|
|
 |
|
Getting Real : Tea for Two
Are we all equal? If so, who needs rights? | from conan - Monday, November 17, 2008
accessed 977 times Inspired by Nietzsche, Prop 8, and recent discussions on human rights. The ‘Declaration of Independence’ declares that all men (meaning presumably humans) are created equal, which sounds innocent enough, until you make the connection to there being a Creator. It continues to say that this same Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable rights, which include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In defense of Jefferson, Franklin, et al, they knew that their atheistic beliefs would not easily be adopted by the masses of every day colonists who needed their religion to justify the upcoming war and so invoked a nameless Creator to appease the collective conscience in a superstitious age.
Let’s examine though, for a moment, the dichotomy of those two thoughts in the venerable document. If all Homo sapiens were truly equal, there would be no need for rights nor for any governing agency to enforce said virtuous dues. Allow me to elaborate.
Ignoring for this argument the absurd notion of creation and one space-god’s supremacy over another’s, let’s actually examine the ideas of equality and rights. Rights, however unfortunate, are usually not rights until demanded that they be so. I know, I know. Many brave individuals have sacrificed their own health, reputation, and even life to bring about awareness and change to enable certain rights. I.e. the right for women to vote, or the right for black people to vote, the rights to free speech and to bear arms, the right to a trial of your peers and to have legal representation whether you can afford it or not, etc., etc., etc.
The mere fact that these rights exist implies emphatically that at one time they did not. Naturally, as humans progress and learn, we discover more about our moral compass extraneous of religious implications and shameful, restrictive traditions and tweak our legal systems to represent our newest united epiphany. Nevertheless, to assume that we humans today believe us all to be homologous is bombastic and absurd. Before you go off and brand me a pagan cynic, let me unequivocally state that I am not anti our differing human rights or any of the amendments in the US Constitution defining those rights, but am against the claim of equality and justice for all, when clearly that is not and cannot be the case as long as there are those that we feel superior to, and as long as we have sundry factions who feel that their rights are being infringed upon by society, government, or both.
And now, prior to you saying how right I am and that you agree with me wholeheartedly, and let’s get everyone on the same page and equal so we can eliminate some of these ‘rights’ which are unnecessary, let me use a harsh example to demonstrate how you are most likely opposed to genuine equality for all. Sexual preference. Yes, I went there. Sexual preference and rights pertaining thereof have been getting some press recently (in the US) due to the deluge of opposition to legalizing same sex marriage as demonstrated by Prop 8’s overwhelming success in California overturning the state’s recent history of allowing same-sex marriages to be conducted. I am all for same-sex marriage, and figure if straight people are allowed to have tax benefits and sexual frustration and misery via the ‘sanctity’ of marriage, why shouldn’t people who are attracted to members of the same sex as themselves be allowed to as well? I may still have you agreeing with me, and thinking that if gay men and women are allowed to be members of society, and to hold the same jobs as us and vote, and be in the armed forces, then yes! They should also be allowed to wed the individual they so desire. Great. So glad we’re all getting on so well to this point.
Now I’m going to push the limits of our tęte-ŕ-tęte, by delving further into sexual preference and the apropos rights. Pedophilia. Now that’s a taboo subject to be sure. Notwithstanding the obvious negative connotations that come with such a sensitive topic, it is, after all is said and done, a sexual preference. Not a popular one with the masses at large, and supposedly, even among criminals, pedophilia is regarded as the base of the base. Indubitably we wouldn’t want them to be equal to us, oh no! When pedophiles are caught, comments like ‘neuter them’ or ‘string them up’ or ‘lock them up for good’ are commonplace, and not considered outlandish, or out of line. Are pedophiles less than human? Are their urges as natural to them as those of a homosexual, or even (gasp! don’t say it) a heterosexual? No, I’m not an apologist for child abusers and molesters, far from it. And yet, aren’t they too human? They still have most of the rights the rest of us have. They have the right to vote (until they’re convicted felons) and to a trial of their peers (does that mean only pedophiles on the jury?) and legal representation, as well as the right to free speech and to get an education, and to protect themselves and their property with force, yet if they respond to their (for all intents and purposes) natural urges, it offends and nauseates so many, that their head is called for more often than not.
Ah! Now I understand the dichotomy. They have rights but aren’t equal. They are base and vile whilst we are moral, and above them. Well, I’d debate that.
There are a countless number of topics with which to tangent off upon: ageism, racism, gender-ism, all of which will have people lining up either for or against that particular groups’ right to equality with the rest of the herd. Of course, the semantics of the protean idea of equality in relation to law is one that will most likely go unresolved for many generations to come, but that shouldn’t preclude us from delving into the topic and examining ourselves in relation to the status quo of the entente.
Do we want rights while perpetuating division of disparaging contingents? Do we want equality for the mainstream with all unsavory schisms kept at a distance, hidden away, or worse, eliminated? Are we ‘free’ enough to allow genuine equality to all clans, cliques, and conclaves? Can we truly allow equality across the board and not have someone suffer? Can we sustain equality and defend those who are physically or otherwise incapable of defending themselves? Or are we bold enough to allow the fact that we are not all the same? That some homo sapiens are in fact superior to others, intellectually, morally, and physically? If so, can we be brave enough to protect that diversity whilst preserving the rights our government (through supposed consensus of the governed) has cultivated and nourish those rights till their enforcement is rudimentary and their sustenance sacred? Or is it inevitable that mobs will always be mobs, and they will not be swayed when the scent of blood is in the air for a cause people adamantly, dogmatically, and blindly adhere to, constantly being riled up for this cause or against that one? Either way, let us stop bandying on about egalitarianism, and barraging ourselves with claims of this right and that right when we already know we are neither equal, nor conscientious enough to unilaterally maintain the scruples we have outlined for our society without someone feeling that their right has been infringed upon by some party or other to everyone’s chagrin.
|
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from The Missionary Position
Thursday, December 11, 2008 - 20:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't know what communist nonsense you've been reading but Western society, the founding fathers, and anyone with a brain realizes there is no such thing as human equality and there never has been and there never can be.
What there can be however, is equality under the law. All that means is whatever rights or boundaries we as a society agree to give ourselves, we give without respect to power, money, looks, sex, or intelligence.
(reply to this comment)
| from vacuous
Thursday, December 11, 2008 - 14:56
 (Agree/Disagree?)
I think John Rawls 'Theory of Justice' is an interesting starting point in grappling with notions of equality.
It centers an idea of equality or justice, on the abstract notion of an original position behind a veil of ignorance which clouds distinctions such as gender, race, natural abilities or wealth. The entity in the original position cannot choose where he/she will land or how he/she will be treated if the veil is removed. Rights protect a concept of fair and equal treatment and acknowledgment of self interest in equality of opportunity, regardless of where an individual will actualize once the veil is removed and their position made clear.
The concept is fairness, supporting the weak and the lowly because, should the veil be lifted and you found yourself in their position, you would want your interests to be equally protected.
(reply to this comment)
| from bottem line?
Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 18:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
We aren't all equal and we have no rights?
(reply to this comment)
| from Baxter
Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 18:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
Equality can only be realised at the expense of freedom; there are no two ways about it. no human society in history has ever perpetuated or indeed realised the concept of equality. The very organisational requirements of even the most simple of societies would negate the concept in practice. Furthermore, no one really wants to be equal. The underpriviledged do not look at the moral injustice of those that have more than they do - they look on in covetous envy. The only social or moral imposition against them doing so is the very one that tells us that the imperative of a just society is one that realises equality for all its members - a rule that has never proven itself, and frankly is irrelevent and ultimately disruptive. If we did not envy our neighbors nor wish to advance ourselves beyond our or their stead, then all progress would stagnate. That's another thing that would go (along with freedom) with the realisation of equality -progress. Competition - not necessarily Capitalism - makes the world go round. The promise of equality is only ever attractive as a platform for personal advancement, and the revolutionaries of the world will only ever use their cries for equality to do exactly what their predecessors did - in the words of Napoleon the pig: make some 'more equal than others'.
I will be mocked to scorn for reminding you all of the social and political disparities and hypocrisy that marked the men who composed the American Declaration of Independence, so I shall not - you all know them. My point in that regard is as above: whether a sincere manifesto, or a pompous ruse on their part, the American Founding Fathers did what most social revolutionaries do from the outset: assert their position from a stance of apparent moral high ground. I'm sure they had no intention of realising it to the letter, at the risk of their own social status not to mention the sheer impracticality of doing so. Nor do I intend to condemn them for it. Most nations include unrealistic and absurd but lofty ideals in their systems and constitutions - it helps to raise the concept of statehood and national integrity above the corruptible and pathetic nature of mortal man. (And of course it made perfect sense for the new nation to assume a stance directly opposite from the frigid monarchy it had just liberated itself from)
I personally dread the day social equality is realised for fear its imposition will equal that in constraint of any or all of the restrictive social orders previously imposed: how much worse the glass ceiling if all are subject to it?
As for rights: as you say, rights are either bestowed by the providence of divinity, or else they are inherent to all men at birth. Disregarding the irrelevent argument in favour of divine providence, if we are born with rights, then all humans would be consciously aware of of them without any prompting - otherwise it's just someone else's idea. Just because the concept of rights now enters into the sacred halls of liberalised social dogma does not make it any less a fiction. If humans have any rights at all, those rights would be accepted as a given by all other humans - effectively, equality would be inalienable to the the human psyche. No human would ever consider the possibility or the prospect of violating anyone else's rights; furthermore all humanity would stand united against the violation of the rights of even the most trivial members of our race. If this is not the case, then rights are bestowed at the behest of groups beyond the general sphere of all-encompassing humanity, and if so are not based on general membership to humanity, but upon relationships of power and the nature of its exertion. Of course, that means that the only people who actually have rights are those who supposedly grant them. I mean, how many times in this decade alone have government in the so-called 'free world' liberal democracies percieved the necessity to infringe upon or indeed remove and/or violate previously 'inviolable' so-called rights? The point is that what we suppose are rights are really not so at all, but should be called priviledges, granted us within the provisional dictates of the immediate wielders of power. And anyway it's all supported by an absurd system that only works because we take it for granted. We get born into different societies on a small planet, each of whom may or may not grant us the same rights. We don't even get a say in it; we don't consent at birth to ascribe to the ideals and conventions of the country into which we are born. But we apparently belong -legally- to that country somehow. It doesn't have anything necessarily to do with race, culture, history, or even geography.We didn't ask for their protection or representation; they choose to represent us however they see fit, through their foreign and domestic policy, by doing what they think is right. And if we dissent, we have nowhere to go. And yet every nation on the Earth is supported at least in part by the taxation of its 'citizens'.
And we're supposed to assume that our apparently inherent 'human' rights are protected by this fraud racket?
I say: what you cannot defend does not belong to you.
(reply to this comment)
| | | |  From Nodoby
Thursday, December 11, 2008, 06:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
Cannot defend or WILL NOT defend...either way, you may be right!
Perhaps the question everyone should ask themselves is exactly WHAT Is 'equality'; and does equality equal justice, or mercy, and which is greater!?
I believe in God, and agree with the Bible that says:
Isaiah 9:6,7
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
Isaiah 16:5
And in mercy shall the throne be established: and he shall sit upon it in truth in the tabernacle of David, judging, and seeking judgment, and hasting righteousness.
Psalm 97:2
Clouds and darkness are round about him: righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne.
Hebrews 1:8
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
So, fortunately we don't have to depend on humans, as such, for justice because there is a power above ALL, and that power is established in Righteousness, Truth and Justice!
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Phoenixkidd
Wednesday, November 26, 2008 - 08:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
Liberation and Democracy is a process, what did work yesterday may not be good for today. For example, in the world's so called, "First" democracy in Athens Greece only about 10% of the population actually could vote. When the original 13 colonies were founded in America only about 20% of people at most could vote. The rest were either women, immigrants to the US, slaves or Indians or children who did not possess any rights at all. America likes to imagine itself as a free nation, enlightened with a set module by which democracy can truly govern with Justice. If so why all the ammendments? Are they necessary? Of course they are! Will they be faced with bigotry, nepotism and almost ironic hate towards the new? of course! Think of the suffrage movement, civil rights etc... In most southern states it was illegal to have mixed marriages, or even sharing of restrooms, and drinking fountains. This all changed in 1967 and we radically imposed sanctions on South Africa in the 80's for it's refusal to adopt to integration.
Democracy and freedom are a process. Even now we lofty citizens of the US of A like to think that all men and women over 18 are equal and their vote means just as much as the next....but in reality does our bigotry denote otherwise? Take a normal sampling of people at the DMV, the Social Security Office or even a bus stop, chances are you will think you are better than 50% of them and you really would like the other 50% not to be able to vote, due to mental health, racial or other issues you may have---Think about it honestly and ask yourself, would I really respect that man's vote and should it even matter?
That's why a unified Justice system by the federal supreme court is necessary in some instances to do away with our regional differences and bigotry and in some cases force human rights legislation on our backward mentalities.
Tha'ts my take on it.
(reply to this comment)
| from madly
Thursday, November 20, 2008 - 20:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Good questions... made me think.
(reply to this comment)
| from another good one
Thursday, November 20, 2008 - 10:25
 (Agree/Disagree?)
goes through the common law issue.
http://www.peterjamesx.com/Babylon%20News%202007/EU%20UK%20Truth.htm
(reply to this comment)
| from informative site on law and rights
Thursday, November 20, 2008 - 10:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://www.uk-human-rights.org/protocol.htm
(reply to this comment)
| from Fish
Thursday, November 20, 2008 - 09:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
It would appear whoever administrates this site has taken an extended vacation. In their absence I suggest we take matters into our own hands by trailer parking any lengthy anonymous comment. It only takes 5 votes. Lets kick this crap off our site!
