ForumGarden

The current batch of threads about American gun law and the Right to bear arms and the main argument for that right being the individual's right to self determination, has had me thinking deeply about 'Rights' in general.

In a world with increasing population with everyone living in close proximity, simple social rules could be seen by many as infringements of their rights/freedom, but the rules of living cheek by jowl are simple, not to be too antisocial, to give and take.

If too many people break the 'rules' the authorities make laws covering the antisocial practices. In the UK we have Laws covering noisy neighbours and bonfires.

Are we now at the stage when our own personal freedoms should correctly be limited for the common good of our neighbours, fellow countrymen, fellow human beings ?

I'm of the opinion that It's not so much the political correctness that stops us having freedom to be arsseholes to our neighbours but the political correctness that allows them to protest under their ooooman rights If we don't let them.

Bruv;1414441 wrote: The current batch of threads about American gun law and the Right to bear arms and the main argument for that right being the individual's right to self determination, has had me thinking deeply about 'Rights' in general.

In a world with increasing population with everyone living in close proximity, simple social rules could be seen by many as infringements of their rights/freedom, but the rules of living cheek by jowl are simple, not to be too antisocial, to give and take.

If too many people break the 'rules' the authorities make laws covering the antisocial practices. In the UK we have Laws covering noisy neighbours and bonfires.

Are we now at the stage when our own personal freedoms should correctly be limited for the common good of our neighbours, fellow countrymen, fellow human beings ?


Good points Bruv---------Times they are a changing!!

My personal freedoms are already too limited for my liking. There are a number of people I'd like to dispose of from many areas including politics and showbiz.

But I may not just go and shoot them. Shocking, I say. Shocking.

Our liberties are limited and really always have been. I do think we are entering a time where we will have big changes in how we all have to live, climate change being the big driver.

Bruv;1414441 wrote:

If too many people break the 'rules' the authorities make laws covering the antisocial practices.


Bruv;1414441 wrote: Are we now at the stage when our own personal freedoms should correctly be limited for the common good of our neighbours, fellow countrymen, fellow human beings ?


Respect and common courtesy in my book goes a long way.

It isn't about limiting freedom.

tude dog;1414491 wrote: Respect and common courtesy in my book goes a long way.

It isn't about limiting freedom.


When mutual respect breaks down for whatever reason, such as a neighbour liking loud music late at at night then rules of respect and common courtesy fall back to legislation and the Sound Police have to adjudicate.

They limit your personal freedom to play loud music whenever you like.

Roads have limitations to stop your personal freedom to go as fast as you like, for the good of all other road users.

We accept these restrictions as common sense, the problem is common sense is not shared by all people, that is why Laws are made.

Bruv;1414441 wrote: The current batch of threads about American gun law and the Right to bear arms and the main argument for that right being the individual's right to self determination, has had me thinking deeply about 'Rights' in general.

In a world with increasing population with everyone living in close proximity, simple social rules could be seen by many as infringements of their rights/freedom, but the rules of living cheek by jowl are simple, not to be too antisocial, to give and take.

If too many people break the 'rules' the authorities make laws covering the antisocial practices. In the UK we have Laws covering noisy neighbours and bonfires.

Are we now at the stage when our own personal freedoms should correctly be limited for the common good of our neighbours, fellow countrymen, fellow human beings ?
We should not require an entire nation to behave as if everyone were living cheek to jowl when it really only happens in a few pockets. The residents of crowded cities should be allowed to put whatever restrictions they like within the city borders. I simply would choose not to live there.

Accountable;1414520 wrote: We should not require an entire nation to behave as if everyone were living cheek to jowl when it really only happens in a few pockets. The residents of crowded cities should be allowed to put whatever restrictions they like within the city borders. I simply would choose not to live there.


Exactly.

Why should the rancher in Wyoming have to live by the same rules as the Stock Broker in NYC?

Accountable;1414520 wrote: We should not require an entire nation to behave as if everyone were living cheek to jowl when it really only happens in a few pockets. The residents of crowded cities should be allowed to put whatever restrictions they like within the city borders. I simply would choose not to live there.


The question as posed was not specifically about any one nation, but about how people/nations relate to each other too.

You are lucky enough to live where you do, but perhaps a water source flows from your country/farm to another or vice versa, or your pollution, financial dominance, or anything might affect adversely another nation/town/farm.

The world is getting smaller, it cannot be that might is right all the time.

Bruv;1414526 wrote: The question as posed was not specifically about any one nation, but about how people/nations relate to each other too.

