Sovereignty, autonomy, and rights within an increasingly globalized world

[Curious George]

Where does the boundary rest?

Should a person or persons collectively be granted any degree of autonomy? And if so, where is the limit?

Many are often fond of the phrase your freedom to swing your fists ends at my nose. However what does this actually mean in the context of anything other than an actual freedom to swing your arms and it potentially involving my nose?

Should i for instance have the right to swing my arms if they mean hitting someone else's nose other than yours?

Our rights and others rights are very much interconnected in ways we cannot see with cursory glance. Any degree of autonomy given will necessarily pull at someone else's rights. I think it is not so much about whether our rights affect others but more about the value we place on certain rights and the ways in which we see those rights interacting.

A very good example of this is abortion. I am very "pro-choice." I do not believe it ought to be within the power of others to decide what medical decisions a person makes for their bodies. Consequently, this means that i also support choice in other areas such as choosing to circumcise your child or choosing not vaccinate yourself or your child.

For those who oppose legal abortion, I imagine you are cringing and my reduction of the issue to that of a medical decision as though the only person affected was the person getting the abortion. Putting aside discussions about whether the fetus is a recognized person, we still have plenty of others affected by this person's "medical" decision.

For those of you who support legalized abortion but not circumcision or choosing not to vaccinate, I imagine you are also cringing at my reduction of that issue. For we find distinction in the issues regarding an abortion and circumcision or vaccination in both the necessity of the medical decision and the people affected.

But putting aside your cringes for a moment (let us use other threads to debate the issues and semantics, i would like us to reflect on the larger concept in the title of this thread and my original question.

Where and how do you draw the lines such that you find consistency in how you analyze an individual's rights, a states rights, a cultures rights etc.

Ought a country be free to decide for themselves? Ought a state? A town? An individual?

Finally, how do we protect against the "tyranny of the majority?"

Thank you

 

[The Hammer]

Your freedoms end, when they impinge on my freedoms/safety, or the freedoms/safety of others. That's it IMO.

 

[Curious George]

Your freedoms end, when they impinge on my freedoms/safety, or the freedoms/safety of others. That's it IMO.

So you would be in favor of military intervention on a sovereign nation because of perceived human rights violations?

 

[Nakosis]

Where does the boundary rest?

Should a person or persons collectively be granted any degree of autonomy? And if so, where is the limit?

Many are often fond of the phrase your freedom to swing your fists ends at my nose. However what does this actually mean in the context of anything other than an actual freedom to swing your arms and it potentially involving my nose?

Should i for instance have the right to swing my arms if they mean hitting someone else's nose other than yours?

Our rights and others rights are very much interconnected in ways we cannot see with cursory glance. Any degree of autonomy given will necessarily pull at someone else's rights. I think it is not so much about whether our rights affect others but more about the value we place on certain rights and the ways in which we see those rights interacting.

A very good example of this is abortion. I am very "pro-choice." I do not believe it ought to be within the power of others to decide what medical decisions a person makes for their bodies. Consequently, this means that i also support choice in other areas such as choosing to circumcise your child or choosing not vaccinate yourself or your child.

For those who oppose legal abortion, I imagine you are cringing and my reduction of the issue to that of a medical decision as though the only person affected was the person getting the abortion. Putting aside discussions about whether the fetus is a recognized person, we still have plenty of others affected by this person's "medical" decision.

For those of you who support legalized abortion but not circumcision or choosing not to vaccinate, I imagine you are also cringing at my reduction of that issue. For we find distinction in the issues regarding an abortion and circumcision or vaccination in both the necessity of the medical decision and the people affected.

But putting aside your cringes for a moment (let us use other threads to debate the issues and semantics, i would like us to reflect on the larger concept in the title of this thread and my original question.

Where and how do you draw the lines such that you find consistency in how you analyze an individual's rights, a states rights, a cultures rights etc.

Ought a country be free to decide for themselves? Ought a state? A town? An individual?

Finally, how do we protect against the "tyranny of the majority?"

Thank you

IMO, the only real rights anyone has are those that can be enforced. Generally we have a system that provides that enforcement. Part of our systems puts limits on the majority but means nothing unless the majority of folks agree to enforce the limitation. There's no natural rights, no God-given rights IMO.

 

[Curious George]

IMO, the only real rights anyone has are those that can be enforced. Generally we have a system that provides that enforcement. Part of our systems puts limits on the majority but means nothing unless the majority of folks agree to enforce the limitation. There's no natural rights, no God-given rights IMO.

Is that a means of sidestepping the philosophical question based on practicality?

Observing that might makes right is a harsh reality of our world in no way satisfies an argument that it ought to be so.

 

[Kenny]

A very good example of this is abortion. I am very "pro-choice." I do not believe it ought to be within the power of others to decide what medical decisions a person makes for their bodies. Consequently, this means that i also support choice in other areas such as choosing to circumcise your child or choosing not vaccinate yourself or your child.

Not sure that is a good analogy

You have to substantiate the position that a baby in the mothers womb is actually the mother's body.

The other two examples are not "taking the life of the child".

 

[Nakosis]

Is that a means of sidestepping the philosophical question based on practicality?

Observing that might makes right is a harsh reality of our world in no way satisfies an argument that it ought to be so.

Yeah, I'm not very good with the philosophy. Ought to, wishful thinking, Though I suppose it might have practical application in sophistry. Might be able to talk people into giving you your freedoms.

In the case of globalization, the greater the globalization, the less autonomy that can be afforded by the people running the show.

At any point, you don't follow their rules they take away you're rights. So no way to avoid tyranny. If you allow people to have power over you, eventually they will use it.

 

[Curious George]

Not sure that is a good analogy

You have to substantiate the position that a baby in the mothers womb is actually the mother's body.

The other two examples are not "taking the life of the child".

That, my friend, was entirely beside the point. I am sure that you, along with many others, may object to my arguments, summarized here for the sake of brevity, regarding abortion. That is not the issue. The point of their presence in the first place is to convey how grants of autonomy, sovereignty, or rights necessarily entail a consequence for some other's rights, autonomy, or sovereignty. This needn't concern a life/death matter nor should it exclude a life/death matter.

I am simply asking where and how you, and others, draw the line.

 

[Curious George]

Yeah, I'm not very good with the philosophy. Ought to, wishful thinking, Though I suppose it might have practical application in sophistry. Might be able to talk people into giving you your freedoms.

In the case of globalization, the greater the globalization, the less autonomy that can be afforded by the people running the show.

At any point, you don't follow their rules they take away you're rights. So no way to avoid tyranny. If you allow people to have power over you, eventually they will use it.

While that is interesting to ponder, i can't help but wonder whether an inconsistency lies beneath the surface. If someone were to murder your wife or child would you not think that they should not have merely because you, nor anyone else, could have prevented it?

And if someone was going to murder someone else's wife or child and you could prevent it, you would not regard whether you should do so?

 

[osgart]

Having good conscience is the only road to freedom. Obviously we need laws for those without conscience. If the laws are effective and prosperity happens people become inclined to follow them. The inclinations of the majority power rule the day.

Laws are a reflection of how we want others to be. Laws are a reflection of what we want for ourselves. Because we must follow our own laws that we create for ourselves we try to create the fairest laws possible.

To make fairest laws possible we must include everybody in the process, and have everybody subject to them, none excluded. Peace and prosperity must follow from good laws or people will rebel.

As for conflicting consciences what can be said. I do believe the superior conscience will produce the best peace possible. No one should be disallowed their personal conscience if that conscience doesn't harm others, nor impinge upon others' freedoms.

 

[Kenny]

That, my friend, was entirely beside the point. I am sure that you, along with many others, may object to my arguments, summarized here for the sake of brevity, regarding abortion. That is not the issue. The point of their presence in the first place is to convey how grants of autonomy, sovereignty, or rights necessarily entail a consequence for some other's rights, autonomy, or sovereignty. This needn't concern a life/death matter nor should it exclude a life/death matter.

I am simply asking where and how you, and others, draw the line.

Understand.

However, at least on the basis of your statement, it was based on dubious information.

But, in light of your post, it is a question that I doubt anyone can ever come to a worldwide agreement.

Personally, I like the statement of "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Those are the basic rights... however, the problem comes when my happiness includes going 100mph. Who decides when happiness of one is detrimental to another... and who decides how far can happiness go? 90? 80? 70? 60? And then, when does the decision become more tyrannical such as "you can only go 10mph so that no one dies"?

Hard to splice and dice.

But some things are pretty simply... the right to life declares you can't take the life of another (in its basic form). But then "when CAN you take the life of another?"

 

[The Hammer]

So you would be in favor of military intervention on a sovereign nation because of perceived human rights violations?

Yup, never been against that.

 

[Curious George]

Understand.

However, at least on the basis of your statement, it was based on dubious information.

But, in light of your post, it is a question that I doubt anyone can ever come to a worldwide agreement.

Personally, I like the statement of "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Those are the basic rights... however, the problem comes when my happiness includes going 100mph. Who decides when happiness of one is detrimental to another... and who decides how far can happiness go? 90? 80? 70? 60? And then, when does the decision become more tyrannical such as "you can only go 10mph so that no one dies"?

Hard to splice and dice.

But some things are pretty simply... the right to life declares you can't take the life of another (in its basic form). But then "when CAN you take the life of another?"

I agree that it is a hard question. And i also agree that we will likely never come to a worldwide agreement. But i am interested in how individuals think respecting this concept. I am more interested in how people think rather than whether one is right and another wrong.

That said, if you favor fundamental rights such as life liberty and property and allude to the U.S. Declaration of Independence, am i also to assume you favor the rights that are perceived to stem from that and subsequent documents.

If so, how do you resolve the conflict when those rights are in competition? Surely there must be a hierarchy of rights among which you place a higher premium on some rights than others.

 

[Curious George]

Yup, never been against that.

You do not see any scenarios wherein to respect one's rights we must violate another's?

 

[The Hammer]

You do not see any scenarios wherein to respect one's rights we must violate another's?

Well of course there are some situations that would require that, but that's what lawyers and the legal system is there to figure out. I also never insinuated that, so I'm unsure the reason for the question. Someone's freedom is completely violatable, if their "freedom of choice" is violating my/someones right to be safe/happy/healthy.

 

[Curious George]

Having good conscience is the only road to freedom. Obviously we need laws for those without conscience. If the laws are effective and prosperity happens people become inclined to follow them. The inclinations of the majority power rule the day.

Laws are a reflection of how we want others to be. Laws are a reflection of what we want for ourselves. Because we must follow our own laws that we create for ourselves we try to create the fairest laws possible.

To make fairest laws possible we must include everybody in the process, and have everybody subject to them, none excluded. Peace and prosperity must follow from good laws or people will rebel.

As for conflicting consciences what can be said. I do believe the superior conscience will produce the best peace possible. No one should be disallowed their personal conscience if that conscience doesn't harm others, nor impinge upon others' freedoms.

I wouldn't suggest that laws are for those without conscience.

That said, i am more interested in the authority of the law in general. This in itself demonstrates a belief in a right to dictate some order or another. Is there no limit to such a right?

 

[Curious George]

Well of course there are some situations that would require that, but that's what lawyers and the legal system is there to figure out. I also never insinuated that, so I'm unsure the reason for the question. Someone's freedom is completely violatable, if their "freedom of choice" is violating my/someones right to be safe/happy/healthy.

Hmm, perhaps you didn't realize i was asking your opinion. If your opinion is to punt to "lawyers and the legal system," ok.

 

[Kenny]

I agree that it is a hard question. And i also agree that we will likely never come to a worldwide agreement. But i am interested in how individuals think respecting this concept. I am more interested in how people think rather than whether one is right and another wrong.

That said, if you favor fundamental rights such as life liberty and property and allude to the U.S. Declaration of Independence, am i also to assume you favor the rights that are perceived to stem from that and subsequent documents.

If so, how do you resolve the conflict when those rights are in competition? Surely there must be a hierarchy of rights among which you place a higher premium on some rights than others.

That is a good question. I suppose it would have to be on a case by case basis. Perhaps that is why they made a Supreme Court?

It will always be a contentious situation as we are dealing with men with different outlooks, philosophies, and world views.

It took the Supreme Court quite a while to realize that "all men are created equal" meant "all".

So the question on "How" -- is a tough question. Yes, some rights have a premium on others--but wouldn't that be a case by case basis?

I think the broader question can be found in "when does the governmental system become more of a tyrannical system as they view laws through their views". (EDIT but that may be making the subject matter too broad)

Civil war, eventually IMO.

 

[osgart]

I wouldn't suggest that laws are for those without conscience.

That said, i am more interested in the authority of the law in general. This in itself demonstrates a belief in a right to dictate some order or another. Is there no limit to such a right?

Law is for the protection of everyone's freedoms and rights. And no one is allowed to exclude themselves from law; it's for everyone. And these goals of law puts limits on the powers of those who make the laws because everyone must agree upon being subject to those laws.

The limit is imposed on authority because they also must live by what they enact. They must fulfill the goals of law or be overthrown by those who bestow their authority upon them. And who bestows the authority of law establishment, the voters.