right themselves. I didn't mention his party whatsoever. It's irrelevant what party he identifies himself with, what's relevant is that he holds many views that people consider far-right. And it's those rightist views that people are attacking.

alansmithee · 08-22-2005, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshbaumgartner

Of course people will make bad decisions, that is a given when one has free choice. If they don't have the opportunity to make mistakes, then they don't really have freedom. If people are allowed to drive, they will have accidents and people will die. If people are allowed to drink, they will get drunk and cause trouble. If people are alloed both, they will put them together, drink and drive, and kill innocent people.

But if we want a responsible society, we hold those who transgress accountable, but we don't take away rights for everyone. In a responsible society, people have the freedom to dictate the path of their own lives, and face the consequences of their choices.

This assumes that freedom is something I care about people having. I personally place the general wellbeing of society above some abstract concept of people being "free". Because by continuously trumpetting freedom over accountability and responsibility we weaken those very notions. Also, I prefer to practice preventative medicine-I'd rather someone not be allowed in the first place to do something harmful to society than let them do it and punish them later.

Quote:

First, I think folks have already said here that it is "not because Coren is a right wing nut, he's just a nut" (highthief), and right-wing, left-wing, or outer space, he has chosen a very slanted set of 'desired rights' that supposedly are being sought, couching a few controversial but legitimate isseues amongst an array of very extreme ones that most people would consider fringe.

I addressed highthief's comments above.

Quote:

That aside, you are putting up a strawman by asserting that anyone here is criticizing Cohen's social limitations while having no hesitation with economic restrictions. That is an attempt to play on a myth proposed by the right to misrepresent the left's approach to business and commerce. The simple fact is that almost every liberal I know is very concerned about ensuring that every person has the most economic freedom possible. I haven't seen anyone here promote the evisceration of economic rights, and certainly not 'without hesitation' as you proclaim.

First of all, THATS NOT A STRAWMAN ARGUEMENT! I know alot of people around here are anxious to turn the politics board into a junior debate league, but if you are going to sling those terms around, at least have them correct. If anything, it would be an tu quoque ad hominem (which it isn't, but that would be the closest fallacy pattern). And if you are really that blind to leftist ideology, that is not my problem nor does it address my claims. You would dispute that those on the left generally favor enviromental regulations? Or that they favor progressive tax structures? Or tarrifs? What about social welfare programs, do leftists now not support those? Because all of the above attemt to limit the economic freedoms of certain individuals (sometimes in favor of granting more economic freedom to other individuals). If you weren't so busy on your high horse defending what you saw as an attack on leftist ideas and actually attempted to answer my question, you might have saw later that I wasn't saying that any of those things are inherently bad, and that I also am in favor of a great many of those. Hopefully someone later more interested in discussion and less in scoring points in a debate will try to answer my question and not get defensive.

CShine · 08-23-2005, 01:57 AM

"Responsibility-based" society = dictatorship. People like Michael Coren are a direct threat to freedom because they propose that we set out to destroy the very Constitutional rights our Founding Fathers fought and died to guarantee.

the_ref · 08-23-2005, 07:19 PM

Freedom and courtesy.

Rights and responsibilities.

There is always a tension in society between what we feel we are owed and what we feel we owe others. If there are no responsibilities, then all reduces down to the level of the single individual; if there are no rights, then all is held in thrall to the totality.

I happen to live in the USA. We have enshrined a great number of Rights into our basic documents; we have enshrined very few Responsibilities, which probably explains our constant national obsession with the Lone Man who Wanders In and Makes Everything Okay (everything from the Minute Men to Batman). We, as a culture, have pushed the notion of individual rights; we have not gone to any sort of ultimate extreme, simply because no society would so function, but we are constantly arguing the topic. In many ways I believe this is because when someone here calls for "Responsibilities" what they are really saying is "Your Rights are infringing on my Rights". **shrug**

What do we owe ourselves? What do we owe our family? What do we owe our local community? What do we owe our nation? Balancing all of these would necessarily lead to a combination of Rights and Responsibilities. Which is more important at any given moment depends on who, very specifically, you are talking to.

Take any political or social issue in this country; it could be argued from both directions easily.

Willravel · 08-23-2005, 08:01 PM

I'm sure society would be a lot more dangerous if the FBI couldn't read my e-mails.
FBI guy: "Man, this guy loves to e-mail his friends about meaningless crap. Do you think he's a terrorist?"

martinguerre · 08-23-2005, 09:16 PM

i know i've used this quote before, but it's far too perfect not to repeat. It's from Bolt's play "A Man for All Seasons" which is about Sir Thomas More. Here, More chastises his overly eager son in law, Roper. It is the best defense of the practice of the rule of law that i've ever seen...and one of my all time favorite moments of cinema.

Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you—where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast—man’s laws, not God’s—and if you cut them down—and you’re just the man to do it—d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

More of course looses his head to the very danger he warns of, the bending of law to accomplish convinence. I believe that we practice an imperfect and often unsatisfying system of law, even when it protects the repugnant...because the alternative is the only thing that's worse.

AngelicVampire · 09-03-2005, 04:13 PM

Personally I think we should be able to forfeit our rights, if we start murdering people why do we still retain all the rights that we deprived others of? If I go out and decide to brutally murder someone for the fun of it do I really have the "right" to live? Personally I would say no (not planning on murdering anyone btw), rights to things tend to make people stop seeing why its a right and that really it being an earned right would be better.

Look at free education, people see this as a right, no matter how you behave you have the right to an education, if perhaps this right could be revoked (you have the right to a free education while you behave in an acceptable manner) then perhaps people would treat their education (and other rights) with more respect and actually "earn" these rights...

hannukah harry · 09-04-2005, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngelicVampire

Personally I think we should be able to forfeit our rights, if we start murdering people why do we still retain all the rights that we deprived others of? If I go out and decide to brutally murder someone for the fun of it do I really have the "right" to live? Personally I would say no (not planning on murdering anyone btw), rights to things tend to make people stop seeing why its a right and that really it being an earned right would be better.

Look at free education, people see this as a right, no matter how you behave you have the right to an education, if perhaps this right could be revoked (you have the right to a free education while you behave in an acceptable manner) then perhaps people would treat their education (and other rights) with more respect and actually "earn" these rights...

the two problems i see with what you're saying (and to some extent i do agree with you) is that 1) most people see rights not as something that can be given or taken away. they're inalienable rights that we have due to the grace of god (for some) or that are ours due to our status as humans (for others). so for example, we have the right to free speech no matter what due to god or just because we're human, and no one has the right to take that away from us.

the second problem is "what is behaving acceptably?" if we put conditions, even ones that seem to be set in stone, we're just asking for them to be abused. just like how we had poll tests (or was it called taxes? oh well) back in the jim crowe days, we could have a teacher say that little jimmy (a black kid) is always being disruptive and needs to be removed (because he keeps asking questions without raising his hand to be recognized) while little james (white kid) is merely being inquisitive when he does that.

free education isn't a right anyways though, it's a responsibility of the govt. to provide, but that's a whole 'nother topic.

SirSeymour · 09-04-2005, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CShine

"Responsibility-based" society = dictatorship. People like Michael Coren are a direct threat to freedom because they propose that we set out to destroy the very Constitutional rights our Founding Fathers fought and died to guarantee.

Oh please. Never was there a group of men more responsibility oriented. They wrote the Bill of Rights to ensure the government would not be able to trample on the rights of the people without ever considering that someday the people would absolutely abandon their responsibilities as citizens.

This piece was written about Canada but it could just as easily apply to the US today and maybe to just about any country in the “civilized” west. Face facts, we have forgotten that with great freedom (or rights) comes greater responsibility, at least here in the US. We take them for granted. The Founding Fathers would likely be rightfully ashamed of how our “rights” and “freedoms” are exercised today with little or no regard to responsibility.

Stompy · 09-04-2005, 12:01 PM

Eh, the founding fathers would just be disgusted at the whole damn thing, haha.

1. How uneducated and indifferent people are to their government.
2. How easily manipulated and malformed the government has become over the years.

This extreme imbalance of how things should be affects responsibilities of citizens.

The primary responsibility of a citizen living in this country should be educating themselves, not only in basic intelligence, but as to how our govt works. This prevents catastrophes caused by #1.

I mean, you ask someone if they knew whether or not they had any idea the Patriot Act was renewed, you'd get a "What's a patriot act?!" type of response. These very people have failed their most important responsibility.

There's a responsibility, IMO, of standing up for what you believe in, because without it, this country wouldn't even be here.

Aside from that, and contrary to popular belief, we aren't obligated to do anything we don't want to do... *get ready for the key phrase* : to a point.

Taxes, of course, we have no choice. Following laws... questionable, but that's where common sense comes into play. Murder, for example, you follow to insure a peaceful society, but say, movie/music downloading or personal drug use... is really up to the individual. Common sense insures one doesn't get caught.

It's really subjective, though.

alansmithee · 09-04-2005, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stompy

Eh, the founding fathers would just be disgusted at the whole damn thing, haha.

1. How uneducated and indifferent people are to their government.
2. How easily manipulated and malformed the government has become over the years.

This extreme imbalance of how things should be affects responsibilities of citizens.

The primary responsibility of a citizen living in this country should be educating themselves, not only in basic intelligence, but as to how our govt works. This prevents catastrophes caused by #1.

I mean, you ask someone if they knew whether or not they had any idea the Patriot Act was renewed, you'd get a "What's a patriot act?!" type of response. These very people have failed their most important responsibility.

There's a responsibility, IMO, of standing up for what you believe in, because without it, this country wouldn't even be here.

Aside from that, and contrary to popular belief, we aren't obligated to do anything we don't want to do... *get ready for the key phrase* : to a point.

Taxes, of course, we have no choice. Following laws... questionable, but that's where common sense comes into play. Murder, for example, you follow to insure a peaceful society, but say, movie/music downloading or personal drug use... is really up to the individual. Common sense insures one doesn't get caught.

It's really subjective, though.

First thing, I would also guess that the founding fathers would have been disgusted by women voting and blacks not being slaves. So honestly, I don't find their supposed opinions relevant.

I also think you can't arbitrarily say that citizens are supposed to educate themselves about gov't, then say there's no other obligations of people. People only have one obligation: to follow laws. If it's not legislated as either something that is forbidden or mandatory, there is no obligation to do/not do anything. That is the purpose of laws, to ensure that behavior is limited to what society feels is proper. Laws are not there to pick and choose which to follow. If it's a stupid law, work to change it. But until it's changed, failure to follow it makes you nothing but a criminal, and deserving of any and all penalties.

08-21-2005, 12:15 PM	#2 (permalink)
the_marq All hail the Mountain King Location: Black Mesa	I saw this on fark eariler as well Harry. I never posted on fark as more often than not the hue and cry is so far left or right wing that a calm voice gets ignored. Nevertheless, I have been thinking about it ever since. While I don't really agree with every word of Mr. Coren's article, I agree that it does raise some very intersting points. *What is more important to you as an individual, your rights or your responsiblities?* Is it more important that you have the right to drive a big ass SUV because it makes you feel safe, or is it more important that you consider your responsiblity to the driver of a Honda Civic whom you will almost certainly kill should have an accident? Is it more important that you have the right to own a giant dog, or is it more important that you have a responsiblity to your neighbours that your dog won't eat their kid? I have the right to own a gun (or several). But I also have the responsiblity to ensure that the 'bad guys' can't get guns. As a homeowner I have the right to enjoy my backyard in the summer time to BBQ and drink beer, however as a citizen I have the responsibility to my neighbours to ensure that they can sleep at night without hearing me pounding AC/DC at 3am. It's unfortunate that Mr. Coren's article was a little extreme and leads one to belive that we in a free society may have too many rights. I think the real thrust of this article is that our responsiblities to socitey should outweigh our perceived rights. Maybe I'm too much of an idealist, maybe I'm a blue-sky pollyanna dreamer who thinks that its up to me to make sure my neighbours and friends can enjoy life today and tomorrow. Maybe I'm the only one who cares, but I fucking hope not. __________________ The Truth: Johnny Cash could have kicked Bruce Lee's ass if he wanted to. #3 in a series

08-21-2005, 12:17 PM	#3 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	First off, Michael Coren, even if he is correct about something, is certifiably insane. He makes Ann Coulter look reasonable (and not because Coren is a right wing nut, he's just a nut). I personally feel that we do have a responsibility to the greater good - with individual rights protected. But when a person is doing something like shouting "fire" a in a crowded theatre, his "right" to freedom of expression is trumped by the rights of the citizenry to a safe environment. It's a case by case thing, and there is no one all encompassing answer. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

08-21-2005, 03:52 PM	#4 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	What is needed is a balance between the two. As the marq pointed out, we all have certain rights but with those rights comes responsibility. They go hand in hand. People like Coren would rather we had no defined rights. He would chuck the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and rely on Grampa Joe's book of common sense and expect people to be responsible to a certain way of thinking and a certain way of living. Unfortunately we do not live in a homogenous society. People are different just as much as they are the same. Many people like to trod on others ability to do something. When they have the "right" to do something it becomes a little more difficult to stop. Again... balance is the key to just about everything. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke Last edited by Charlatan; 08-22-2005 at 07:52 AM..

08-23-2005, 01:57 AM	#11 (permalink)
CShine Crazy	"Responsibility-based" society = dictatorship. People like Michael Coren are a direct threat to freedom because they propose that we set out to destroy the very Constitutional rights our Founding Fathers fought and died to guarantee. Last edited by CShine; 08-23-2005 at 02:00 AM..

