If a man went simply by what he saw, he might be tempted to affirm that the essence of democracy is melodrama.
Irving Babbit
*************************
In the dispute between Andrei Sitov, correspondent for Russia's official news agency ITAR-TASS, and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, the score was Sitov 1, Gibbs 0. In a discussion about the massacre that took place in the Tucson parking lot, Sitov offered his condolences to "all Americans" and the victims. Then Sitov said the slaughter that took place "does not seem all that incomprehensible, at least from the outside. It's the reverse side of freedom. Unless you want restrictions, unless you want a bigger role for the government."
Gibbs strongly protested that assertion.
"No, no, I would disagree vehemently with that. There are -- there is nothing in the values of our country, there's nothing on the many laws on our books that would provide for somebody to impugn and impede on the very freedoms that you began with by exercising the actions that that individual took on that day. That is not American. There are -- I think there's agreement on all sides of the political spectrum: Violence is never, ever acceptable. We had people that died. We had people whose lives will be changed forever because of the deranged actions of a madman. Those are not American. Those are not in keeping with the important bedrock values by which this country was founded and by which its citizens live each and every day of their lives in hopes of something better for those that are here."
Gibbs's rhetoric is very fine and few Americans, if any, would argue with it, but it does not address the issue posed by Sitov. One may say it's splitting hairs or "just a matter of interpretation" but the fact remains there is a big difference between freedoms and rights.
President Bush said that we were fighting in Iraq to protect our freedoms. And now the same is said about our troops in Afghanistan. But what freedoms are they fighting to protect? The freedom to shoot a bunch of innocent people in a parking lot in Arizona?
I am free to take your car and you are free to take my computer. Yes. You can come into my apartment, unhook my computer and take it away and if I see your car parked somewhere and I can get into it, start it, drive it away and no one stops me I am free to take your car. Anything one can do one is free to do. But if everyone did what they wanted to we would be living in a state of barbaric anarchy.
So we enter into n agreement with each other, a contract. I agree not to take your car and you agree not to take my computer. Then we firm up that contract with a law, thus making it illegal to take your car, and if I'm caught with it I've broken the contract, I've broken the law, it's a crime, grand theft auto, and I will go to prison, thus depriving me of my freedoms.
The most important contract we have in this country is the Constitution. Attached to the Constution is a series of 10 amendments, known as the Bill Of Rights. It's actually a bill of restrictions. "Congress shall make no law..." etc.
The second amendment states "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. " That amendment can never be removed from the Constitution, it can only be amended against. But if it loses its position and influence that might put into jeopardy the entire Bill of Rights. We might find ourselves losing the right to speak, publish, worship, assemble, protest and have a fair trial So did Jared Loughner have the freedom to own a gun? Yes. Did he have the right to own a gun? Yes. Did he have the freedom to shoot people with it in the parking lot in Arizona? Yes. Did he have the right to shoot them? No. Why not? Because of a contract with Americans which allows them the right to live, a freedom they already have. To steal a man's car is a crime. To take away a man's life is a crime. For the same reasons. The freedom to do those things are denied by the contracts, and hence the laws against them.
The US Congress is in the business of passing legislation to define and protect our rights. Which they will do if they ever stop insulting each other. They can't protect our freedoms, any more than the troops in Afghanistan can. We own those freedoms. But they can protect our "unalienable rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Dana Bate
Vagabond Journeys
***************************
WINTER QUESTION
(This is not a contest)
What was the most significant event that happened in 2010?
dbdacoba@aol.com
Only 2 responses so far
I await your answer.
DB
******************************
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights. Show all posts
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Rules for Rules
All generalizations are dangerous, even this one.
Alexander Dumas
*******************
There is a difference between right and freedom. The United States is a nation of laws. Rule of just laws correctly administered by those with the authority to do so is how our nation is supposed to be governed. Ever since they sat down in their wigs and stockings in the 18th Century, Congress has been passing laws and so have the individual states. Those laws are designed to deprive us of certain freedoms while at the same time protecting our rights.
I have the freedom, if I have the ability, to come and take your property. But I don't have the right. The law has determined that it's theft and therefore punishable. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes, a 17th Century Englishman, describes a civilized society as one where we enter into an agreement with each other, in that I agree not to steal your property if you agree not to steal mine. In so doing we sacrifice our individual freedoms for the sake of our individual rights.
In a truly virtuous, harmonious society such an agreement would not be necessary. But, alas, we are human beings and the laws we pass and agreements we make are human and fallible. Philosophers have been trying to define what virtue means since the beginning and will probably continue long after any congresses are passing laws.
I am not an absolutist, thank heaven, and I wonder if there ever comes a time when theft is a virtue, when I have the right to take your property and not have it be theft. What if you are holding a loaded pistol to your head? Do I have the right to disarm you of your legally owned weapon?
Thou shalt not kill. When is killing a right? If you are holding the pistol to my brother's head, do I have the right to kill you to prevent you from killing my brother? Do I have the right to kill you because I think you MIGHT kill my brother? A soldier may be killed on his first day in battle before he has ever fired a shot.
The case of Scott Roeder is an interesting one in this regard. Roeder shot and killed Doctor George Tiller because Tiller was an abortion doctor. Roeder claims the legal "right" to kill one man to save the lives of unborn children and yet the state of Kansas, where this happened, gives the Doctor the "right" to perform abortions according to the state laws. It's a clash of the concept of rights.
