Which amendment in the original bill of rights is the most important?

[Gaidin]

So your position on governance is suck it up. Gotcha.

Evidence is contrary to your whims and wishes. Go ahead and stick your head in the ground.

[xcorps]

No, no. I'm with you. It's perfectly OK to oppress and murder if it's the will of the state because there is no individual sovereignty or expectations of human decency. It's all about the paper.

[Dr. Croccer]

It isn't semantics. . People do not create natural rights.

Yes, they do. Natural rights exist as a concept because of philosophers who came up with it. They are entirely, demonstrably engineered concepts. Based entirely on reason and ideals, not physical reality. At one point humans consciously strove to integrate them in their legal structure, supplanting earlier notions (which are just as artificial) which were based on notions which were equally constructed but less beneficial to the population at large.

The main problem with natural rights is that the fundament was lain by philosophers living centuries ago who tried to reason about prehistoric life and the earliest nature of man without the slightest objective basis. And of course the last two hundred years of science has advanced far beyond their fantasies, so that we have a far clearer image of our own transition from mere organisms to civilisations. There are no rights in nature. There is nothing in the natural world that will stop a lion from hunting a buffalo or slaughtering the cubs of a rival. And neither is there anything stopping one man from killing or enslaving someone else. The only things that can are other humans, and that is utterly relative, based again on our ability to reason and differentiate. One act of killing is murder, another is accidental and another is war. These aren't natural distinctions, these are simply human notions, designed to fit in a rational framework of society that acknowledges intent, context and consequences within a society of humans. And this applies to anything.

If you argue that human beings have no natural rights, then you argue that human beings have no natural value

No, that's bizarre. Not believing in the primitively archaic notion of 'natural' rights doesn't mean that any notion of human rights must therefore be nonexistant. It's like saying that morals can't exist without a belief in God. Acknowledging the basic fact that we're animals living in a universe that transcends and doesn't care about human morals, emotions and reason doesn't somehow mean that human rights have lost their benefits and purpose. Because that's the important thing about rights: they have a purpose, to help aid us to continue to better the way we live and organise as large, elaborate communities. By assigning the agency behind these rights to some abstract supernatural concept you end up trivializing them, in my opinion. It ignores the tremendous human effort behind the conceptualisation, improvement and establishment of these crucial elements of our society. It denies our incredible achievement, that we are able to live together in peace and success without massive coercion, simply because we have integrated positive norms in our minds. Our human civilisation is possible only through uniquely human notions and achievements.

And, hell, even in societies without concepts of rights human beings have intrinsic value. Family bands of hunter gatherers (i.e., the natural way of life, that we have lived for the vast majority of existence) don't have a concept of law, because there's no use for it. It's a necessary byproduct of larger human societies which have to be bound together by more abstract notions than bloodties and the need to survive. Notions like crime, freedom, rape, etc. aren't relevant in a world with tiny family groups who have little (friendly) contact with eachother who are doing their utmost best just to survive. It sounds familiar to fictional post-apocalyptic scenarios and it is: it's a return to a state of affairs in which our world shrinks to the matter of survival of a small group of intimates, in which abstract notions about 'human' rights are simply irrelevant. And sadly, it isn't a dehumanisation of society. If anything, it's a return to the natural order of things before we consciously strove to engineer complex societies in which these notions are absolutely necessary.

Does that mean that humans didn't regard eachother as beings with a soul and worthy of respect? Of course not. Spiritualism and rituals were firmly integrated and helped give worth to human life in the same way that our rational human rights do now. Even Neanderthals buried their dead with considerate care, indicating that they held a special reverence for their peers as sentient individuals with abstract wants and needs that transcended the natural world. Humans clearly need something abstract to give meaning to our lives and in our current age it consists out of a healthy respect and awe of our own sentience and individuality.

Does that mean that humans have 'natural value'? Well, not really. Because, again, nature doesn't care about things like 'value'. We're the result of millions of years of chaotic and gradual developments which were utterly beyond our power. We're organisms, and like every other we're designed to live, spread our genes and die. There's no value in these either, these are basic biological necessities. We don't have a right to anything in a truly natural world, that only exists in the human world that we've created for ourselves.

[Sphere]

It isn't semantics. . People do not create natural rights. They are part and parcel of human life. You are human, you have natural rights.

I think it is rather self-evident that the only rights people have are the ones they are free to practice. To have a right which you are not allowed to practice it is an oxymoron.

You can talk about the rights you think people should and shouldn't have, but to think that during surgery a doctor is going to find someones "natural" right to free speech between their kidney and the spleen is fairly silly.

[chilon]

I think it is rather self-evident that the only rights people have are the ones they are free to practice. To have a right which you are not allowed to practice it is an oxymoron.

You can talk about the rights you think people should and shouldn't have, but to think that during surgery a doctor is going to find someones "natural" right to free speech between their kidney and the spleen is fairly silly.

Of course that surgery example is silly, but I think xcorps does raise a fair point.

Just think about when we talk about UN/Nato humanitarian actions (like against Bosnia in 1990s) or when people talk about human rights violations in some of the small Muslim oil countries like UAE and Qatar. When people talk about human rights abuses/violations are they not basically appealing to a natural rights view of human rights?

It seems to me if you argue a strict form of 'rights don't exist unless they are encoded into whatever jurisdiction's laws' then there is not much basis for violating a state's sovereignty based on humanitarian or human rights violations yes?

If rights only exist if the authority of a state encoded those rights then we have no legal ground for stopping a genocide correct?

Or maybe you just goto the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights as justification? So if that UN document didn't exist then the UN would have no basis for say Bosnia?

[Facupay]

Of course that surgery example is silly, but I think xcorps does raise a fair point.

Just think about when we talk about UN/Nato humanitarian actions (like against Bosnia in 1990s) or when people talk about human rights violations in some of the small Muslim oil countries like UAE and Qatar. When people talk about human rights abuses/violations are they not basically appealing to a natural rights view of human rights?

It seems to me if you argue a strict form of 'rights don't exist unless they are encoded into whatever jurisdiction's laws' then there is not much basis for violating a state's sovereignty based on humanitarian or human rights violations yes?

If rights only exist if the authority of a state encoded those rights then we have no legal ground for stopping a genocide correct?

Or maybe you just goto the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights as justification? So if that UN document didn't exist then the UN would have no basis for say Bosnia?

All those treaties are to make sure countries can't use the argument that "we don't recognize those rights". If a state doesn't contracts any international obligations then theorically they would have complete freedom, but no state in the world like that exists right now as it would face crippling isolation (North Korea may be the closest thing but it has agreed to some concessions in exchange for foreign aid).

However that's a very technical view of the problem, the thing is that natural rights are created anyways. Every age and society has their particular inalienable rights and there's a huge list to choose from.

Those documents are a modern way of setting them in stone and making them clear for everyone.

[Sphere]

I think international intervention cuts the other way in that it is taking very affirmative steps to insure the oppressed are granted rights as that is the only way to make sure they have them. They don't exist passively.

We can call them "Human Rights" "Natural Rights" etc. but at the end of the day they are just a list of rights we think people should have. They don't exist if they are not enforced.

[chilon]

All those treaties are to make sure countries can't use the argument that "we don't recognize those rights". If a state doesn't contracts any international obligations then theorically they would have complete freedom, but no state in the world like that exists right now as it would face crippling isolation (North Korea may be the closest thing but it has agreed to some concessions in exchange for foreign aid).

North Korea is most certainly not following any universal human rights no matter what concessions they have made publicly.

Other examples would be the small oil nations. A lot of reports have come out recently with Qatar and migrant worker abuses for their shady World Cup. ESPN E:60 did a documentary on this. So the reality is some states that don't recognize these universal human rights are not really isolated at all mostly because we need their oil in the case of the middle east and the West in general doesn't care enough about the countries in the case of some Africa conflicts over the years.

This is of course a tricky issue. While I, and the majority of people, probably think FIFA should just take away the Cup from Qatar since FIFA is corrupt and obviously got paid off by the oil money thats not going to happen. But who is going to do something about it? Whether they are not enforced or not doesn't determine whether a human has those rights. It just determines if those rights are protected. Maybe that's a meaningless distinction to some.

I think international intervention cuts the other way in that it is taking very affirmative steps to insure the oppressed are granted rights as that is the only way to make sure they have them. They don't exist passively.

