A few thoughts on Civil Liberties

[JazzManJim]

Driving around yesterday listening to C-SPAN got me to doing some thinking about the civil liberties we enjoy in the United States, and the effects that the events of Sept 11 have had on them.

IN lieu of a lenghty post, though, I'm going to toss out two or three thoughts and see where the comments lie.

1 - Civil liberties in the US can not be taken. They can only be given away, inasmuch as the laws that would restrict them are made in the open, by freely-elected officials.

2 - Civil liberties can be different, depending on whether or not the "offender" is a citizen of this country or not.

3 - "International Law" is a sham, given that it's made by a non-legislative, non-elected body and had no enforcement mechanisms nor enforcing power.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

First, just a little bit of definition; there is a difference between "civil liberties" and "civil rights" (or as I like to call them "Natural Rights"). A liberty or freedom is something you are allowed to do, either by law or convention. A right is something that cannot be taken away or given away, you always have it, but you may not always be allowed to exercise it - some law may prohibit your free exercise of it. These are important differences.

1 - Civil liberties in the US can not be taken. They can only be given away, inasmuch as the laws that would restrict them are made in the open, by freely-elected officials.

I disagree; we are unfortunately subject to the rule of the mob, and as such our country has degenerated towards becoming a mobocracy (a true democracy where the majority rules). We still have protections of our liberties and our rights, but we also still have the majority able to take away our liberties by force - the force of numbers. It is all done out in the open and by vote, but that doesn't make it any less forceful and it shrouds the process in veil of being "fair" - which it is not.

2 - Civil liberties can be different, depending on whether or not the "offender" is a citizen of this country or not.

Civil liberties yes, but not civil rights; everyone everywhere has the same rights, but not the same liberties. Our rights are based on our being human and what is "right" and proper for our interaction with other humans, hence the name right. Our humanity does not change one iota because we are a citizen of one country or another - or not, and therefore we all have the same rights. Whether we have the same liberties depends on to what extent the government where we are located at any point in time recognizes our rights.

3 - "International Law" is a sham, given that it's made by a non-legislative, non-elected body and had no enforcement mechanisms nor enforcing power.

A complicated issue that I am not willing to get into, but I don't completely agree.

 

[JazzManJim]

Re: Re: A few thoughts on Civil Liberties

First, just a little bit of definition; there is a difference between "civil liberties" and "civil rights" (or as I like to call them "Natural Rights"). A liberty or freedom is something you are allowed to do, either by law or convention. A right is something that cannot be taken away or given away, you always have it, but you may not always be allowed to exercise it - some law may prohibit your free exercise of it. These are important differences.

Civil liberties yes, but not civil rights; everyone everywhere has the same rights, but not the same liberties. Our rights are based on our being human and what is "right" and proper for our interaction with other humans, hence the name right. Our humanity does not change one iota because we are a citizen of one country or another - or not, and therefore we all have the same rights. Whether we have the same liberties depends on to what extent the government where we are located at any point in time recognizes our rights.

First off, excellent post!

I want to ask a couple follow-up questions.

1 - If rights are based on what is right and proper, then who decides this for all of humanity?

2 - Does a right truly exist if it is never practiced? It's clear that citizens of various countries have varying "rights" granted to them and that they are not inalienable. In fact, the rights granted to citizens of this country were said to be inalienable, yet were not granted universally. So do citizens of more repressive countries still have the same innate rights as citizens of freer countries?

3 - What are the basic "rights package"? Which rights are universal and inalienable?

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Re: Re: Re: A few thoughts on Civil Liberties

1 - If rights are based on what is right and proper, then who decides this for all of humanity?

Humanity. Sounds like a cop out, but when you come down to it, who else? When some small minority of humanity tries to decide, whether they are right or wrong (or in between), it is all of humanity that decides what these rights are - at least insofar as what is elucidated and recognized. There is a certain underlying truth that awaits to be discovered by those that are wrong, and often people go off on the wrong tracks saying we have this right and we don't have that right, but the rational person, well schooled in critical thinking, logic and human nature can usually come up with a small set of general rights and rules from which all others derive. If you look over the known history of mankind, these rights and rules are voiced again and again with regularity.

2 - Does a right truly exist if it is never practiced?

Yes. Whether practiced, recognized, elucidated, granted or not, a Natural Right exists outside of that practice, recognition, elucidation and granting. Always has and always will exist - at least as long as human nature doesn't change.

It's clear that citizens of various countries have varying "rights" granted to them and that they are not inalienable.

Yes, they call them "rights", and you can legally grant rights that are not Natural Rights, but you can also take them away just as capriciously. I dislike calling these grants "rights" as people make the mistake of thinking them natural and inalienable when they aren't. I can temporarily grant Lit. "rights" to the words I post here, but that doesn't mean that they always have these rights, or that they come naturally and without limitation.

When you start such granting of "rights" then you have people arguing that they have the right to happiness rather than the pursuit of happiness, that they have the right to your money (welfare), the right to helath care paid for by the government, etc. - and they don't.

In fact, the rights granted to citizens of this country were said to be inalienable, yet were not granted universally.

The argument there was that those who were not granted rights were less than human, not intelligent enough, etc. - sometimes people actually believed this, sometimes it was a spurious argument used to further an agenda of repression.

So do citizens of more repressive countries still have the same innate rights as citizens of freer countries?

Yes - this is why I made the differentiation between civil rights and civil liberties.

3 - What are the basic "rights package"? Which rights are universal and inalienable?

There are numerous treatises on Natural Rights on the 'net, but I use the bollowing basic premises when I need to decide if there is a Natural Right applicable to a particular circumstance - or not:

1) Decide what is human nature and the norm for human nature.
2) Decide what is the best way for humans to coexist peacefully.
3) Decide whether nature provides for something or whether the human must provide for it themselves.
4) Apply the Golden Rule - i.e., treat others the way I would want to be treated.
5) As long as I do not infringe on other's Natural Rights, I can pretty much do as I please.

So, it is not so much a list of Natural Rights, although many have tried to list them, as it is a set of rules from which you form any needed right (or not) to apply to the situation. Let's try an example:

Do I have a Natural Right to murder you? Well to murder certainly is human nature, and some can even argue it is the norm, although it isn't. More importantly though, is murder conducive to peaceful coexistance? Few people would say that it is, and most people would say that they do not really want others to murder them. Also, all humans have a Natural Right to life, as without life we have no rights at all - we no longer exist.

So, no, there is no Natural Right to murder someone as that violates a number of the rules I listed above.

 

[Azwed]

3 - "International Law" is a sham, given that it's made by a non-legislative, non-elected body and had no enforcement mechanisms nor enforcing power.

Just commenting on this one part for now since you have your facts wrong.


Treaties are a part of international law. They are made between the governments of two countries and are signed by their heads of state. In order for the the treaty to come into effect it must be ratified by the legislative bodies of the countries that sign it.

Now in the case of of countries with democratic rule I would say that a treaty is defnietly made by an elective legislative body.

There are multiple ways of enforcing treaties. Sanctions are the most common they are however not very effective unless they are universal and even then they have limts. Many treaties and other international organizations have a means to set up arbitration panels. The WTO is a very good example of this.

Just because someone can't be arrested/tried/convicted/incarcerated does not mean that international law is not enforcable.