Rights vs Privileges vs Social Responsibility

[James Deuce]

Excellent essay. Old folks will get it, I'm sure.

http://torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Coren_Michael/2005/08/19/1180425.html

[Paul in NZ]

Interesting - we have the right to buy a 300kph bike but should use it responsibly?

Hmmm.... That old bloke at the gas station that asked me if I was one of the mad cu%ts on the hill might have an opinion on that? ;-)

[Odin]

no its good to be told what to do and not have to take any respocibility. I think its the nabors resposibility to keep my kids from drowning in his pool. They ofcaurce have the right to be roaming arround his backyard and should they get fat I'll sue McDonalds and the local take away as it's clearly there fault. If they, when they get a learners license, drive 200kmh and kill themeself and/or others i will blame society and demand rules and regulations put in place so no one else will have the freedom to do anything.
No there is no reason for assuming resposibility, regulate and sue instead.

[Ixion]

I'm old and I don't get it. Is he objecting to people having rights in law? If they don't that is by definition autocracy. A man accused (not convicted) of even the most serious crimes does indeed have some rights. The right to the presumption of innocence for a start. I think the author was a bit of a grumpy old man maybe

[Sharkey]

I agree with the author. Human Rights are a myth, a selfish contortion of the noble truth that all people are equal. If others are equal to me, and there are lots more others than there are me, then I have a responsibility to consider how my decisions might benefit others. And everyone else has the same responsibility to me as part of their "others".

I am not sure if that makes sense, but at least I know what I mean.

[James Deuce]

I'm old and I don't get it. Is he objecting to people having rights in law? If they don't that is by definition autocracy. A man accused (not convicted) of even the most serious crimes does indeed have some rights. The right to the presumption of innocence for a start. I think the author was a bit of a grumpy old man maybe

No he's objecting to people claiming that their individual rights are more important than common sense law, that is beneficial to society as a whole. It's hardly surprising that he's grumpy, he has the same distilled world view as me. That's enought to make anyone grumpy.

It's not about the right to purchase 300km.hr sportsbikes and use them responsibly, it's about not attempting to gain compensation from road builders and farmers for damage that you caused to yourself when you exceeded your own skill/luck limits. You certainly still have access to the same medical treatment as anyone else, or indeed a legal defence. People just need to stop blaming everything except themselves when they create a problem for themselves.

[Big Dave]

Fuck being grumpy. And those grumpy old men on TV can get fucked too.

We live in one of the most beautiful places on the planet - with the best motorcycling going - we enjoy freedoms, democracy, quality of life, health, food, society etc etc etc - that most of the poor sods alive can only dream about.

Fuck being grumpy - go outside and look around - we are soooo lucky

[Lou Girardin]

Mao Tse Tung considered that the peoples responsibilty to the State was superior to their right to feed themselves. So he exported food stocks to Russia to pay for the nuclear technology he wanted.
Tens of millions died in the ensuing famine.
Rights and responsibilties are very difficult to balance correctly. But I'd rather have it our way than his.

[Big Dave]

Mao Tse Tung considered

So pwofound gwasshopper

[Motu]

SUNSHINE GIRL

STACI, 24, is going back to school this fall to become a lawyer. When she gets rich, she’ll be able to buy more shoes, which she loves

Nice chick....thanks for the link - you're right ,it'd be a priviledge to get involved with her, but I have social responsabilities .

Dunno if you needed to make a whole thread out of her though?.....

[Hitcher]

Social responsibility versus individual responsibility: Danger, may contain hot liquid; objects in the rear-view mirror may be closer than they appear; do not feed the animals...

[Biff]

Fuck being grumpy - go outside and look around - we are soooo lucky

Give that man a cigar.

Respect and earn respect. Be courteous and invite courtesy. Be honest and demand honesty. Be responsible for your actions and demand responsibility from others.

Be grumpy and be told to shut the fuck up.

