Ammo For Sale

« « Eating their own | Home | Red’s Trading Post Blog » »

Rights v. Privileges

John Edwards copy of the Constitution: An easily entertained population, being necessary to the feelings of a warm and fuzzy electorate, the right of the people to download porn and games, shall not be infringed.

But now someone’s gonna tell me that really means only the state can have computers.

Update: Pattycakes: As far as I’m concerned, he’s 0 for 6 on this one. It’s worth pointing out that Edwards is a lawyer. Must have slept through con-law.

12 Responses to “Rights v. Privileges”

  1. Jim W Says:

    That man is a talented lawyer. Then again, maybe he kicked ass in torts but failed con law. Stranger things have happened.

  2. #9 Says:

    Two Americas. Edwards is one of the great elitists of our times.

    Ironically he polls at Number 1 in Tennessee for President. I wouldn’t vote for him for County Commission.

  3. Jim W Says:

    On the bright side, this will probably come back to haunt him if he gets through the primaries.

  4. gattsuru Says:

    That is remarkably frightening.

  5. Bruce Says:

    Call it the “Bill of Lefts”.

  6. Brutal Hugger Says:

    The definition of rights and privileges isn’t as simple as some might think. What, exactly, is a right? Can we talk about rights in contexts other than Constitutional rights? And what is a privilege? How does it overlap with an entitlement?

    There’s actually a lot of scholarship in this area, and there is a lot of room for using the words “rights” and “privileges” in ways that are not as cut and dried as some might think. A guy named Dworkin has written extensively in this area. There’s some fascinating thinking going on here.

    All that said, I’m not defending Edwards since I didn’t listen to his words. I do suspect, however, that his definition of rights differs from Uncle’s, which might mean the criticism is more linguistic than semantic.

  7. Xrlq Says:

    It’s worth pointing out that Edwards is a lawyer. Must have slept through con-law.

    Worse still, he probably aced it.

  8. gattsuru Says:

    Brutal Hugger, do you really want to that he’s going for the highest office in the country and is sworn to uphold the Constitution, but thinks that means he needs to uphold the right to a free cable modem and an artificially inflated paycheck?

    Even ignoring the incredibly poor grasp of economics involved, it’s less than reassuring to see that sort of mindset. Freedom of speech, privilege. Free candy, right!

  9. Jim W Says:

    In all fairness to edwards, the modern idea is that when the state gives you an expectation that you will receive something unless X, Y or Z happens, they can’t just arbitrarily take away that benefit unless X, Y or Z happens. That being said, I think it is fairer to call this sort of property interest an entitlement rather than a right, since most people still think of a right as a negative right, a bar on the government doing a certain thing.

    I don’t like to count things as rights when they cost money. Inevitably, someone will be unable or unwilling to pay and then you have to start screwing someone over to force a transfer the free market isn’t providing. If we’re lucky, the government overpays and sends the bill to our grandchildren. If we’re unlucky, it devolves into government sponsored theft. Both these outcomes suck.

    And regardless of semantics, I don’t approve of his ideas because we can’t afford what he wants to do. Add in 20 or 30 million extra poor people and you can forget about us ever getting rid of the national debt.

  10. Jim W Says:

    Also, I had the benefit of a moderate con law professor who wasn’t pushing an agenda. There are a great many out there who deeply believe in a “living constitution”- they completely reject the idea that the constitution stays the same unless amended- and instead embrace the judiciary as a kind of politboro that steers the direction of society.

    For a perfect example of this, see SCOTUS jurisprudence on the death penalty from Coker v Georgia to present- the recurring theme is that the justices know not just the constitution but also morality and policy better than the writers of the constitution and all the legislatures in the country.

    Under such a regime, nearly anything can be “constitutional” if the judges wish it to be so.

  11. Phelps Says:

    Actually, applying the militia nonsense parsing to the clause above, only voters would be allowed computers.

  12. straightarrow Says:

    The constitution is a living document, it can grow. Through amendment only.

    All the penumbras are bullshit.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives