The Cellar - View Single Post

01-18-2002, 09:05 AM

My point is that there are a lot of things we do that are not specifically detailed in the Constitution. This does not make them any less of a right. Remember - "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." Liberty, in case you've forgotten, is "the condition of being free from restriction or control" - or at least that's the definition we want for this example, and it's my contention that this definition is what was intended by the "founding fathers". So while they laid out a few essential freedoms that could not be encroached upon, they also made it clear that people should have the right to do and act as they please so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.

A good example of infringing upon the rights of others would be if I got tired of your stupid rhetoric and beat you to death. This would be infringing on your right to life. Remember - "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". A good example of doing something that infringes on no rights is defecating. Hence the prior mention. However, this is not Constitutionally protected. Would you vehemently dispute the right to defecate? Or would you, now that you are backed into a corner of needing to "shoot down" every "non right" that we exercise so that you can defend your original position, talk about how it wasn't actually "entrenched in the constitution" and therefore isn't a right? If John Ashcroft placed a ban on defecation, would you follow it? Or would you quietly (or not so quietly) dissent, using your bathroom and your body as you pleased?

Now. Here's where it gets tricky, so pay close attention.

Sometimes, when people smoke, they don't hurt anyone else. A good example of this would be when my buddy sycamore was driving back to Philadelphia last Friday night. I guarantee you that he smoked some cigarettes. Guess what? No one was hurt, except himself. So, he's infringing on no one elses' rights.

But, he did hurt himself. Not a whole lot in just that one night, but definitely some. However, is this really any different than slapping yourself on the hand? Or maybe pinching the skin on your arm? The damage may be deeper, but the idea is the same - hurting oneself without hurting anyone else. We could also call this using ones' body as they pleased. Kinda like going to the bathroom. No one's rights are infringed by either act. So, in that fundamental aspect, they are similar.

I know it might have been hard to make this connection, so I have spared you the pain of thinking about it. I hope this helps.

So, now we get to your other point: "so as to be free from abridgement by the will of the people as expressed by the elected representative legislators, in the interests of all the people, including the children of the nation". My question to you is: What is in the interest of all the people?

If it's not smoking, then is it removing the right to smoke? If that's the case, then what other "undefined" personal freedoms can be taken away? The right to masturbate? Would you stand for that? The right to have sex without the intention of impregnation? Would you stand for a law, then, that criminalized coitus unless it was for procreative purposes? Where is the line drawn? Who decides?

When you start removing personal freedoms, even those that are undefined, you open the door to losing them all. So while it may not be specifically defined in the Constitution, and while I may not smoke, smoking is a right that I will forever vote to uphold, because no one should be able to tell you what is right for you.

01-18-2002, 09:05 AM	#85
dave Guest Posts: n/a	My point is that there are a lot of things we do that are not specifically detailed in the Constitution. This does not make them any less of a right. Remember - "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." Liberty, in case you've forgotten, is "the condition of being free from restriction or control" - or at least that's the definition we want for this example, and it's my contention that this definition is what was intended by the "founding fathers". So while they laid out a few essential freedoms that could not be encroached upon, they also made it clear that people should have the right to do and act as they please <b>so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others</b>. A good example of infringing upon the rights of others would be if I got tired of your stupid rhetoric and beat you to death. This would be infringing on your right to life. Remember - "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". A good example of doing something that infringes on no rights is <b>defecating</b>. Hence the prior mention. However, this is not Constitutionally protected. Would you vehemently dispute the right to defecate? Or would you, now that you are backed into a corner of needing to "shoot down" every "non right" that we exercise so that you can defend your original position, talk about how it wasn't actually "entrenched in the constitution" and therefore isn't a right? If John Ashcroft placed a ban on defecation, would you follow it? Or would you quietly (or not so quietly) dissent, using <b>your</b> bathroom and <b>your</b> body as you pleased? Now. Here's where it gets tricky, so pay close attention. Sometimes, when people smoke, they don't hurt anyone else. A good example of this would be when my buddy <b>sycamore</b> was driving back to Philadelphia last Friday night. I guarantee you that he smoked some cigarettes. Guess what? No one was hurt, except himself. So, he's infringing on no one elses' rights. But, he did hurt himself. Not a whole lot in just that one night, but definitely some. However, is this really any different than slapping yourself on the hand? Or maybe pinching the skin on your arm? The damage may be deeper, but the idea is the same - hurting oneself without hurting anyone else. We could also call this <b>using ones' body as they pleased</b>. Kinda like going to the bathroom. No one's rights are infringed by either act. So, in that <b>fundamental aspect</b>, they are similar. I know it might have been hard to make this connection, so I have spared you the pain of <i>thinking</i> about it. I hope this helps. So, now we get to your other point: "so as to be free from abridgement by the will of the people as expressed by the elected representative legislators, in the interests of all the people, including the children of the nation". My question to you is: What is in the interest of all the people? If it's not smoking, then is it removing the right to smoke? If that's the case, then what other "undefined" personal freedoms can be taken away? The right to masturbate? Would you stand for that? The right to have sex without the intention of impregnation? Would you stand for a law, then, that criminalized coitus <b>unless</b> it was for procreative purposes? Where is the line drawn? Who decides? When you start removing personal freedoms, even those that are undefined, you open the door to losing them all. So while it may not be specifically defined in the Constitution, and while I may not smoke, <b>smoking is a right</b> that I will forever vote to uphold, because <b>no one should be able to tell you what is right for you</b>.