Free Speech

[Glock Glockler]

Why not?  Why isnt there such a right?  I maintain that people have the right of free emigration and immigration.  If the Jews in Germany and Europe had had that there would not have been a Holocaust.  But the US, Australia, Canada, and a few other "liberal" societies with rights didnt have the same idea and a lot of folks died.    So prove to me that there is not a right of free migration.

A people can empower their govt to regulate what comes over its borders, and they have as much right to deny someone who wants to cross their border as I have to deny someone who wants to enter my house.

[Anna G.]

This thread seems to have become conservative vs libertarian viewpoints.

So it seems to me too. *takes popcorns and cheers for the libertarians*

Sorry, I know this is serious but I couldn't help myself.

[The Rabbi]

If you're saying rights without the power to fight for them don't amount to much as a practical matter, I agree. The most basic truth of human existence will always boil down to your power to kill the other guy when he says stop and you say go, rights or not. At that point, rights only mean so much as a moral justification for defense of justice.

OK.  You see my point.  When society as a whole abrogates those rights then they effectively dont exist.  And my point exactly is that rights are constructs of society, not existing in some vacuum.  And as such they are spelled out either in constitutions or in common law.

[LawDog]

Would you blame the church?

I'm looking for the libertarian answer.  Since I am not a libertarian, any answer that I - the non-libertarian - would give would be worse than useless.

So.  If you're going to dodge the answer, say so, otherwise, let's have the libertarian answer:  Do the rights of my neighbor -- as postulated earlier in this thread -- trump mine?

LawDog

[LawDog]

If he's just using opium, his rights aren't affecting yours.

Of course they are.  His smoking of opium has had a direct financial impact on me.  People were willing to pay 36K for my houe before he started exercising his rights.  Now that he is exercising his rights, I can't get more than 18K for my house.

How can this be construed as not affecting me?

LawDog

[Iain]

His smoking opium in a manner the allows people that are viewing your house to know that he is smoking opium/running some sort of opium den is the problem.

[Nightfall]

And as such they are spelled out either in constitutions or in common law.

And my point is simply that even if they aren't, you can still justly lay claim to them.

Of course they are.  His smoking of opium has had a direct financial impact on me.  People were willing to pay 36K for my houe before he started exercising his rights.  Now that he is exercising his rights, I can't get more than 18K for my house.

How can this be construed as not affecting me?

It affects you to be sure. Ideally, you would be able to talk to this guy, explain your situation, and he would gladly curtail his activities (at least for awhile) to give you a better chance at a sale. However, the issue here is that you can't make demands of him to improve your appeal to the average house buyer. Were that the case, you could also tell him to paint his house an unoffensive color, maintain his lawn in a certain manner, play only certain unoffensive music at any volume, and dress in a manner that would leave a good impression on your potential customers. What if your buyers don't like Christians? Does that mean he can't display a manger scene at Xmas? How far does it go? I think we both would agree no man has a right to that control over another, and that's what you're asking for here. You're asking for the power to control your neighbor's actions to better benefit you, which is pretty much the opposite of libertarian philosophy.

[The Rabbi]

And my point is simply that even if they aren't, you can still justly lay claim to them

And that and a quarter wont even buy a cup of coffee.

It affects you to be sure. Ideally, you would be able to talk to this guy, explain your situation, and he would gladly curtail his activities (at least for awhile) to give you a better chance at a sale. However, the issue here is that you can't make demands of him to improve your appeal to the average house buyer. Were that the case, you could also tell him to paint his house an unoffensive color, maintain his lawn in a certain manner, play only certain unoffensive music at any volume, and dress in a manner that would leave a good impression on your potential customers. What if your buyers don't like Christians? Does that mean he can't display a manger scene at Xmas? How far does it go? I think we both would agree no man has a right to that control over another, and that's what you're asking for here. You're asking for the power to control your neighbor's actions to better benefit you, which is pretty much the opposite of libertarian philosophy

First off, the guy is doing something illegal.  He doesnt have a right to do illegal things.  Period.  Second, you are using the old slippery slope argument, that ANY curtailment will inevitably lead to a police state.  It doesnt and it wont.  Many of the things you mentioned are already regulated by codes and ordnances and he couldnt do them anyway.
The whole Libertarian argument ends up being a battle of whose right trumps whose and it is an argument without end and a reciple for anarchy.

[Justin]

Of course they are.  His smoking of opium has had a direct financial impact on me.  People were willing to pay 36K for my houe before he started exercising his rights.  Now that he is exercising his rights, I can't get more than 18K for my house.

How can this be construed as not affecting me?

I've skipped on this thread for the last day or so. Apologies if I repeat something that's already been said.  However, in your example you posit that by simply by having an opium habit, your neighbor would lower your property values.  No disrespect intended, but might you be trying to force a particular answer by positing a hypothetical situation that is overly complex?  After all, surly there are people in this country who have, at this very moment, a drug habit they do not advertise.  Does this adversly affect the property values of their neighbors?