[sels1]

We live in one of the most beautiful places on the planet - with the best motorcycling going - we enjoy freedoms, democracy, quality of life, health, food, society etc etc etc - that most of the poor sods alive can only dream about.

Fuck being grumpy - go outside and look around - we are soooo lucky

And thats from an imported Austrailian ( :D )- high praise indeed. But you're right Dave

[Lias]

I'ts a well written article bemoaning how indivduals "rights" now outweight the good of society, and how political correctness has run amok.

I'm not an old fart, but I still wish we lived in the "good old days", where a spade was a spade, and society was more important than individuals. Bring back personal responsability.. Courts should tell people "You did not commit that crime because mommy didnt love you, daddy beat you, the baby sitter molested you, or because you were on P.. You commited that crime because your a sodding crim, and your going to do 15 years breaking rocks and being buttfucked at her majesty's pleasure."

[Big Dave]

And thats from an imported Austrailian ( :D )- high praise indeed. But you're right Dave

I say the same things about my homeland too - well maybe not the beauty and the motorcycling bits, but the rest is trans tasman.

I have a shot at getting a feature in an Aussie mag at the moment. (negotiating) - On the differences between motorcycling in Aus and NZ and how good i think the touring is here:

'Dances with Wool'

[Lias]

I have a shot at getting a feature in an Aussie mag at the moment. (negotiating) - On the differences between motorcycling in Aus and NZ and how good i think the touring is here:

Tell em it's arse or the palce will be full of aussie galoots :rofl:

[mstriumph]

... and / or returning expat kiwis !! :rofl:
Tell em it's arse or the palce will be full of aussie galoots :rofl:

[Phurrball]

Getting dangerously close to Jurisprudence...

'Rights' usually have corollary 'obligations'. ie for the police to have the powers to arrest people that we ordinary citizens do not possess, they have a responsibility to follow due process. The quid pro quo nature of the law is lost on the author of that article - sometimes you have to wear the effects of the law/rules etc, but do you see people bitching and moaning when they get the benefits?

Could post more, much more, but have to go and do a work task...

buttons duly pushed...

[Skyryder]

Rights are determined by law which in turn is passed by way of legislation. There are also rights that are part of cultural traditions. When these are seen to be abused (corperal punishment in schools) these rights are taken away.

Essentialy rights are priveledges and if these priveldges are abused you will lose them.

Some time ago in anothe thread this subject came up. I recall saying something along the lines that very few New Zealanders know their rights. I used the example of security guards insisting that they have the right to inspect shopping bags. I got two kinds of response. If you have nothing to hide why prevent the search. The other one was that a number of posters believed that the security guards had this right in law as you were on private property.

Very few New Zealanders know their rights. Americans on the other hand are vey well informed. This is one area that we could do well to emulate.

Skyryder

[avgas]

You have the right to comply.......
i always thought that was the contradiction of the century

[Phurrball]

Rights are determined by law which in turn is passed by way of legislation. There are also rights that are part of cultural traditions. When these are seen to be abused (corperal punishment in schools) these rights are taken away.

Essentialy rights are priveledges and if these priveldges are abused you will lose them.

Some time ago in anothe thread this subject came up. I recall saying something along the lines that very few New Zealanders know their rights. I used the example of security guards insisting that they have the right to inspect shopping bags. I got two kinds of response. If you have nothing to hide why prevent the search. The other one was that a number of posters believed that the security guards had this right in law as you were on private property.

Very few New Zealanders know their rights. Americans on the other hand are vey well informed. This is one area that we could do well to emulate.

Skyryder

Well spoken - knowledge of the law in general in NZ is poor, resulting in poor access to justice for the 'little things' that make a difference to ordinary people. For example does the average person know their rights under the residential tenancies act? Rights when returning goods? etc...not often in my experience.

You get to see the 'little' problems of ordinary people when you volunteer in a community law centre - best part is empowering people to help themselves - perhaps a little of this stuff should be taught in schools? Maybe then a few kiwis would be better acquainted with their rights...