Yeah! Cyber vigilantism!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From rainy
Thursday, November 20, 2008, 13:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree. In this article only, all anonymous comments should be tossed. You can't read anything because there is so much junk to sift through. People, we're interested in hearing your own personal views, not lengthy c&p's from other websites. If you can't manage that, go somewhere else. Or just post a link instead of pasting pages of text. It's extremely annoying.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from related topic
Thursday, November 20, 2008 - 09:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
the right to make a citizen arrest.
http://walkndude.wordpress.com/2008/11/20/citizens-arrest/
(reply to this comment)
| from geo
Thursday, November 20, 2008 - 06:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
The language of rights, like the language of law, is not meant to be descriptive. Legislative utility is derived, not from what is, but from what should be.
As with mathematical symbolism, equality is an abstract signifier that has no objective material construction. As a symbol, equality is a useful concept only when realized within its social convention. That convention, though defined, is not realized in the Declaration. Until the rights are affirmed, documented and enforced they do not, in any material sense, exist. This must be done, because we recognize that any dialectic of supernatural jurisprudence is intended only toward our entertainment. Few thinking men could be convinced otherwise.
Like equality, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are plainly not christian imperatives. The use of religious terminology to decorate governmental pronouncements is significant of nothing, except the historical context of the writing. Derivations from religious presupposition have precedent as convenient final authorities, E.g., Plato's Noble Lie. It is the ultimate closing to the infantile reduction: But why?
Cus god said so bitches, that's why.
The question, as to the religious ideation of the founders of US or western democracy, is as relevant as whether the Hellenistic originators really believed in Dryads. Still, it is likely they did not. Few bureaucrats, however, have failed to take notice of the willing sycophancy afforded them by the majority superstitious Samuels of their population. I imagine that a conflict is always present, do we attempt to defend the axioms of law and governmental authority as solely anthropogenic, or do we concede, as Plato did, that religious obfuscation, though dishonest, is unfortunately necessary.
The problem with language is that it allows us to create concepts that are impossible. Equality is such a concept. It may be that, our evolution towards unattainable concepts is a positive movement away from the illusion of supernatural authority. We have, in a sense, traded our religious illusions for new social ones.
But here it is easy to miss the big picture by looking only at the syntactic or semantic aspects of our ideologies. Language, if judged by its pragmatics, can be validated, not by the accuracy of its depictions, but by the behavior it induces. Whatever its content, the Declaration has influenced a slow digression from slavery, racism and sexism. The transition has not been perfect. And the text of the Declaration has not been, and probably cannot be, literally realized; however, its literal impossibility is, in my thinking, irrelevant.
(reply to this comment)
| from Sharon
Thursday, November 20, 2008 - 05:09
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Seriously people—Every time Samuel makes an ignorant comment, why is anyone even responding to him? He'll never shut up if we keep engaging him.
For the sake of this sites integrity, can please just ignore him? Pretty please?
(reply to this comment)
| From Samuel
Thursday, November 20, 2008, 13:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
Gee, since when do you have such a stick up your ass? You don't like my comments because you disagree with me? That's fine. You don't like my comments because I am too long winded? That's fine. You don't like my comments because I have the audacity to answer factual errors that appear on this site? Hey, to each their own. But I still have the right to speak freely, and I plan to continue exercising that right.
Feel free to exercise that right as well, but I would appreciate it if you would actually contribute to the debates instead of just making a sweeping statement about my comments, most of which you probably have never read.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from colden
Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 21:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
The Declaration of Independance is a guidind document for the implamentation of a democratic government(majority rule) as such when it states all men are created equal it is understod to mean under the law (not in stature or abilities ect). If one wishes to change the law in a democracy one need only convince the populace. All ideas must (in theory) pass the same threshold, which coupled with freedom of speach gives an equal opportunity too all to express their ideas of how things should be. Enter the pedophile (will the real Mo Berg please stand up) he is given the freedom to do as he pleases sexualy with the same caveat we all share he mush have the consent of his partner or partners. Couple this with age of majority laws which state a minor cannot give consent and you are left with the same non consent+sex=rape equation and since the majority of us still think rape is kind of a drag the pedophile goes to prison. Now unless you think without rape there is no equality (three cheers for the ugly man!) the only one whos rights could be conceivably being infringed would be the kids for not being able to give consent. (and I urge you to think long and hard before stepping in that pile of Berg)
(reply to this comment)
| from conan
Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 16:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wow! Talk about spam! No one on this site seems to have an original thought or opinion anymore. They only know how to post links to shit I could care less about, or copy/paste transcripts to more of the same. Especially Sam. Holy fuck, you have gotten more annoying in my absence than you were when you were a whiny, sensitive cunt hair. I wish as the author of an article I could control, which fuck-nuts would not be permitted to comment, and you’d be at the top of everyone’s list, I guarantee it.
(reply to this comment)
| from rainy
Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 13:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
Okay, so I've revised my original position, and I agree that human rights are bestowed by society and other humans. A person cannot be born with rights, it's not something you can see, touch, taste, or smell on a newborn baby.
BUT
It is animal instinct to bestow those rights upon the weak. Even elephants do it. We have a long and ancient history of caring for our young and venerating our elders and protecting the weak. This is in our cell memory. Nobody needs to tell us to do this. The further we get away from our animal instincts now, we start to question all of this, but in my humble opinion it is impossible to have human society without concepts of human rights.
I still maintain that we as healthy humans give love and care. I still maintain that bullying and cruelty, and disregard for the rights of others are alterations and do not occur in a healthy psyche.
In order to raise future generations of healthy minds and souls we need to continue to care for and protect the rights of others. We no longer need religion to tell us to do this, we can just listen to centuries of human instinct. Compassion and empathy are an integral part of humanity. All human rights are born from the compassion and empathy of humans who have gone before us.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From tathata
Thursday, November 20, 2008, 01:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
We do have a long history of caring for our young and venetrating our elders - OUR young and OUR elders. Emphasis on our.
Humans are a pack, and morality is what is useful for a particular group. There is no Morality but only various moralities.
Morality is 'ourness'. What's outside of ourness is immoral. And therefore one can be 'moral' and commit atrocities on
people beyond the pale (people who are outside) sometimes the more atrocities one commits on people beyond the pale
the more moral a person is thought to be.
The more spiritual or intellectual or human a person is the more he will lacerate himself, because there is a jungle inside of us. If thy eye - or MIND - offend thee cut it off. A civilized person is more apt to harm himself than others.
Healthy human beings do give love and care but there are other 'instincts" that exist in us.
P.S. : I'm all for "human rights" but I understand it as a figment of the imagination - it's right up there with God, Morality, and the Unconditional. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From tathata
Friday, November 21, 2008, 23:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think I get your point on two levels. Your main point is that it's not possible for a healthy moral person to look at pain without feeling empathy. Maybe your secondary point is that they're some things better left unthought of, you asked me my opinion; I'll tell you my opinion, I took a look and was disgusted; I didn't even scroll down to the end. And No I did not feel an outpouring of empathy - starved Somalian or Ethiopian children is simply not my cup of tea. I don't like looking at the maimed the lame and I don't see why I should.
Neither are thoughts about the origins of morality very useful if they are so depressing. But since the conversation here was on morality (human rights being intimately connected with them) I thought I would encourage the conversation a bit by bringing ideas.(reply to this comment) |
| | From rainy
Saturday, November 22, 2008, 01:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
Part of my point was that even though these children are not your own race or community, you found the picture uncomfortable to look at. It disgusted you and you couldn't scroll down. The reason you were uncomfortable is because biologically you know that this is wrong. These children should have enough to eat. Their human rights are not being met, and this causes unease in any other humans who are made aware of their situation. If this child was placed in front of you, the desire to do what you could for the child would be overpowering. This is why I say human rights are biological. Our instincts want to provide them for others because we would want these things provided for us or our children should our situations be reversed.(reply to this comment) |
| | From tathata
Friday, November 21, 2008, 00:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm sure for the people who have read Nietzsche, they would have recognized that (although the words are mine) the ideas are lifted from the book: On the Genealogy of Morals.
Nietzsche investigates the origin of the "bad conscience" and morality. I'm wondering if there is anyone out there who thinks that Nietzsche's ideas on primitive man are wrong? I sometimes wonder about his ideas. Do all good things come out of things that are questionable? Is Cruelty a driving force in civilization?(reply to this comment) |
| | From conan
Wednesday, November 19, 2008, 16:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
Rainy, my hypothetical starting point of all humans being equal would take the assumption that as intelligent, equal, moral beings we would not have villainous or criminal tendencies which presumably would eliminate 'bully' types as well as the need for most laws and subsequently police, or other form of domestic governance outside of necessary infrastructure, and as such rid humanity of government. That being said, as animals I agree that we’d have nurturing instincts although it is possible it would not be necessarily of emotional importance.
Thanks for actually having an opinion all your own though! (reply to this comment) |
| | From rainy
Thursday, November 20, 2008, 03:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
That's where I think you're wrong. I think it's of fundamental, evolutionary importance that we uphold the human rights of others. This is how we naked, vulnerable humans form these societies and educate ourselves and create and invent and do all the wonderful things we do. We create a safe world for our species and our descendants. A sense of morality is what guides us through how to do this, in the absence of proper instincts in the animal sense. Our conscience is the remnant of animal instinct we all have (unless something is wrong)and it is where our concepts of human rights come from.
As for some of the more vocal and aggressive members on this site, I think they have issues they need to work through.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from love is key.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 11:13
| from a tale to tell
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 11:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
Once upon a time, in a country nearby, the persons were being repressed by their once servant government. Nobody knew what to do. Their government encroached on any and all the rights and liberties of the persons any time they could. Passing rules of society at any chance they could get. Slowly, and intentionally, entrapping the persons into involuntary servitude.
The persons were then looted on a regular basis, just because a neighbor pointed a finger. Their homes were searched while they were not there; the government took what they wanted from them without any notice to them. They begin using the things they found in the persons homes to take away their homes and property. Sometimes, they would just take everything and leave the persons with nothing. No way to provide for the ones that they love. This devastated the persons, but the persons barely made a sound, for if they spoke to loudly about their plight they were simply sent away, and the government had to tell no one. It is cheaper to keep the protesters in a cage, than to provide for them in their society, and they die at a younger age, ending financial responsibility.
Soon big business began to see they too could gain income from the use of the legal speak language the government had invented, for they too wanted to be the persons master. They entangled the persons in debt they could not sustain and used the government system to steal more of the person’s property and more of the persons became homeless. They were pushed into a position where they had to beg their government by application for help.
The government helped, by putting them into cluster housing, complete with police sub-stations to help control those that have been repressed, and giving small stipends to buy food until they could almost stand up straight again. The persons did not know they were being further entangled into a web of slavery and tyranny, into a world where the persons dare not speak for fear of further repression.
The fleecing of the persons made the government very happy and filled their coffers with the ill gotten goods of the persons, and they smiled, and bought more things to help them gain further control of the persons.
Then they began to assist other countries in repressing their people as well, to convert them to persons. By providing them with the money they had stolen from their own. This also made big business happy because they profit from the building of the persons war machine and the reconstruction is a gold mine. The killing and the maiming of other human beings seemed to bother not a one of them.
Then more of the persons slowly began to take notice. As the prices for the items they needed to survive were becoming out their reach, they could see, they too, would soon be broken. Small groups of the persons began to speak up to their servant government, but their government failed to respond and intensified their pillage.
Next, the persons tried to get their government under control through the governments own court system, but the deck was stacked against them and they failed. They learned when the judge, the prosecutor and the jury are all paid by their government; and their lawyers are officers of the court, their government controls the system and it is of no use to them.
By now the persons were feeling desperate, not knowing how they entered this plight; they began a search for knowledge and hopefully a path back to freedom and liberty. They contact others of like mind and feeling and soon began to grow from the few to the many. Their voices are getting louder everyday and the government is beginning to tremble. The groups began to combine into one voice and then found the answer.
If they wanted to kill the beast, all they had to do was stop feeding it. Stop feeding it! Starve it to death! Stop paying everything! So this message went about the land and hundreds of thousands of the persons were no longer paying for anything but their own family’s survival. The big banks in the land began to fall and even more of the persons stopped paying. A financial tsunami was about is befall their country. The ripple effects might be felt around their entire world, and quickly develop into a world economic disaster. Think about it. The persons are angry and are going to get their country back.
(reply to this comment)
| from true story
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 08:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=1850641721899149163
(reply to this comment)
| from true story
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 08:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=1850641721899149163
(reply to this comment)
| from well
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 07:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't want anyone between me and god (your own interpretation). thats been the problem. the first amendment is universal law. FREE WILL
and its life liberty and property. you need all three together if you don't want to be a slave to another human, who has no right to come between you and these god given/birthrights. We have to defend them everyday in order that some dose not take them away from us. because there are plenty of people who do and will. the age old battle between good and evil.
do you want their way? which is opposite? napoleonic law or common law.
everything is lawful unless other wise decided upon and banned.
everything is banned unless it is permitted/licensed/taxed etc...
your free choice
they can't break the free will natural law. they have to gain your consent for all the evil things they do to us. and boy do they know how to trick, deceive, pretend to be good, pretend to have your best interests at heart etc...
they take your silence as consent its called an opt out rather than an opt in. schools use the opt out method so that you actually have to do the work and go to them no i don't agree to contract your child's info to all and sundry.
the same with representatives. you have to go to them and say NO i don't want you to speak for me. also with the corporate fiction that is created using all caps JOHN DOE is not you . who owns that? well the department of commerce does unless you go to them and take it back which is your right to do. ignorance around this whole subject is what gets us into trouble and is the difference between living in hell a slave or heaven a sovergn freeman.
do the home work. you won't regret the power you really have. power is good for good people. personal power not evil power which is wanting to control some one else.
"you have the right to think for YOUR SELF, NOT anyone else"
http://www.thinkfree.ca/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=436798682226252164&hl=en
freeman vs strawman
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=c49q3PGof2w
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bItL-DfdKGY&feature=related
http://freemanarchives.com/
"Natural Man vs. Artificial Person, Law, Money & Banking"
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7KAnkVqmBew&feature=related
http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/4652
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6015291679758430958
http://www.atlasbooks.com/marktplc/01416.htm#summary
http://www.lifeinthemix.co.uk/
Mark Thomas comedian- http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nRGZr2m4r7M&feature=related
http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/index.php?/content/view/29/33
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From interesting article on laws
Wednesday, November 19, 2008, 04:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
The Lonesome Death of the American Dream
Posted By: ChristopherBollyn
Date: Wednesday, 8 August 2007, 5:38 a.m.
In Response To: The Bollyn Trial: The Criminalization of an Outspoken Journalist *PIC* (ChristopherBollyn)
The following article from the blogspot of Smokingmirrors is a very well written appeal to Americans to take action and hold their leaders accountable and take responsibility "for what happens in your name or you soon won't even have a name, you'll have a number."
Smokingmirrors writes that "the worst part of all the evils" is "what is happening to The Laws of the Land." I couldn't agree more.
"America was a nation of laws," he writes. "You may think it is the police and the army that protects you. You may think God is watching over America."
"Your most serious danger is what is happening to your laws; to the basic foundation of your rule of law. And this, this is what is intended by those who are determined to and engaged in the effort to enslave you.
"It is your laws that determine how and where and when the military will act; how the police will act. It is your laws that determine whether agents of the law can drag you from your homes in the middle of the night. It is your laws that allow for you to be beaten by agents of the law for flying a flag up side down on your front porch. It is your laws that determine whether you can be shoved around, denied the right of assembly and generally messed with whenever they want to mess with you.
"Where are the laws that go into force when those who enforce the law are breaking the law? Where is the process that should be automatic that deters the abuse of the law by those empowered to defend it? Where is this thing that isn’t working as I type these words?"
The Lonesome Death of The American Dream
http://smokingmirrors.blogspot.com
As bad as we know it is; two terms of an unelected psychopathic stooge in the presidency, a murderous assault on home ground by the very government empowered to protect the people against it, the daily erosion of personal freedom, the trashing of the economy, the banal vomit inducing entertainments, the collective efforts of disinfo agents who present themselves as truthseekers, the cowardly opposition party crawling backwards in estrus toward the dark side, the control of American foreign policy by a foreign government and the enormous human suffering it has all brought about… as bad as it all is, it just keeps getting worse.
The worst part of all the evils presently operating under diplomatic immunity and protected by SWAT-bot forces of true believer enforcement agencies is what is happening to The Laws of the Land. America was a nation of laws. You may think it is the police and the army that protects you. You may think God is watching over America. You may have the idea that The Second Amendment provides you with a catastrophe backup and - there - there is the area I want to visit today; no, not The Second Amendment but that of which it is a part.
The most serious danger you face is not from terrorists, crazed gun nuts, or even your poor discipline about what you eat and your reluctance to exercise. The first two are minor possibilities akin to being struck by lightning. The second is a real concern but more of a long term thing. Your most serious danger is what is happening to your laws; to the basic foundation of your rule of law. And this, this is what is intended by those who are determined to and engaged in the effort to enslave you.
It is your laws that determine how and where and when the military will act; how the police will act.
It is your laws that determine whether agents of the law can drag you from your homes in the middle of the night.
It is your laws that allow for you to be beaten by agents of the law for flying a flag up side down on your front porch.
It is your laws that determine whether you can be shoved around, denied the right of assembly and generally messed with whenever they want to mess with you.
Where are the laws that go into force when those who enforce the law are breaking the law? Where is the process that should be automatic that deters the abuse of the law by those empowered to defend it? Where is this thing that isn’t working as I type these words?
You don’t wake up one morning in a concentration camp and then wonder what happened. You were supposed to see the steps in the process. You were supposed to say something. You were supposed to get together with your neighbors and make a whole helluva lot of noise. You should have been smart enough to see all the manufactured events that led to all of the laws that were being designed to protect you from the imaginary threats being drummed up by those who were empowered to protect you and which wound up stripping you of your basic rights.
You should have wondered at the missing ballots in Ohio. You should have wondered at the yo-yo terror alerts. You should have wondered at the endless string of lies that justified all the horror and bloodshed and… you should have done something. You should have been part of a greater movement of citizens who gathered by the thousands and tens of thousands in parks and community centers and commercial areas and demanded that these ruthless profiteers and traitors be held accountable. You should have all refused to go to work. A nation that refuses to go to work WILL bring down the government. An informed public is a safe public and so… you should have wondered and you should have wondered aloud. You would have found that most everyone else was wondering too. Meanwhile you got fatter and shorter and more stupid until, one day, you couldn’t remember when it first was that you dropped down on to all fours and forgot to get back up. You forgot when the last time you spoke a human language was. Now you make these animal sounds and no one can understand what you are saying.