But let me assume for the sake of argument that you are correct.  That having a neighbor with an opium habit causes your property value to drop.  It seems to me there are a couple of ways this could be handled.

1)Via a civil suit.  If you can prove that your neighbor's drug habit has devalued your property, it seems that you would have a legitimate reason to pursue damages from him.

2)In a hypothetically libertarian nation where drugs are legal, there would still be nothing stopping a home-owners' association from prohibiting the use of recreational narcotics in that particular neighborhood.  As the old saying goes, birds of a feather flock together, and if having one drug user in a neighborhood would likely devalue the surrounding properties such neighborhoods would likely draft legally binding contracts to ensure that doesn't happen.  Thusly Billy the Opium user is told to find housing elsewhere where his habit isn't likely to adversly impact his neighbors.  Thus your property values are not adversly affected, and Billy finds an abode in a neighborhood more suited to his choice of recreational pasttime.  If this means that Billy has to go live in a van down by the river, so be it.  He'll either wise up, get off the pipe and act like a civilized human, or he will decide that his opium habit is important enough to trump living in a decent neighborhood.  Either way, Billy is taking responsibilities for his actions.

*Edited for clarity.

[Glock Glockler]

Lawdog,

 it seems that people's reaction to something is causing the problem, it is not their act in and of itself.  What if I were to build a giant apartment building on the other side of town that removed a lot of the demand for your place and thus lower the demand for it?  My actions still affect you but I am not infringing on your rights.

[The Rabbi]

it seems that people's reaction to something is causing the problem, it is not their act in and of itself.

So if I pull a gun on someone it is not the act itself that is causing the problem but that person's reaction to it??

[grampster]

Seems the answer may be to take a piece of parchment and write down some stuff about understanding what "rights" are and how they should not be infringed and set up a foundation that is agreeable with respect to a somewhat orderly society.

Perhaps build a few constructs which limits the authority of that foundation to be sure the earlier rights are not infringed.  Maybe include a provision that allows for the masses to pick a few folks to represent them and give the masses an orderly way to add, delete or change the foundation, if 2/3 of them agree.
 
And then maybe set something up that checks and balances whatever it is that is implementing the foundation.  Of course most everybody would have to be fairly informed and be interested in the running of the thing otherwise it might not work very well because a few folks might take it upon themselves to change things without following the foundational piece of parchment.
Maybe?

[Nightfall]

And that and a quarter wont even buy a cup of coffee.

True, but that and a quarter will buy me a round of ammo and the clear conscience to sleep at night if I have to use it to help reclaim my free speech, etc.

First off, the guy is doing something illegal.  He doesnt have a right to do illegal things.  Period.

I just don't know how to address this. If no right can trump a law, well, what's the point? I suppose unless you're lucky enough to be born in a place that has a BoR laying out exact limits against government, everything from slavery to genocide is no violation of rights, if it's legal.

Second, you are using the old slippery slope argument, that ANY curtailment will inevitably lead to a police state.  It doesnt and it wont.

But isn't that the very nature of the beast? Government is always going to grab for more power. Maybe not immediately, but soon. One doesn't have to look hard for examples. Just look at the one we're most familiar with, gun control. First is was the NFA, then the GCA, then the crap from the 80's, then the AWB. Are you trying to tell me that our own government hasn't grabbed for (and gotten) a lot more power than say 100 years ago? If the nature of gov't wasn't a constant grab for more power, we wouldn't need limits such as those in our Constitution.

[The Rabbi]

I just don't know how to address this. If no right can trump a law, well, what's the point?

I think you see my point.  The same people who make the laws by and large also enforce rights.  But rights have trumped laws and do so all the time.  But just because some guy says "I gotta right" doesnt make it so.

As far as government: if what you say were true then every government would be a totalitarian state.  Obviously it isnt.  India is much freer today than it was 20 years ago.  So is Iraq.  So is the U.S. despite everyone's P&M over it.  Twenty years ago how many states had CCW?  And how many today?

[Nightfall]

I think maybe we all should. This really isn't going to go anywhere productive at this point.

So is the U.S. despite everyone's P&M over it. Twenty years ago how many states had CCW?

*sigh* Yeah, and if you go further back, a man didn't even need a permit to carry a defensive tool. A man could also buy a new machine gun, he didn't have to worry about how many rounds his magazine held or if his stock telescoped or not (state dependent), or how many domestic parts his import gun had.

At any rate, why don't we agree to disagree. We're just going to go around in circles, and neither of us is going to change our stance on the issues discussed. Thanks for the intellectual exercise, relatively fruitless as it was.

[Guest]

You have the right to strip and walk around naked in my neighborhood.

I (and my neighbors) have the right to load our cartridges with rock salt and pepper your sorry backside for doing so, thereby exposing our children and innocent members to your naked self.

