Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Constitutional Issues Smoking in Public and Whose Rights are they?

There are no rights other than the ones one can defend. If one is weak, one seeks the aid of the collective to guarantee and secure the "rights" one otherwise lacks either the will or the wherewithal to exercise and defend.

You give me more credit than I deserve. Others may be intentionally obtuse as a stratergy, but it come nateral to me.
Not being so well versed in political theory, it seems I have missed the subtlety of your argument.
I think this must be where I fail to comprehend your argument. When you use the word "STATE" .... I assume that you are referring to a de facto political power that might also be a tribe or a clan or a pack of wolves an ant hill for that matter. And as far as I can tell... as we peruse back though human history.... or when we observe animal groupings ... what we see are collectivist organizations where the rights of individuals (other than the head of state) are made subservient to the overall benefit of the pack... or decision of the king/queen/leader/dictator/alpha male. And so it still seems to me that the "natural" order of most animals including humans has a bias towards both social and political collectivism.

I am profoundly sorry that I am unable to see the manifest historical, biological, or zoological evidence that would lead anyone to conclude that the individualism that you refer to is at all "natural."
No, my confusion is not entirely alleviated. Actually, not at all. It seems to me that the power of the state must inherently be extracted from the rights of the individual. And so so when ever there is any state, there is inherent tension between the power of that state and the rights of the individuals comprising that state.

As far as I can tell, there is no "natural right" to smoke tobacco... any more than there is a natural right to smoke marijuana, or smoke crack, or have consensual sex with underage children. In the end it is not some arbitrary "state" which decides what is right and what is wrong... it is a consensus of the society we live in... for better and sometimes for worse.

Ironically, the very laws that offend you are a confirmation of our freedom to govern ourselves. Many a horrible despot would have been indifferent about people smoking... and underage sex for that matter. These laws are not a reflection of a tyrannical state, but instead the reflection of our societies freedom to codify our own social values.

I see that some here were raised to obey the top dog; no matter who or what he/she is. As Rand used to say "define your terms before the debate." America has done a crackerjack job of raising an obedient citizen culture. There is no need to discuss this further, when the concept of freedom is not defined.

The problem of America is clearly defined here at Reader Rant. Natural Rights have lost! The definition of this is beyond possible.

Indeed. You have hit it exactly, Ardy: any state, whether it be a socialist state, a pure democracy, a parliamentary democracy, a republic, a monarchy, a dictatorship, an oligarchy, a plutocracy, or what have you . . .

See my sig line for further information.

Phil:

Let me see if i've got this right,when we talk about something
that is real close to you,your arguement is we live in a republic
and the rights of the individual cannot be abrogated by the majority,(this has been your stand befor.)

Now we are dealing with an issue that concerns other people
and your stand is (might makes right.)are you saying that NOW
we live in a democracy and you are in with a majority and that
somehow makes it ok to abrogate other peoples freedoms??

By the way,thanks for deleting that vulgar word I used in my
post to you befor,you do remember it was your choice of words
that I used from your post,was that another exercise in might
makes right???

Suggested reading= = =The Constitution

Mike D.

Mike, you have clearly not read or maybe not understood what I have said. I gave no justification to might makes right, I merely observed that such is "natural law" and a part of human existence. That is an entirely different discussion that what I believe is the law under our Constitution or even what I may view as a preferrable political system.

I don't know what you are talking about re my edit, but if you want to clue me in do it in a PM.

I think we have perhaps found and can remove yet another definitional stumbling block, Ardy. I have noticed that you and other posters seem to have a different usage of the word "natural" as used in the idea of "natural Rights". You apparently think in the case of "natural Rights" it refers to nature (the natural world) in general -- man as a part of and interacting with nature (external to man).

In terms of "natural Rights" "natural" refers to the nature of man -- not other animals, or how other animals organize, act, or react, nor even how man reacts to nature's forces. For example, it is the nature of man to be intellectually inquisitive, gregarious, and communicative of ideas. This being a part of the integral nature of man, he must be free to express himself and his ideas to others. Hence the natural basis for Freedom of Speech (from within man). Does that help any?
Yours,
Issodhos

Not even close issodhos, not even close. That is EXACTLY how I used "natural" and you know it, or if you actually read what is written would have known.

The nature of humans is collective, group oriented and we are, as I said, a pack animal. That is the unalterable and given nature of humans.

Anything else is a perversion, a distortion, an attempt at avoiding one's true nature.

I agree, we seem to be making progress here. So....
this human nature that you speak of, is that a development of the last thousand years, or 10,000 years, or 100,000 years?
I Suggest we attempt to put some approximate birth date of this nature. After all, we will want to know if American Indian expressed this nature before Europeans arrived. Did ancient Egyptians and Chinese express this nature? Would we conjecture that this nature reaches al the way back to Lucy in Africa? Approximately how far back may we look and see this fundamental nature clearly expressed?

And then perhaps we can also wonder what degree of expression of this "nature" cements our certainty that this nature is fundamental and central to human nature. I mean to wonder whether we will be proposing that humanity had some fundamental nature along the lines that you propose even when practically no humans were aware of or expressing this nature.

Ardy

The formulating and formalizing of the political philosophy of Individualism based on the theory of natural Rights which were derived from the study of the nature of man emerged during the Enlightenment beginning in the 17th century. This is why I have referred to the philosophy of Individualism as the new kid on the block, as well as an upstart.

I am sure there are various writers and poets down through the ages that have randomly expressed similar concepts without formulating it into a full-blown theory or philosophy. And, of course, there were rudimentary beginnings at such places as Runnymede. Does it matter? Afterall, is there a time in the known history of man when it was not the nature of man to communicate ideas?
Yours,
Issodhos