Let's consider some analogies.
Is slavery on private property ok? On governemnt property? Why not?
Is murder or rape on private property ok? On government property? Why not?
(Hint: It's not some piece of paper.)
Unalienable rights.
The Constitution even acknowledges some of them.
The Declaration has those rights as casus belli for government nullifying itself, leaving citizens to re-institute government that will protect these rights.
Unalienable rights apply throughout the land, or they are just conditional privileges.
The founders asserted that the rights exist, everywhere.
Governments and/or individuals who do not acknowledge that everyone has those rights, are repugnant to the Constitution, and natural law.
So - Slave? Or American?
“It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.”What was that? "Null and Void".
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are Null and Void."
--Cheif Justice John Marshall, Marbury vs. Madison
-- 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)
That's almost as strong as "shall not be infringed".
A government that violates the document that institutes it, makes itself repugnant to that document.
Such a government makes itself Null and Void.
John Marshall. Smart Man.
***
Property rights do not trump slavery. And as a free man has a right to life, he has a right to protect himself, his neighbors, and his community against tyrants, thugs, and bullies.
Being defenseless, makes one a slave to every petty tyrant. Which is how petty tyrants like it.
9 comments:
"Property rights do not trump slavery."
This is a false dichotomy. The right to the fruits of your own labor is a private property right.
MALTHUS
House slave. Sitting in my cube, properly disarmed on FEDERAL property.
@Malthus:
That is the point. The fact that I am entering your property in order to engage in trade is not sufficient grounds to enable you to make me your slave, thus depriving me of my rights.
By the same token, my entry onto your property is not sufficient grounds to justify your punching me in the nose as a condition of entry, nor does it allow you license to rape your female customers.
It follows then that my entering your property to engage in trade does not intrude upon my other property rights, such as my right to defend the ultimate property, my life.
When exactly may the fruits of one's labor take rights from others?
Never.
Privileges may be taken or not.
Unalienable rights are those things which can never be taken.
Does the First Amendment apply on private property?
Can I stand in your living room and insult your mom?
Tam - You? You can do or say whatever you'd like. My mom likes your writing. Everybody else better watch out! lol
Each right or natural law has nuance. Not all rights are really rights, it seems.
Regarding speech - In general, It seems that Speech is a privilege on private property, but a right in the public arena.
[Some courts are positioning speech as a privilege in the public arena (which I disagree with)-different topic.]
Property trumps speech.
But an individual Right to Life is a right everywhere and at all times. Property rights do not extend to the Lives of individuals on that property. How can it be otherwise? If there is no 'individual', then there is no 'property'. Individual trumps property (for example, no murder, no slavery on private property). Without Life, one cannot keep the fruits of one's own labor, or speak, or have privacy, etc. Life is primal, and property and other things figure below that.
A new England expression is: "Your rights end at the end of my nose." I have a Right to Life and the responsibility for my physical security. Or I surrender my life onto the whim of my host - wishful thinking and/or slavery, depending on the host. Even if ignored, the responsibility is yours and no one else’s.
2a & 13. The Right to Life is primal. If that doesn't exist, then there are no rights. On your land, or my land, or public land. If I surrender the responsibility for my Life, then I have nothing else.
***
Note: I am not a legal lie-yer or professor of philosophy; but rather a fan of reasoned discussion and suggested reading … Please discuss and suggest !
Tam:
I have heard that argument before. This is my answer: Your right to speech can interrupt the property owner's enjoyment of his property. This is not the same as mere possession of an object, especially a concealed object.
Possession of a manuscript is a closer analogy to mere possession of a weapon.
Speaking would be a closer analogy to firing a weapon, and no one here is arguing that I have an unabridged right to fire a weapon on another's property, except to prevent a greater harm (like self defense).
Just wanted to thank you for getting the links back up. Really appreciate the effort.
Sorry for the delay.
Post a Comment