[James Deuce]

Getting dangerously close to Jurisprudence...

'Rights' usually have corollary 'obligations'. ie for the police to have the powers to arrest people that we ordinary citizens do not possess, they have a responsibility to follow due process. The quid pro quo nature of the law is lost on the author of that article - sometimes you have to wear the effects of the law/rules etc, but do you see people bitching and moaning when they get the benefits?

Could post more, much more, but have to go and do a work task...

buttons duly pushed...
Erm, I think the "Quid Pro Quo" is precisely what he's trying to point out. He's examining modern attitudes in light of social traditions, and actual Law that were developed by societies that not only expected citizens to give of themselves, but actually believed that they were fighting to preserve those rights at different times. Today we take for granted our "rights", with little respect for the process that earned them, or the fact that you need to give something back to preserve them and develop more.

[Phurrball]

Erm, I think the "Quid Pro Quo" is precisely what he's trying to point out. He's examining modern attitudes in light of social traditions, and actual Law that were developed by societies that not only expected citizens to give of themselves, but actually believed that they were fighting to preserve those rights at different times. Today we take for granted our "rights", with little respect for the process that earned them, or the fact that you need to give something back to preserve them and develop more.

Not quite what I meant - you hit on a quid pro quo, but not the one I was getting at. I wrote the post quickly as I had to shoot outside and park a client's cage...[Yes everyone, I park cages for reward:devil2:]

The quid pro quo of the law is that you take the rough decisions/statutory rules with the ones you like out of deference to the rule of law. If a decision is out of left field, it will be abandoned by the judiciary, or overruled by subsequent judicial decision or by the legislature.

The author of the article seems to have a very slanted view; without being aware of the entirity of Canadian jurisprudence, I would hypothesise that you could find cases to support the [I]opposite view of the author - ie cases where a repeatedly robbed store owner was allowed to use force to defend themselves. The author glosses over the cases he refers to - we know nothing of the background to the decisions, or the surrounding circumstances.

How we treat the lowliest members of society is how we will be judged as a society - presumption of innocence, right to instruct a lawyer, due process, humane treatment in prison etc. These are what you or I would expect if we were to be arrested, how can they be guaranteed if we don't provide them to even the scummiest? If due process is not to apply, who gets to decide that? [there are statutory exceptions - I would not like this type of abrogation of rights to be made as a policy decision].

The problem with some of the responses couched in the terms of 'the war on terror', or advocated by those who favour an 'eye for an eye' approach, is that they roll back the rights of everyone. Will sections of the patriot act and similar legislation that do this be repealed when the 'war' is won? Or will the state enjoy being able to detain people indefinately without charge and other similar powers just a little too much? Food for thought.

[Big Dave]

you hit on a quid pro quo,

Yeah I saw them once too - rockin' all over the world!

[inlinefour]

Cheers Jim. Might explain why we have home invasions, child tampering & concrete dropping on cars. Too many arseholes believe that their rights superceed anyone elses' :no:

[Lou Girardin]

Essentialy rights are priveledges and if these priveldges are abused you will lose them.
Skyryder


Rights are NOT priviliges and, properly enshrined in law, they cannot be taken away. Except by dictatorial means.
Although I am no admirer of Merkins, at least they have a constitution which Pollies interfere with at their peril.
We have a Bill of 'Rights' that has so many loopholes to allow official abuse, we may as well not have bothered.

[inlinefour]

Rights are NOT priviliges and, properly enshrined in law, they cannot be taken away. Except by dictatorial means.
Although I am no admirer of Merkins, at least they have a constitution which Pollies interfere with at their peril.
We have a Bill of 'Rights' that has so many loopholes to allow official abuse, we may as well not have bothered.

Take that shit heal that threw the large block on concrete onto the AKL motorway. Alot of his rights have grinded to a immediate halt...