Rights

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

jayjacobus
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Rights

Post by jayjacobus » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:38 pm

A judge hears one side of an argument and then hears the other. That's the only evidence. Can he decide which argument to accept?

But that's what judges do, in my experience.

jayjacobus
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Rights

Post by jayjacobus » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:48 pm

I( won't go to Fort Lee, VA because a judge is unfair. But the bigger problem for me is that I think that many judges are unfair.

jayjacobus
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Rights

Post by jayjacobus » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:58 pm

Even the judges on the Supreme Court can be unfair. Fairness is not a requirement for sitting on the Supreme Court.

jayjacobus
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Rights

Post by jayjacobus » Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:29 pm

So, if you, like ,me, don't trust the law, who do you trust? Trust your own authority but be fair.

Skip
Posts: 2314
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Rights

Post by Skip » Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:51 pm

jayjacobus wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:05 pm
[A government ... may be effective or incompetent, corrupt or honest, inadequate or overweaning, frugal or profligate.
None of those variable conditions affect the definition of contracts, laws, rights, obligations, citizenship or constitution.]

By design the law in many cases is designed to protect a corporation. Is the law fair when it does? In a lot of cases it is fair but the court must determine when the corporation is using the law to defeat an individual and the individual should be granted an exception. Otherwise the corporporation can cheat the individual out of his rights.
Corruption and bias in government affects the making of laws, and their application - not the definition of what a law is.
Similarly, there are contracts that are unfair, self-contradictory, obscure and even unconstitutional; some contracts favour one side; some are coerced, some set out obligations that are impossible to fulfill, or have loopholes. That doesn't affect the definition of "contract".
The existence of bad contracts and bad laws does not invalidate the words, any more than the existence of bad apples makes apples non-fruit.

jayjacobus
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Rights

Post by jayjacobus » Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:59 pm

Skip wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:51 pm
jayjacobus wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:05 pm

By design the law in many cases is designed to protect a corporation. Is the law fair when it does? In a lot of cases it is fair but the court must determine when the corporation is using the law to defeat an individual and the individual should be granted an exception. Otherwise the corporporation can cheat the individual out of his rights.
Corruption and bias in government affects the making of laws, and their application - not the definition of what a law is.
Similarly, there are contracts that are unfair, self-contradictory, obscure and even unconstitutional; some contracts favour one side; some are coerced, some set out obligations that are impossible to fulfill, or have loopholes. That doesn't affect the definition of "contract".
The existence of bad contracts and bad laws does not invalidate the words, any more than the existence of bad apples makes apples non-fruit.
What you say is at least mostly true but corrupations can get you to sign a contract when they intend bad faith. They can restrict you, condemn you, force you into court at great expense and even punish you, all outside the law. If some contracts are not written for this purpose then why are they written? They are written in bad faith.. PERIOD!

Skip
Posts: 2314
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Rights

Post by Skip » Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:38 pm

jayjacobus wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:59 pm
What you say is at least mostly true but corrupations can get you to sign a contract when they intend bad faith. They can restrict you, condemn you, force you into court at great expense and even punish you, all outside the law. If some contracts are not written for this purpose then why are they written? They are written in bad faith.. PERIOD!
Sure. Contracts can be drawn up in bad faith; signatures can be forced or faked; even good contracts are often breached.
That doesn't change what the word "contract" means.
And what's that to do with the concept of rights?
The constitution outlines the rights of citizens, as well as the responsibilities and prerogatives of government.
If the government makes bad laws, or breaks its own laws, or does anything to show bad faith to the citizens it's contracted to serve, the citizens have the right to replace that government
SEMICOLON;
the constitution sets out the processes whereby this is to be done.
It is the Supreme Court's job to decide whether the contract has been breached
COMMA,
but bad faith is a political election issue.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1172
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Rights

Post by -1- » Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:36 pm

jayjacobus wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:29 pm
So, if you, like ,me, don't trust the law, who do you trust? Trust your own authority but be fair.
This is an interesting concept. "Trust your own authority". This means on one hand, that you have authority (which implies power over others), and if you only have authority over yourself, then you haven't solved the problem of dishonesty in society.

So if you have authority on your own, which is not the same as the law, then are you saying you need to be a fair bully in today's world to prosper? What IS a fair bully? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

If you are a fair bully, then I expect that you mean by that that you honour those who honour their words given to you, and vice versa.

But what happens when someone does not own up to their promises? What do you do then? Exercise your own authority? How? You beat them up, or punish them some other way? I am curious if this is a sheer rhetoric on your part, or you can cite real examples from your life that are true, and where you exercised your authority against those who breached your expectations placed on their word.

If you did, I would like to hear the real extant examples. If you don't provide examples, then I take your rhetoric as empty, as in "anyone can claim anything on the Internet".

jayjacobus
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Rights

Post by jayjacobus » Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:13 pm

-1- wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:36 pm
jayjacobus wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:29 pm
So, if you, like ,me, don't trust the law, who do you trust? Trust your own authority but be fair.
This is an interesting concept. "Trust your own authority". This means on one hand, that you have authority (which implies power over others), and if you only have authority over yourself, then you haven't solved the problem of dishonesty in society.

So if you have authority on your own, which is not the same as the law, then are you saying you need to be a fair bully in today's world to prosper? What IS a fair bully? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

If you are a fair bully, then I expect that you mean by that that you honour those who honour their words given to you, and vice versa.

But what happens when someone does not own up to their promises? What do you do then? Exercise your own authority? How? You beat them up, or punish them some other way? I am curious if this is a sheer rhetoric on your part, or you can cite real examples from your life that are true, and where you exercised your authority against those who breached your expectations placed on their word.

If you did, I would like to hear the real extant examples. If you don't provide examples, then I take your rhetoric as empty, as in "anyone can claim anything on the Internet".
What I'm saying is if no one will help you, help yourself but I am not saying I am a bully. Why would you put words in my mouth? You cannot be saying "I will not take my own counsel." and in spite of what odd things you do say, I won't say you do.

Besides if I don't trust a group of people, should I trust them or avoid them?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1172
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Rights

Post by -1- » Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:26 pm

jayjacobus wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:13 pm
What I'm saying is if no one will help you, help yourself but I am not saying I am a bully. Why would you put words in my mouth? You cannot be saying "I will not take my own counsel." and in spite of what odd things you do say, I won't say you do.

Besides if I don't trust a group of people, should I trust them or avoid them?
Fair enough, JayJay, but how will you help yourself? You did say you have your own authority-- over what realm? What are the means of execution of your own authority? You did say in the same breath that you don't trust the law. So you can't be your own counsel, that's what you are saying, since relying on the law is out, you don't trust it. So you have authority over and above others outside the law.

What IS this authority, how do you exercise it, and what means and tools does it consist of?

jayjacobus
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Rights

Post by jayjacobus » Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:50 pm

-1- wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:26 pm
jayjacobus wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:13 pm
What I'm saying is if no one will help you, help yourself but I am not saying I am a bully. Why would you put words in my mouth? You cannot be saying "I will not take my own counsel." and in spite of what odd things you do say, I won't say you do.

Besides if I don't trust a group of people, should I trust them or avoid them?
Fair enough, JayJay, but how will you help yourself? You did say you have your own authority-- over what realm? What are the means of execution of your own authority? You did say in the same breath that you don't trust the law. So you can't be your own counsel, that's what you are saying, since relying on the law is out, you don't trust it. So you have authority over and above others outside the law.

What IS this authority, how do you exercise it, and what means and tools does it consist of?
I have a voice. If no one will listen then my voice doesn't matter at all and i am screwed. But the law has screwed me before so their voice is worth very little.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1172
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Rights

Post by -1- » Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:01 am

jayjacobus wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:50 pm

I have a voice. If no one will listen then my voice doesn't matter at all and i am screwed. But the law has screwed me before so their voice is worth very little.
The law has screwed you before. Was there a judgment against you? or an accusation you could not legally defend? Were you sentenced in any way, that impeded your happiness or your ability to pursue it?

If you can in good faith say "yes" to any of the questions, then I wouldn't say the voice of the law is worth very little. In fact, the voice of the law can exonerate you, or condemn you. Your life can be made difficult by no other than the voice of the law -- why do you say it is worth very little? If I can be made by someone's voice very miserable, then I would say that that person's voice is powerful, I would not say it's worth very little.

So what you said you have authority over your own voice. Earlier you said, you don't trust the law, but you trust your own authority. That, in effect, says that you trust your own voice.

Well, at least you have someone's voice, your own to be specific, to trust.

jayjacobus
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Rights

Post by jayjacobus » Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:30 am

The legal voice that ruled against me is a voice that is unfair (or so I contend). If I am lying I will go to the law for protection. If I am telling the truth, I will not.

I will not.

What does that tell you?

commonsense
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Rights

Post by commonsense » Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:31 pm

jayjacobus wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:30 am
The legal voice that ruled against me is a voice that is unfair (or so I contend). If I am lying I will go to the law for protection. If I am telling the truth, I will not.

I will not.

What does that tell you?

This tells me that in your opinion you don’t need the protection of the law, because you are telling the truth.
I think you know all too well that such a utopia just isn’t available at present, am I right?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1172
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Rights

Post by -1- » Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:26 pm

jayjacobus wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:30 am
The legal voice that ruled against me is a voice that is unfair (or so I contend). If I am lying I will go to the law for protection. If I am telling the truth, I will not.

I will not.

What does that tell you?
It tells me that your authority does not extend beyond a losing proposition you established with the law.

It tells me that your authority does not extend over to control your own life, your own destiny, if law is involved. It tells me that you have no authority in shaping or influencing the judgement others make over you.

So your authority, which you rely on, instead of relying on the law, does not protect you from the law, it only authorizes you to say the truth.

It also tells me that you are an honest, upright citizen, who would rather suffer unjustly for telling the truth, than reap rewards unjustly by saying lies.

Fair enough.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests