Proposed UK tobacco ban

[Sig]

I agree with the sentiment of this post.

You are forgetting the 9th Amendment... which is really the best Amendment.

But no, there is no right to have the government feed and clothe you.

Oh, im not forgetting about the 9th at all. Lots of people misinterpret the 9th. It just says you have other rights, that can be given, or removed by 9 people in robes on a bench.
The rights specifically added by amendment to the constitution are fully protected. The 9 justices CANNOT rule against them. However one side often does.
As all as the 9th says is that the amendments are not exhaustive, and rulings may be arbitrarily, or even capriciously given, or taken (as seen with Roe vs Wade), on a whim.
But the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights can only be taken by a convention of the states(Article 5), which is highly unlikely.
The SCOTUS could never just overturn the freedom of speech like they did Roe vs Wade and others...depending on whos in power. The 9th just gave the courts freedom to argue cases on merit, and decide among themselves...again, 9 unelected justices...for things not mentioned in the BOR.
There were many "rights" argued for and against by the founders that never made it to the BOR. Most didn't make it because they saw it to absurd that anyone would believe different.

 

[Sig]

Or when you reshape history as you see fit

History is a funny thing.
Most of what we "know" is false.
Read the history of WW2 in books approved by the American high school curriculum.
Then read the history of WW2 in Japanese high school books.
Its like two completely different wars.
Or the history of Stonwall Jackson from the Confederate side, then from the Union side.
Again, its like two completely different people they are talking about.
I remember learning that Native Americans didn't even have a word for war. I later find out that the Souix alone had dozens of words for "war", and were constantly AT war.
History is just that....His Story.
It all depends on which "His" is writing it.

 

[brian64]

@Sig : I'm pretty sure most of your comments constitute thought crimes in the UK.

 

[Sig]

I agree with the way you have broken down different rights, and neatly categorised them. However, I find the idea that the inalienable rights you describe are somehow static, and frozen in time, problematic. I certainly wouldn't demur from the idea that these principles apply to all people. The universalism of those ideas are certainly very attractive. The problem, as I see it, is that when these words were written by your founding fathers, or indeed when such ideas were articulated by Locke, Paine and other liberal thinkers, the world was an entirely different place. Colonial America at that time was pretty monocultural (leaving aside the thorny issue of slavery), as was the country in which these ideas were originally articulated. The western world now, is far more pluralistic, the interpretation of these ideas is naturally going to be contested. Is the problem as much the resistance to the democratic reinterpretation of these ideas, as opposed to confusion over the proper categorisation of rights?

Natural, or inalienable rights were basically taken right from English common law, which had been the thing for centuries before the US was founded.
The rights in the US constitution were chosen because it was, and still is, unimaginable that anyone would disagree. The right to say what you want without governmental infringement. The right to worship your god. The right to protect your life from violent attackers. The right to be safe from intrusion in your own home. Who on earth would disagree with these today? This is why they didn't add controversial things in the BOR. Topics that many believe are very controversial today, are not. These topics just have very vocal proponents. When it comes to a vote, they aren't very controversial.
And they left the door open to change, or add protected rights...Article 5 convention.
If 2/3 of the states decide to have a convention, things can be added or removed from the BOR. The problem is, the only side that wants to change the BOR, does not have the numbers. 35 states will never agree to add abortion to the BOR....at least not with the current makeup of states. Article 5 is the one place Wyoming has the same power as California.

 

[AirOne]

History is a funny thing.
Most of what we "know" is false.
Read the history of WW2 in books approved by the American high school curriculum.
Then read the history of WW2 in Japanese high school books.
Its like two completely different wars.
Or the history of Stonwall Jackson from the Confederate side, then from the Union side.
Again, its like two completely different people they are talking about.
I remember learning that Native Americans didn't even have a word for war. I later find out that the Souix alone had dozens of words for "war", and were constantly AT war.
History is just that....His Story.
It all depends on which "His" is writing it.

The historical facts remain, but everything else is shaped and interpreted to fit national or political agendas. And it's a moving beast, depending on who's in power.

 

[Sig]

@Sig : I'm pretty sure most of your comments constitute thought crimes in the UK.

'MERICA

(this is not meant to insult or offend any other nation. I love my foreign friends.)

 

[brian64]

'MERICA

(this is not meant to insult or offend any other nation. I love my foreign friends.)

There are plenty of people in this country that would like to make them thought crimes as well.

 

[warren]

Written history is indeed only the written perspectives of the authors. But, certain writers to do the required research, many times arriving at a conclusion which is the antitheses of their preconceived ideas, One should read many, varied histories and then....evaluate what they read, discarding their own preconceptions and arriving at conclusions which are supported by their own research. That will become their "truth." Such "truths" will sometimes conflict with majority beliefs. This is the nature of people. Sadly many folks simply buy into what they were taught, fully and unquestioningly.

The "right" to free speech is applicable only to speech directed at government. There are, in the US many codified restrictions on speech, yelling "fire" falsely, inciting riots, false defaming statements, and so forth.

 

[brian64]

Oh, im not forgetting about the 9th at all.

Let's not forget the 10th either...the other most important of the BOR.

And funny enough, the 9th and 10th are not only the most important, they're also the most ignored and violated.

We'd have to revoke the 17th amendment for starters to help rectify that IMO.

 

[Auxsender]

There are limits to all rights, and calling out extremes does not make your case. Do you hold smoking a pipe to be on the same level as cocaine use? Yes, we would have more liberty if people were able to acquire whatever they damn well please, but at the cost of someone else's liberty. My rights end where someone else's begin, that sort of thing. Making more things available to buy is indeed an indication of more liberty, but it by no means justifies flooding society with items that disrupt the social order, kill, maim or otherwise infringe on other's rights. Nobody is talking in absolutes here.

Fair.

 

[WerewolfOfLondon]

Natural, or inalienable rights were basically taken right from English common law, which had been the thing for centuries before the US was founded.
The rights in the US constitution were chosen because it was, and still is, unimaginable that anyone would disagree. The right to say what you want without governmental infringement. The right to worship your god. The right to protect your life from violent attackers. The right to be safe from intrusion in your own home. Who on earth would disagree with these today? This is why they didn't add controversial things in the BOR. Topics that many believe are very controversial today, are not. These topics just have very vocal proponents. When it comes to a vote, they aren't very controversial.
And they left the door open to change, or add protected rights...Article 5 convention.
If 2/3 of the states decide to have a convention, things can be added or removed from the BOR. The problem is, the only side that wants to change the BOR, does not have the numbers. 35 states will never agree to add abortion to the BOR....at least not with the current makeup of states. Article 5 is the one place Wyoming has the same power as California.

Of course no one would disagree with those things. But you've taken the easy things as examples. That's not grasping the nettle. You've mentioned the BOR (which I'm assuming is the Bill of Rights), and you've argued that nothing in there is controversial. I'm not going to say too much about it, it's what we call in this country 'private grief' (i.e none of my business). But I can think of one of the first ten amendments that seems very controversial. And by that I don't mean controversial to people on the outside looking in, but controversial within America itself.

But going back to the original point about 'natural rights' as opposed to the constitutional ones you mentioned. Like with constitutional rights, you seem to think these things are just good common sense. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Who could disagree right? No one, obviously. But it's when you ask people what they mean by these things, or how they interpret them, that the trouble starts. Take the very first one, 'life'. One person, you perhaps, may say that life simple means the right to be left alone. Another person may say it should mean the right to be given the means to live a fulfilled life. Liberty the same thing, one view of liberty being the negative one (just left alone), the other view of liberty being the positive one (being facilitated so one can pursue happiness). The point is, neither of these interpretations are just common sense. Common sense leaves the conversation as soon as we ask what these concepts mean. In a country as pluralistic as modern America, or indeed modern Europe, there is never likely to be universally shared common sense understandings of such matters, as there no doubt would have been in the early modern period when these ideas first surfaced.

 

[WerewolfOfLondon]

@Sig : I'm pretty sure most of your comments constitute thought crimes in the UK.

You've been listening to too much Joe Rogan.

 

[sablebrush52]

History is a funny thing.
Most of what we "know" is false.
Read the history of WW2 in books approved by the American high school curriculum.
Then read the history of WW2 in Japanese high school books.
Its like two completely different wars.
Or the history of Stonwall Jackson from the Confederate side, then from the Union side.
Again, its like two completely different people they are talking about.
I remember learning that Native Americans didn't even have a word for war. I later find out that the Souix alone had dozens of words for "war", and were constantly AT war.
History is just that....His Story.
It all depends on which "His" is writing it.

There is one principle that rises above all the different viewpoints, one principle that can be seen at the foundation of all political and social positions, one principle that explains all human conflict, including one's right to stink up the air at the expense of their immediate fellows.

What is that principle ? Something so simple that many people immediately grok it on a personal level, while others need to have complexity and so can't comprehend the distillation.

It's very simple.

People are loath to give up an unearned advantage.

Simple as that. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[jpberg]

Of course no one would disagree with those things. But you've taken the easy things as examples. That's not grasping the nettle. You've mentioned the BOR (which I'm assuming is the Bill of Rights), and you've argued that nothing in there is controversial. I'm not going to say too much about it, it's what we call in this country 'private grief' (i.e none of my business). But I can think of one of the first ten amendments that seems very controversial. And by that I don't mean controversial to people on the outside looking in, but controversial within America itself.

But going back to the original point about 'natural rights' as opposed to the constitutional ones you mentioned. Like with constitutional rights, you seem to think these things are just good common sense. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Who could disagree right? No one, obviously. But it's when you ask people what they mean by these things, or how they interpret them, that the trouble starts. Take the very first one, 'life'. One person, you perhaps, may say that life simple means the right to be left alone. Another person may say it should mean the right to be given the means to live a fulfilled life. Liberty the same thing, one view of liberty being the negative one (just left alone), the other view of liberty being the positive one (being facilitated so one can pursue happiness). The point is, neither of these interpretations are just common sense. Common sense leaves the conversation as soon as we ask what these concepts mean. In a country as pluralistic as modern America, or indeed modern Europe, there is never likely to be universally shared common sense understandings of such matters, as there no doubt would have been in the early modern period when these ideas first surfaced.

I just ran through them again, in case I was forgetting anything.
I think your perspective is skewing you, they are definitely common sense all the way through, provided you believe in the freedom that the founding fathers believed in.
What a beautiful thought - “Here’s what the government can’t do”.

 

[brian64]

You've been listening to too much Joe Rogan.

Sorry, I seldom see any of Rogan, but I'm glad to hear he covered the issue. I have to assume you get your info from "mainstream" corporate news.

There have literally been countless stories in recent years documenting on video as it happened, these utterly absurd abuses in the UK. If you don't see it that way, that's your prerogative, but I choose to remain reality-based.

 

[WerewolfOfLondon]

Sorry, I seldom see any of Rogan, but I'm glad to hear he covered the issue. I have to assume you get your info from "mainstream" corporate news.

There have literally been countless stories in recent years documenting on video as it happened, these utterly absurd abuses in the UK. If you don't see it that way, that's your prerogative, but I choose to remain reality-based.

You do realise I live in the UK? But you know more about the reality of these 'abuses' because you have seen them on video. If nothing else, this thread has provided me with some serious comedy.

 

[brian64]

You do realise I live in the UK? But you know more about the reality of these 'abuses' because you have seen them on video.

You do realize there are plenty of people who live in the UK who have expressed essentially the same view of the issue as me?

If nothing else, this thread has provided me with some serious comedy.

I'm glad we found something we both agree on.

 

[WerewolfOfLondon]

You do realize there are plenty of people who live in the UK who have expressed essentially the same view of the issue as me?

Maybe. But the difference is, I'll listen to them, as their opinions aren't just based on YouTube videos.

 

[Sig]

Of course no one would disagree with those things. But you've taken the easy things as examples. That's not grasping the nettle. You've mentioned the BOR (which I'm assuming is the Bill of Rights), and you've argued that nothing in there is controversial. I'm not going to say too much about it, it's what we call in this country 'private grief' (i.e none of my business). But I can think of one of the first ten amendments that seems very controversial. And by that I don't mean controversial to people on the outside looking in, but controversial within America itself.

But going back to the original point about 'natural rights' as opposed to the constitutional ones you mentioned. Like with constitutional rights, you seem to think these things are just good common sense. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Who could disagree right? No one, obviously. But it's when you ask people what they mean by these things, or how they interpret them, that the trouble starts. Take the very first one, 'life'. One person, you perhaps, may say that life simple means the right to be left alone. Another person may say it should mean the right to be given the means to live a fulfilled life. Liberty the same thing, one view of liberty being the negative one (just left alone), the other view of liberty being the positive one (being facilitated so one can pursue happiness). The point is, neither of these interpretations are just common sense. Common sense leaves the conversation as soon as we ask what these concepts mean. In a country as pluralistic as modern America, or indeed modern Europe, there is never likely to be universally shared common sense understandings of such matters, as there no doubt would have been in the early modern period when these ideas first surfaced.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are NOT constitutional rights, that sentence is from the Declaration of Independence. They are not enumerated rights, they are individual, human rights afforded every living human. However you want to live, whatever you consider liberty, and whatever makes you happy, have at it. As long as it doesn't harm me, or violate my human, civil, constitutional, or unalienable rights.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are NOT protected rights, they were put in the Declaration to guide newly free Americans on the premise of the new country.
I challenge you to find ONE CONSTITUTIONALLY protected right that is controversial to anyone. Ive been into this for decades. I've never seen ONE American who finds them controversial.
Im assuming the one right you believe is controversial is the 2nd amendment. This goes back to my "what many believe to be controversial, isnt" thing.
Take guns out of it. The founders purposely said "ARMS", not guns. According to the term arms at the founding, it means "anything you can use offensively, OR defensively".
From sticks and stones, to guns to pepper spray. Ive talked to a LOT of rabidly anti gun people. Absolutely ZERO believe you shouldn't be allowed to use pepper spray, a stick, or even a knife when someone is trying to kill, rape, or kidnap you. And 95% of them agree that "sensible" firearms....revolvers, shotguns, and bolt action rifles are absolutely fine. Shannon Watts, the leader of Mom's Demand Action, one of the largest gun control groups believes you SHOULD have a firearm in your home for self defense. Gabby Giffords husband Mark Kelley is an avid gun nut. Gabby runs the Giffords Center which is a top gun control group. She was the Arizona senator who was shot at the podium years ago. Her and her husband are avid sport shooters. Its not guns they hate, its CERTAIN guns that they hate.
Bloomberg has a NYS pistol permit for gods sake!! And he owns the BIGGEST anti gun, gun control groups in the world.

 

[Sig]

I just ran through them again, in case I was forgetting anything.
I think your perspective is skewing you, they are definitely common sense all the way through, provided you believe in the freedom that the founding fathers believed in.
What a beautiful thought - “Here’s what the government can’t do”.

He's talking about things mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, not constitutional rights. He still understands them better than most Americans probably.
Believing any of the BOR is controversial is like believing the 10 commandments are controversial....in my opinion.
Im not religious, but those commandments are pretty straight forward. I wouldn't think anyone disagrees with the sentiment....but of course SOMEONE will.
Don't kill, dont sleep with your neighbors wife.....pretty straightforward stuff.
JUST like the BOR.