You are lucky enough to live where you do, but perhaps a water source flows from your country/farm to another or vice versa, or your pollution, financial dominance, or anything might affect adversely another nation/town/farm.

The world is getting smaller, it cannot be that might is right all the time.


Might is right as a policy is never right - the use of force must always be justified by moral considerations.

Bruv;1414526 wrote: The question as posed was not specifically about any one nation, but about how people/nations relate to each other too.

You are lucky enough to live where you do, but perhaps a water source flows from your country/farm to another or vice versa, or your pollution, financial dominance, or anything might affect adversely another nation/town/farm.

The world is getting smaller, it cannot be that might is right all the time.


True, and we have fought those battles in the courts many times. There are laws to provide for such things, often.

A guy cannot build a dam on a stream that will prevent the downstream farms from receiving irrigation. Nor can he do anything to make the water unusable to his downstream neighbors.

Sometimes that doesn't work out so well. Big mining companies have ruined huge tracts of land for their neighbors. It seems that might (or Money) DOES make right, too often.

But that is certainly not limited to the US, now, is it?

LarsMac;1414530 wrote:

But that is certainly not limited to the US, now, is it?


Who mentioned the US ?

Bruv;1414526 wrote: The question as posed was not specifically about any one nation, but about how people/nations relate to each other too.

You are lucky enough to live where you do, but perhaps a water source flows from your country/farm to another or vice versa, or your pollution, financial dominance, or anything might affect adversely another nation/town/farm.

The world is getting smaller, it cannot be that might is right all the time.
I don't see how that contradicts what I wrote. My implication was that any given area has unique situations that should be handled locally, rather than making a blanket set of cheek-to-jowl rules when not everyone lives cheek to jowl. There are some rules that can be uniform, such as water that enters your land clean must be able to exit your land and still be clean. Most rules would be handled better locally.

I don't understand how the "might makes right" phrase fits our interaction at all.

Bruv;1414532 wrote: Who mentioned the US ?


Sorry, I guess that would be me.

But then I tend to get a tad defensive, now and again.

And given the opening line, I kinda made some assumptions.

The rights of people, I think, is probably the most delicate topic fathomable.

As I see it "rights" have been molded to fit the woes of society which makes for a particularly unstable definition of "rights", I think.

In the context of "Freedom versus responsibility" we'll never see an understanding of inherent human rights, rather "rights" will forever be viewed as a social tool to keep the people happy.

People have rights because of their responsibilities as human beings. Human beings are different from other animals because we inherently seek to be rational in our choices throughout life. We inherently seek to fill our lives with truth and we feel the pull of the rational appraisals of others throughout our inherent desire to live our lives as how we view a human being ought to live and act. With this obligation, we as human beings possess our inherent rights.

What's needed is for all of us to have the freedom to live in this way. When we're raised off of principles that have been molded to fit the woes of society, after they've affected our lives, we fail to see the importance of ensuring the inherent rights of us all to live in a free and educated society.

Without being open to criticism and the reconstruction of our society we fail to ensure the freedom of people to fulfill their responsibilities as human beings and we ultimately strip them of their inherent rights.

The pupil that refuses to wear a radio frequency identification or rfid tag and the various gun control threads combined with tude dogs thread here and his plaintive cry " lack of the ability of the average citizen to petition the government."

Got me thinking again........................sorry.

Is there not a link between your freedom and the insistance on wearing a radio tag that gives your exact position at all times ?

The ordinary citizen is able to make his voice heard concerning his right to bear arms, meanwhile a young ladies objects to her toilet visits being tagged, and is seen to be bucking the system or worse a wierdo.

The general consensus seems to be that we are tagged and logged whatever we do, and that the lady is a religious crank trouble maker.

There are people that refuse to have store loyalty or bank cards, or to own cell phones.The privacy of sites like Face book and how Google watches you cause concern to many.

It just appears to me that there are many contradictions in the so called freedoms and rights we should have, some we overlook if it suits us, while we demand sacrifices from others for our other rights.

Does anyone follow what I am on about ?

Bruv;1416148 wrote: The pupil that refuses to wear a radio frequency identification or rfid tag and the various gun control threads combined with tude dogs thread here and his plaintive cry " lack of the ability of the average citizen to petition the government."

Got me thinking again........................sorry.

Is there not a link between your freedom and the insistance on wearing a radio tag that gives your exact position at all times ?

The ordinary citizen is able to make his voice heard concerning his right to bear arms, meanwhile a young ladies objects to her toilet visits being tagged, and is seen to be bucking the system or worse a wierdo.

The general consensus seems to be that we are tagged and logged whatever we do, and that the lady is a religious crank trouble maker.