Today's journal entry is not a forum for a discussion of the abortion issue and I will not enter into one. Any comments attempting to argue about abortion one way or the other will be summarily deleted. I have my own opinions about the subject and they will remain with me. I cite this case merely as an example of where the issue of rights versus freedoms becomes muddy.
One of our weaknesses as humans is the need to come up with simple solutions to life's dilemmas. We want a rule for living, a simple formula that decides the issue in every case, a recipe that will always produce the same results, a certain code of human behavior that insures virtue, a law that covers every act we perform and move we make. I have seen people trying to live by those rules to disastrous results. On the human stage there is no such thing as always.
On the courthouse wall down town it says "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Well, damn it, sometimes it is. I know a city where you will be fined $1,000 for tying your bicycle to a tree, but not to a parking meter, a lamp post or a mail box. Imagine that.
In my personal profile it says "no rituals, no rules, no summations." One of the best directors I ever worked with came into rehearsal the first day with a button that read "There are no rules." Are there rules for art? I don't know of any. Are there rules for living? Maybe, but they seem to change every day.
In the panic of circumstances it is impossible to consult a rule book or consider a code of conduct. One can only hope to make the right decision. Roeder's act was premeditated. Is he guilty of first degree murder or voluntary manslaughter? Whichever way the court decides is liable to become a rule for the future. Unfortunately.
We need laws to protect our rights. But life cannot be generalized. It isn't easy to live. But we are all different, our circumstances are all different and we cannot cut out our lives to fit a pattern.
DB - The Vagabond
************************
Don't forget the special edition of Vagabond Journeys this weekend. OTHER VOICES: Actors talking about acting. The entries I have are very diverse. It's fascinating.
Alexander Dumas
*******************
There is a difference between right and freedom. The United States is a nation of laws. Rule of just laws correctly administered by those with the authority to do so is how our nation is supposed to be governed. Ever since they sat down in their wigs and stockings in the 18th Century, Congress has been passing laws and so have the individual states. Those laws are designed to deprive us of certain freedoms while at the same time protecting our rights.
I have the freedom, if I have the ability, to come and take your property. But I don't have the right. The law has determined that it's theft and therefore punishable. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes, a 17th Century Englishman, describes a civilized society as one where we enter into an agreement with each other, in that I agree not to steal your property if you agree not to steal mine. In so doing we sacrifice our individual freedoms for the sake of our individual rights.
In a truly virtuous, harmonious society such an agreement would not be necessary. But, alas, we are human beings and the laws we pass and agreements we make are human and fallible. Philosophers have been trying to define what virtue means since the beginning and will probably continue long after any congresses are passing laws.
I am not an absolutist, thank heaven, and I wonder if there ever comes a time when theft is a virtue, when I have the right to take your property and not have it be theft. What if you are holding a loaded pistol to your head? Do I have the right to disarm you of your legally owned weapon?
Thou shalt not kill. When is killing a right? If you are holding the pistol to my brother's head, do I have the right to kill you to prevent you from killing my brother? Do I have the right to kill you because I think you MIGHT kill my brother? A soldier may be killed on his first day in battle before he has ever fired a shot.
The case of Scott Roeder is an interesting one in this regard. Roeder shot and killed Doctor George Tiller because Tiller was an abortion doctor. Roeder claims the legal "right" to kill one man to save the lives of unborn children and yet the state of Kansas, where this happened, gives the Doctor the "right" to perform abortions according to the state laws. It's a clash of the concept of rights.
Today's journal entry is not a forum for a discussion of the abortion issue and I will not enter into one. Any comments attempting to argue about abortion one way or the other will be summarily deleted. I have my own opinions about the subject and they will remain with me. I cite this case merely as an example of where the issue of rights versus freedoms becomes muddy.
One of our weaknesses as humans is the need to come up with simple solutions to life's dilemmas. We want a rule for living, a simple formula that decides the issue in every case, a recipe that will always produce the same results, a certain code of human behavior that insures virtue, a law that covers every act we perform and move we make. I have seen people trying to live by those rules to disastrous results. On the human stage there is no such thing as always.
On the courthouse wall down town it says "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Well, damn it, sometimes it is. I know a city where you will be fined $1,000 for tying your bicycle to a tree, but not to a parking meter, a lamp post or a mail box. Imagine that.
In my personal profile it says "no rituals, no rules, no summations." One of the best directors I ever worked with came into rehearsal the first day with a button that read "There are no rules." Are there rules for art? I don't know of any. Are there rules for living? Maybe, but they seem to change every day.
In the panic of circumstances it is impossible to consult a rule book or consider a code of conduct. One can only hope to make the right decision. Roeder's act was premeditated. Is he guilty of first degree murder or voluntary manslaughter? Whichever way the court decides is liable to become a rule for the future. Unfortunately.
We need laws to protect our rights. But life cannot be generalized. It isn't easy to live. But we are all different, our circumstances are all different and we cannot cut out our lives to fit a pattern.
DB - The Vagabond
************************
Don't forget the special edition of Vagabond Journeys this weekend. OTHER VOICES: Actors talking about acting. The entries I have are very diverse. It's fascinating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)