08-23-2005, 07:19 PM	#12 (permalink)
the_ref Upright	Freedom and courtesy. Rights and responsibilities. There is always a tension in society between what we feel we are owed and what we feel we owe others. If there are no responsibilities, then all reduces down to the level of the single individual; if there are no rights, then all is held in thrall to the totality. I happen to live in the USA. We have enshrined a great number of Rights into our basic documents; we have enshrined very few Responsibilities, which probably explains our constant national obsession with the Lone Man who Wanders In and Makes Everything Okay (everything from the Minute Men to Batman). We, as a culture, have pushed the notion of individual rights; we have not gone to any sort of ultimate extreme, simply because no society would so function, but we are constantly arguing the topic. In many ways I believe this is because when someone here calls for "Responsibilities" what they are really saying is "Your Rights are infringing on my Rights". shrug What do we owe ourselves? What do we owe our family? What do we owe our local community? What do we owe our nation? Balancing all of these would necessarily lead to a combination of Rights and Responsibilities. Which is more important at any given moment depends on who, very specifically, you are talking to. Take any political or social issue in this country; it could be argued from both directions easily. __________________ "Jack! You've debauched my sloth!"

08-22-2005, 01:00 AM	#5 (permalink)
alansmithee Junkie	I think he is only 110% correct. All that all these "rights" are doing is ensuring that we live in a dangerous society. If there is a possiblility for someone to make a wrong/harmful choice, someone always will make that choice, even when they don't have that right. When you are thinking about allowing someone to do something, you should always consider the worst possible outcome, and assume that's the one that will happen. Also, I see people here criticizing Coren because of his right-leaning views. What I've never understood though, is how someone will be criticized because of wanting to set limitations on what people have the right to do in social situations, but have no hesitation on placing limits on people's economic freedoms (as many in the left seem to want to do, through environmental regulations or higher/progressive taxes). To me it seems blatant hypocricy, but maybe someone can explain the doublethink for me.

08-23-2005, 08:01 PM	#13 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I'm sure society would be a lot more dangerous if the FBI couldn't read my e-mails. FBI guy: "Man, this guy loves to e-mail his friends about meaningless crap. Do you think he's a terrorist?"

08-23-2005, 09:16 PM	#14 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	i know i've used this quote before, but it's far too perfect not to repeat. It's from Bolt's play "A Man for All Seasons" which is about Sir Thomas More. Here, More chastises his overly eager son in law, Roper. It is the best defense of the practice of the rule of law that i've ever seen...and one of my all time favorite moments of cinema. Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law! More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that! More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you—where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast—man’s laws, not God’s—and if you cut them down—and you’re just the man to do it—d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake. More of course looses his head to the very danger he warns of, the bending of law to accomplish convinence. I believe that we practice an imperfect and often unsatisfying system of law, even when it protects the repugnant...because the alternative is the only thing that's worse. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

09-03-2005, 04:13 PM	#15 (permalink)
AngelicVampire Insane	Personally I think we should be able to forfeit our rights, if we start murdering people why do we still retain all the rights that we deprived others of? If I go out and decide to brutally murder someone for the fun of it do I really have the "right" to live? Personally I would say no (not planning on murdering anyone btw), rights to things tend to make people stop seeing why its a right and that really it being an earned right would be better. Look at free education, people see this as a right, no matter how you behave you have the right to an education, if perhaps this right could be revoked (you have the right to a free education while you behave in an acceptable manner) then perhaps people would treat their education (and other rights) with more respect and actually "earn" these rights...

09-04-2005, 12:01 PM	#18 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	Eh, the founding fathers would just be disgusted at the whole damn thing, haha. 1. How uneducated and indifferent people are to their government. 2. How easily manipulated and malformed the government has become over the years. This extreme imbalance of how things should be affects responsibilities of citizens. The primary responsibility of a citizen living in this country should be educating themselves, not only in basic intelligence, but as to how our govt works. This prevents catastrophes caused by #1. I mean, you ask someone if they knew whether or not they had any idea the Patriot Act was renewed, you'd get a "What's a patriot act?!" type of response. These very people have failed their most important responsibility. There's a responsibility, IMO, of standing up for what you believe in, because without it, this country wouldn't even be here. Aside from that, and contrary to popular belief, we aren't obligated to do anything we don't want to do... get ready for the key phrase : to a point. Taxes, of course, we have no choice. Following laws... questionable, but that's where common sense comes into play. Murder, for example, you follow to insure a peaceful society, but say, movie/music downloading or personal drug use... is really up to the individual. Common sense insures one doesn't get caught. It's really subjective, though. __________________ I love lamp.