Works for me...

What religion are you that doesn't believe in proportional punishment? Surely being exposed to nakedness doesn't cause physical pain or bleeding in your children.

The only just punishment for "indecent exposure" would be exposing the naked protester visually to something he considers indecent - a Lynndie England picture, perhaps.

 Strict private property would solve this "problem" best. That, and private enclaves where like-minded people agree on the rules to be followed in their area.

[Justin]

What?

No one is going to respond to my post?  And I put so much effort into it.

[jefnvk]

I'll respond.

I think the Civil Suit is the way to go.  Sounds like this is something really happening to you.  Also, couldn't you get him on something like running a business in a residential area?

Can't comment on the Homeowners Association.  I don't really know how they work, but from what I do know, they tell you what you can and cannot do on your own property.  Assuming you didn;t buy the property from the guy under the stipulation that you follow those rules, I do not see how they can force anything on you.  But again, I do not know how those exactly work, so I can't comment.

[The Rabbi]

I think the Civil Suit is the way to go.  Sounds like this is something really happening to you.  Also, couldn't you get him on something like running a business in a residential area?

Brilliant.  You are going to spend time and money suing someone who has nothing.  You've obviously never sued someone before.  I have, too many times for me to count.  I have won thousands of dollars in judgements and have collected zilch nada.  People with nothing, no assets and no jobs, are suit-proof.  Unless we bring back indentured servitude suing the have-nots is a non-starter.

[Justin]

So if he really has nothing, how is it that he was able to afford a house in your neighborhood in the first place?  At the very least it seems you'd be able to take the house he owns, you know, the one where his presence and dope habit are bringing down your property values.

[The Rabbi]

OK, you've proven my contention you have never sued anyone.
First, let's discount the idea that the doper is renting or is living in his mom's house or whatever, which happens a lot btw.
Second, the procedure is like this: you sue miscreant.  You win a judgement.  You can try to collect by a) garnishing wages (which he doesnt have) b) attaching his bank account (which he doesnt have) or c) putting a lien on his property.
If you put a lien on his property that is all you have done.  Unless he sells the property or refinances it you will never collect on the lien.  I currently have a lien on a man's house (behind the IRS btw) that is probably 3-4 years old.  I dont expect to see  a penny.

[RealGun]

U.S. Bill of Rights
Article [I.] \13\

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; of the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.

**********

Speech and press are explicitly mentioned. Extending the meaning beyond exactly those words is a liberal interpretation. While not all rights are enumerated, only those of particular relevance and which are explicitly protected from government infringement are listed. Exactly that idea is mentioned elsewhere in the document.

Precisely what rights a person may exercise, indeed have, are what the government says they have (or not).  That is intended as a statement of my reality, not an ideal that I would necessarily support. I do, however, value society's vote on what crosses the line as not in the best interest of that society. That is surely an imperfect process, especially problematic when religion or an abberational ideology dominates a goverment.

I feel that society's efforts to become increasingly civilized is well supported by the historical record. There has been progress, especially in reducing barbarism, but total freedom to do as one pleases, whether or not others are harmed, should not be cause to keep one awake at night. It ain't gonna happen.

I certainly value the BoR as a line in the sand, beyond which the law may not go. I would support efforts to sharpen the interpretation of where that line may be.  

In other words, "freedom of expression" is a fabrication. I think many claims for freedom of speech or even what constitutes "the press" in the spirit of the Constitution are ridiculous.

States or municipalities with freedom to vary from State law should be free to legislate in any manner that does not violate the US  Constitution and BoR, exactly as it reads.

Liberal interpretations of the COTUS is why we have such a mess today and certainly why gun owners are constantly on the defensive. The other reason is that Constitutional changes are not easy to make, so instead of going through that process, we rationalize why changes via legislation are somehow supported by existing constitutional provisions. Judges do the same thing with other parts of the law. If what they would like to rule is not supported by the law, they rationalize what the law means or the importance of some precedent. What they are supposed to do is pass, deferring to the legislature for the future, because the law doesn't support their decision. What they actually do is make up some law to support the current case. Thus the "activist" label.

It is never activism, if you like the ruling, right? Wrong!

[DustinD]

There was a study done on what people find disgusting and why. The short version is that there is no natural disgust instinct in humans, it must be learned. So naked people pyramids are not inherently disgusting. Exposing kids to nudity is not harmful. Many nudists live happy healthy lives.

I personally think that the naked pyramids fall under speech. Spitting on people during a protest would also be considered speech because the spitters are trying to get across an idea or opinion, but doing so is illegal and imoral because it violates other peoples rights, not because it is not speech. For instance I can (or should be able to) spray paint whatever I want on my own house without any limits on content, but I can not do so on my nieghbors unless I have their permission.
 
I copied the study onto my website. http://dustin.o-f.com/storage/disguststudy.txt