We can call them "Human Rights" "Natural Rights" etc. but at the end of the day they are just a list of rights we think people should have. They don't exist if they are not enforced.

They would exist de jure if not enforced but not de facto to me.

[Gaidin]

No, no. I'm with you. It's perfectly OK to oppress and murder if it's the will of the state because there is no individual sovereignty or expectations of human decency. It's all about the paper.

Where'd I say it's perfectly ok to oppress and murder? If you need to build such a big strawman as to put words in people's mouths to think you make a point you got some serious problems.

[Facupay]

North Korea is most certainly not following any universal human rights no matter what concessions they have made publicly.

Other examples would be the small oil nations. A lot of reports have come out recently with Qatar and migrant worker abuses for their shady World Cup. ESPN E:60 did a documentary on this. So the reality is some states that don't recognize these universal human rights are not really isolated at all mostly because we need their oil in the case of the middle east and the West in general doesn't care enough about the countries in the case of some Africa conflicts over the years.

This is of course a tricky issue. While I, and the majority of people, probably think FIFA should just take away the Cup from Qatar since FIFA is corrupt and obviously got paid off by the oil money thats not going to happen. But who is going to do something about it? Whether they are not enforced or not doesn't determine whether a human has those rights. It just determines if those rights are protected. Maybe that's a meaningless distinction to some.

What I said may have been a bit vague. One thing is the physical cohercion (Like forcing FIFA to sanction Qatar and the like) the other is the protection of the right, I mean that you have legitimacy to demand it, that they comply or not is one thing but on the theorical plane, they are wrong and you are right.

If you are in a country that outlawed slavery and you are a slave, there is a dissonance between what should be and what it is and a "right" is that you have a reason to demand it changes even if later the authorities ignore you.

All rights are a construction, were they come from is irrelevant. That was my initial point, natural rights also depend on the recognition of society as much as positive rights.

So, without going into the oceanic topic of state sovereignity, most states and modern society believe that genocide is something bad and should be avoied and people who do it are pariahs. Just because the crime was commited, it doesn't mean the right doesn't exist it's just that someone wronged it. If you have a vague lists of atural rights without a document making them clear and a society legitimizing it you can actually lose the right, as the coneption that genocide is bad may be argued.

[Ace_General]

Undecided between the 2nd and the 10th

Most of the other amendments exist in modern liberal societies and even without the constitution, I would be hard pressed to think taht america wouldnt have them, or adopt them due to international pressure.

[opock]

In theory the 2nd amendment because it is the final backdrop defense against the abuse of all others. Fortunately it has never been put to the test. In practice the first because again it is the basis that gives people the freedom to debate, alter, and oppose/support the others as they see fit. And the fact that it is in absolute language means we don't have to deal with the salami slicing restrictions "for the greater good" that many other countries, even first world, have allowed to creep in.

[Dr Zoidberg]

No second amendment means no police, no legitime armed forces in general. The concequence was that the rights expressed by the first amendment would be void.

Every other liberal democracy (or country for that matter) with a police force and military that DOESN'T have a 2nd Amendment disagrees with you.

[DaniCatBurger]

Every other liberal democracy (or country for that matter) with a police force and military that DOESN'T have a 2nd Amendment disagrees with you.

Not every liberal democracy roots to the same degree on the republican principles, which are reflected in the 2nd Amendment. Yet, the members of police and military need to follow the same laws as everyone does in liberal and democratic countries because of the principle of legal equality. The 2nd Amendment reflects in a specific historic perspective and bound to a specific question on the liberal and democratic principle of legal equality and on other principles which are more characteristic for the republican concept. It provides like the Bill of Rights an explicative value for how rights, laws and powers can relate together.

[Dr Zoidberg]

Not every liberal democracy roots to the same degree on the republican principles, which are reflected in the 2nd Amendment. Yet, the members of police and military need to follow the same laws as everyone does in liberal and democratic countries because of the principle of legal equality. The 2nd Amendment reflects in a specific historic perspective and bound to a specific question on the liberal and democratic principle of legal equality and on other principles which are more characteristic for the republican concept. It provides like the Bill of Rights an explicative value for how rights, laws and powers can relate together.

I'm sorry, but I've reread your statement 4 times and I still have no idea what you're actually trying to say here....

[DaniCatBurger]

I'm sorry, but I've reread your statement 4 times and I still have no idea what you're actually trying to say here....

I try to understand what the purposes of the 2nd Amendment in 1791 were and what could correspond the principle elsewhere. It appears to me that it stands in a line with other explanations of the legitimacy of acts that accompanied or followed the war of independance in retrospect (minutemen, colonial militias, resistence against the Crown, the right to keep and bear arms under the common law, legal equality, federalism, etc.).

[Trey]

In many ways the second amendment poses a risk to the first, as seen in ghettos where armed militias (which some people call gangs, the distinction eludes me) have such a hold on the local population that they won't talk to the police, thus exacerbating the situation. Having said that: it's too late to properly regulate (without devolving into a nanny state), gangs and underground militia groups are already armed, the arms race is on and it wouldn't surprise me to find that in a few years the winner of this arms race might not be the police or civil defense forces.

This displays a very limited understanding of social realities in the US. Do you really think the only reason that people of 'the local population' don't talk to the police is because they're afraid of getting shot by gangs?

And I like hyperbole as much as the next, but if 'in a few years' we see MS13 or Crips taking on MRAPs and militarized police departments then the next round is on me.

[DaniCatBurger]

A satyric carricature about the demands of the March revolutions 1848 (wiki)*



Text:
- The general desires of all peoples (over the head)
- Both chambers (of parliaments) being open to the public (bosom)
- Freedom of press (belly)
- Vox populi (hip)
- Dispandement of standing armies (knee)

*after the unsuccessful March revolution in Prussia and other member states of the German Confederation

The last demand can be seen in relation to the 2nd Amendment of the American Constitution.

............................

From the same wiki article: The Demands of the people of Baden 1847 (a Duchy in Southern Germany)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...olkes_1847.jpg

Article 7 of the Demands of the people of Baden formulates a similar request - "arming the people".

Popular sovereignty and arming the people versus the prinicples of the feudal order
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty

..................................

Hague Regulations 1899 - Article 2.

La population d’un territoire non occupé qui, à l’approche de l’ennemi, prend spontanément les armes pour combattre les troupes d’invasion sans avoir eu le temps de s’organiser conformément à l’article premier, sera considérée comme belligérante si elle respecte les lois et coutumes de la guerre.

"The population of a territory which has not been occupied who, on the enemy’s approach, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents, if they respect the laws and customs of war" (translation from the link below).
http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/en...le106_sectionb

Geneva Convention III (1947) uses the term lévee en masse, which stands in a relation to the English Commen Law tradition, the 2nd Amendment of the American Constitution and the principle of popular sovereignity.

..........................

One could say that the 2nd Amendment reaches in its effects beyond its original setting and meaning, where it was related to regulations about the status of individuals, that legally carry weapons, into the modern history of the Human Rights and relates there to the status, the obligations and rights of combatants and the treatment of prisioners of war (Hague 1899 to Geneva III).

.............................................................................

Chronology of some conditioning and following principles relating to the 2nd Amendment:
- the natural right of resistance and self-preservation (18th century, Sir William Gladstone)
- popular suvereignity (18th century, J.-J. Rousseau)
- arming the people, lévee en masse (18th and 19th century)
- landwar regulations and prisoners of war (late 19th to 20th century)
- human rights as legitimacy of a liberal democracy (modern human rights debate)

[DaniCatBurger]

To make my argument clear (which may have been appearing a bit confusing to some):

A. To be for the 2nd Amendment conditions to be for some form of popular suvereignity.
B. To be for some form of popular suvereignity conditions to be for human rights as a legitimating factor of liberal democracy.

I think that makes it difficult to introduce a hierachy into the articles of the Bill of Rights of 1789.

[chilon]

To make my argument clear (which may have been appearing a bit confusing to some):

A. To be for the 2nd Amendment conditions to be for some form of popular suvereignity.
B. To be for some form of popular suvereignity conditions to be for human rights as a legitimating factor of liberal democracy.

I think that makes it difficult to introduce a hierachy into the articles of the Bill of Rights of 1789.

This really doesn't clear up your argument for me. Still not entirely sure what you are trying to say ...