There are people that refuse to have store loyalty or bank cards, or to own cell phones.The privacy of sites like Face book and how Google watches you cause concern to many.

It just appears to me that there are many contradictions in the so called freedoms and rights we should have, some we overlook if it suits us, while we demand sacrifices from others for our other rights.

Does anyone follow what I am on about ?


Cheeky.

AnneBoleyn;1416153 wrote: Cheeky.


Cheeky but accurate!

Bruv;1416148 wrote: The pupil that refuses to wear a radio frequency identification or rfid tag and the various gun control threads combined with tude dogs thread here and his plaintive cry " lack of the ability of the average citizen to petition the government."

Got me thinking again........................sorry.

Is there not a link between your freedom and the insistance on wearing a radio tag that gives your exact position at all times ?

The ordinary citizen is able to make his voice heard concerning his right to bear arms, meanwhile a young ladies objects to her toilet visits being tagged, and is seen to be bucking the system or worse a wierdo.

The general consensus seems to be that we are tagged and logged whatever we do, and that the lady is a religious crank trouble maker.

There are people that refuse to have store loyalty or bank cards, or to own cell phones.The privacy of sites like Face book and how Google watches you cause concern to many.

It just appears to me that there are many contradictions in the so called freedoms and rights we should have, some we overlook if it suits us, while we demand sacrifices from others for our other rights.

Does anyone follow what I am on about ?


I think it's just a matter of having to pick your battles. You can't win them all so people tend focus on the things that matter the most to them as individuals and in turn sometimes take a cavalier attitude towards other people's causes.

Bruv;1416148 wrote: The pupil that refuses to wear a radio frequency identification or rfid tag and the various gun control threads combined with tude dogs thread here and his plaintive cry " lack of the ability of the average citizen to petition the government."

Got me thinking again........................sorry.

Is there not a link between your freedom and the insistance on wearing a radio tag that gives your exact position at all times ?

The ordinary citizen is able to make his voice heard concerning his right to bear arms, meanwhile a young ladies objects to her toilet visits being tagged, and is seen to be bucking the system or worse a wierdo.

The general consensus seems to be that we are tagged and logged whatever we do, and that the lady is a religious crank trouble maker.

There are people that refuse to have store loyalty or bank cards, or to own cell phones.The privacy of sites like Face book and how Google watches you cause concern to many.

It just appears to me that there are many contradictions in the so called freedoms and rights we should have, some we overlook if it suits us, while we demand sacrifices from others for our other rights.

Does anyone follow what I am on about ?
Yes I do. Those that call her a crackpot, though, are on both sides of the gun debate. The more hypocritical are the pro-gun/pro-ID people in this instance.

All the tracking you mention otherwise - bank cards, cell phones, FB, etc - are all contracted with private entities. There's no law requiring that we accept it.

tabby;1416171 wrote: I think it's just a matter of having to pick your battles. You can't win them all so people tend focus on the things that matter the most to them as individuals and in turn sometimes take a cavalier attitude towards other people's causes.


Personally it would be the invasion of privacy that would matter most to me - having so many organizations watching my every action is definitely not something I'm happy with.

Accountable;1416192 wrote: Yes I do. Those that call her a crackpot, though, are on both sides of the gun debate. The more hypocritical are the pro-gun/pro-ID people in this instance.

All the tracking you mention otherwise - bank cards, cell phones, FB, etc - are all contracted with private entities. There's no law requiring that we accept it.


These tracking devices are becoming common in the UK as a way of tracking mobile employees, showing they are at any time of the day and night in company vehicles.

That can't be right, can it ?

Why "Cheeky" ?

Bruv;1416263 wrote: These tracking devices are becoming common in the UK as a way of tracking mobile employees, showing they are at any time of the day and night in company vehicles.

That can't be right, can it ?
It's the company's vehicle, right? If I own a vehicle I want to keep track of it. Long distance trucks have had trackers, speed monitors, and such for years. If someone doesn't want to be answerable to the company he should buy his own car.

I have joined up some thoughts again.....................sorry.

To solve America's problems......and to ensure the 2nd Amendment is upheld.

Why don't you issue every citizen a AK47 and a hand gun at birth, then install a Tracker in each person, then if they misbehave you can sort them out with a Drone.

Would save on all that prison space too.....sorted.

Accountable;1416279 wrote: It's the company's vehicle, right? If I own a vehicle I want to keep track of it. Long distance trucks have had trackers, speed monitors, and such for years. If someone doesn't want to be answerable to the company he should buy his own car.


That's for sure.

Anytime you use a company vehicle, tool, computer, etc,