Ah, you caught me. I don't recognize people; only arguments. Since your argument was a continuation of KrisKrinkle's, so was my reply.
My question above is clearly in standard English. What's with your feigned confusion?
None, if you were merely asking whether I like the Constitution. However, I rather laboriously objected to the term "social contract," so your insistance on using the term appeared to suggest there was more to your question.
Read much? The author enumerates some of our rights, and you're 'amusingly confused'.. Again, - bizarre reaction.
Read it again: I'm amused; he's confused. "Public roads" are not property, therefore the right to use them is not a property right. Instead, the assumption of a government monopoly over roads is in fact a usurpation of property rights. Yet the confused author cites it as a protection of same. Thus my amusement.
BTW, it was a literal usurpation of property rights. There were originally privately-owned turnpikes in this continent. Courts refused to uphold property rights of the turnpikes' owners, by refusing to enforce payments of tolls, which resulted in their abandonment and their assumption by government.
They don't? Why then are our Courts filled with lawsuits? -- Your comments are really strange..
Talk about strange! You just claimed that a lawsuit represents the conflict between two persons' rights. In reality, most lawsuits arise because one person is violating another's rights--not because both experienced some sort of "rights collision". The closest thing to what you claim would be a contract dispute in which we interpret the contract differently, both in good faith. But that isn't a "rights collision" either; it's what we call in English a "misunderstanding."
Whatever. Perhaps you just need 'rest'. Take a couple of aspirin and get back to me in the morning when you're lucid.
If you read more, you'd recognize that I was directly ridiculing Ollie Wendell Holmes's famous assertion that "my right to swing my arm ends at the tip of your nose." I like Ollie, but his statement was absurd on many levels. First, there is no such thing as a "right to swing my arm." My arm is mine, and I have power over it's use, but there never was a "right" to swing it around anywhere I wish to, so there's nothing to "end at the tip of your nose." Further, this hypothetical limitation does not end at the tip of your nose; well before the tip of your nose, my swing will be interpreted as an intention to assault you, and you will--rightly--defend yourself.
Ollie's other famous claim, that my free-speech rights are limited by a prohibition against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, is just as stupid, but for a different reason. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
You keep using that term,
I do? Weird.. -- This is my first post to you on this thread.
Ah, you caught me. I don't recognize people; only arguments. Since your argument was a continuation of KrisKrinkle's, so was my reply.
Thank you for admitting your idiocy.
even though I've argued that it doesn't stand on Hobbesian grounds, nor w.r.t. the meaning of the term "contract". So it's far from clear what you're trying to get me to affirm.
My question above is clearly in standard English. What's with your feigned confusion?
None, if you were merely asking whether I like the Constitution. However, I rather laboriously objected to the term "social contract," so your insistance on using the term appeared to suggest there was more to your question.
You've forgotten that I wasn't "insisting" in the space of one line? Unbelievable.
Here's an essay on the subject well worth reading:
The Social Contract and Constitutional Republics
Address:http://www.constitution.org/soclcont.htm
"--- Under the theory of the social contract, those rights which the individual brings with him upon entering the social contract are natural, and those which arise out of the social contract are contractual. Those contractual rights arising out of the constitution are constitutional rights. However, natural rights are also constitutional rights.
The fundamental natural rights are life, liberty, and property.
However, it is necessary to be somewhat more specific as to what these rights include.
Therefore, constitution framers usually expand them into such rights as the right of speech and publication, the right to assemble peaceably, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to travel over public roadways, and so forth. --"
The author amusingly cites that as a clarification of "life, liberty and property". The author is confused.
Read much? The author enumerates some of our rights, and you're 'amusingly confused'.. Again, - bizarre reaction.
Read it again: I'm amused; he's confused. not a property right. Instead, the assumption of a government monopoly over roads is in fact a usurpation of property rights. Yet the confused author cites it as a protection of same. Thus my amusement.
He was enumerating our right to travel, Izzy, not a property right. -- You're confused, and it's amusing.
" -- The exercise of such natural rights may be restricted to the extent that they come into conflict with the exercise of the natural rights of other members of society, but only to the minimum degree needed to resolve such conflict. --"
Again he's confused. My rights never come into conflict with yours.
They don't? Why then are our Courts filled with lawsuits?
-- Your comments are really strange.. Why?
Talk about strange! You just claimed that a lawsuit represents the conflict between two persons' rights. In reality, most lawsuits arise because one person is violating another's rights--not because both experienced some sort of "rights collision".
Amusing nitpicking -- you admit that "most lawsuits arise because one person is violating another's rights" yet claim this isn't a conflict.
The closest thing to what you claim would be a contract dispute in which we interpret the contract differently, both in good faith. But that isn't a "rights collision" either; it's what we call in English a "misunderstanding."
Yep, often its a misunderstanding about where your rights end, and mine begin.
Any purported case of conflict always turns out, on examination, to be an imaginary "right", such as the nonexistent "right to swing my arm [anywhere]." The result is profound-sounding but idiotic statements like, "My right to fling spears willy-nilly ends at the boundary of your cranium."
Whatever. Perhaps you just need 'rest'. Take a couple of aspirin and get back to me in the morning when you're lucid.
If you read more, you'd recognize that I was directly ridiculing Ollie Wendell Holmes's famous assertion that "my right to swing my arm ends at the tip of your nose."
My nose is not imaginary, and if you start swinging you fist around near it, be prepared to face the consequences.
I like Ollie, but his statement was absurd on many levels. First, there is no such thing as a "right to swing my arm." My arm is mine, and I have power over it's use, but there never was a "right" to swing it around anywhere I wish to, so there's nothing to "end at the tip of your nose." Further, this hypothetical limitation does not end at the tip of your nose; well before the tip of your nose, my swing will be interpreted as an intention to assault you, and you will--rightly--defend yourself.
Thereby proving Ollies hypothetical, which is not "absurd". -- Only your sophomoronics about it are absurd.
Ollie's other famous claim, that my free-speech rights are limited by a prohibition against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, is just as stupid, but for a different reason. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
We readers await more pearls of 'wisdom' from you izzy.. You really are funny.