Is this the way it is? Is America a nation of sheep? One poll after another show that you believe by a wide majority that 9/11 was an Inside Job, one poll after another show that you have no confidence in your leaders, one poll after another show that you want the U.S. out of Iraq, one poll after another show that you know, you think, you feel… that a whole lot of things have gone wrong. And one day after another your leaders on both sides of the aisle show that there’s only one side of the aisle filled with milling opportunists and professional liars.
All of this comes down to an agenda driven core of merciless psychopaths who are agents of a foreign power. These PNAC/AIPAC vampire overlords in cahoots with the multinational corporations own the media that informs you of what to believe, even though you don’t believe it. Unless you band together and shout from the rooftops and refuse to turn the wheels of the machine, you are lost. Don’t blame me. Don’t blame fate. Don’t blame the immigrants. Don’t blame the weather. Blame yourselves. Shut it down now.
Look at this people. Use your freaking reason. Use your minds- http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bbc_wtc7_videos.html look at this and listen to what the BBC says about what cannot be explained away, no matter what sort of BS they employ. And yeah, The UK is also in the hands of the same people who are doing the same thing to you.
Look at this people http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/020807hitpiece.htm and look at who is behind this presentation. Could it be more clear? Do I have to grab you by the back of the neck and rub your face in it and scream at you to tell me what you smell? Is it the buffet on the table that you smell? Is it your own fear that you smell which convinces you that you had better convince yourself that you don’t smell anything at all? Wake the Hell up.
Now you want to run around like Chicken Little because some bridge fell down in Minnesota and a handful of people died? More people are dying in the Egyptian desert right now than went down off of that bridge and they don’t have to die. They are being murdered. Yeah, let’s all just wring our hands for awhile about a bridge collapse and then we won’t notice that much larger numbers of people are dying every single day because your country is in the hands of agents of a foreign power.
History repeats itself. It’s doing it right now. Very few Germans were Nazi’s. They only needed a few. It’s easy to accomplish once you control the law-making process and thereby those who enforce the law. It’s enough to intimidate a village if you imprison or kill a few of the residents. You can always then count of a portion of the rest of the village to enforce further atrocity just so they can avoid it themselves. Human nature isn’t a virtue.
You had better start holding your leaders accountable. You had better start taking responsibility for what happens in your name or you soon won’t even have a name, you’ll have a number. You had better get about it today. Now is the hour. Let me hear the sound of millions of voices raised in protest. Let me hear the sound of silenced machines. Let me see stalled cars and empty trains and buses and airplanes. Let me see empty malls and empty amusement parks.
Then… let us listen to the anguished screams of the corporations as they gasp for breath. It doesn’t matter what it may cost in the short term. It doesn’t matter if some of us must die if it means that freedom shall continue after. Many before us have paid the price. You ‘had’ what you had because they did.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=107572
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from Samuel
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 05:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
I should have figured out at the beginning when you admitted that your article had been inspired by Neitzsche that it would be little more than redundant folly and inane talk.
Yeah, the Declaration of Independence declares that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with rights. To be quite honest, I find this rather harmless as it allows the man to determine who or what the Creator could possibly have been. Darwin had his idea of what the Creator was, he called it "natural selection", so I see no problem with this being placed in the Declaration of Independence. In fact, it does a lot of good because it elevates these rights in the eyes of theists, who made up a vast majority of the new Colonists. If people are taught to beleive that these rights are sacred, then they more likely to protect their own rights and less likely to infringe on the rights of others.
I would like to dispute your idea that Franklin and Jefferson were atheists. Benjamin Franklin was quoted as saying the following:
"I believe there is one Supreme most perfect being. ... I believe He is pleased and delights in the happiness of those He has created; and since without virtue man can have no happiness in this world, I firmly believe He delights to see me virtuous.
"Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion" (1728)
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From DeeJay
Wednesday, November 19, 2008, 23:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think you are probably the only child reading this stuff. We've had enough of being "lied"...oh I mean "witnessed" to. You forget that we used to "lie"...oh I mean "witness" every fucking day. All this cow-dung masquerading as some new-age philosophy is just the same cult-dung trying to sound more educated and "revolutionary".
Please kindly, take your cow-dung sandwiches back to your fellow shit-loving Ezekials because it's not welcome at our fucking table.(reply to this comment) |
| | From great example!
Thursday, November 20, 2008, 05:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
there are always those who want to take people's rights away and feel that they have the right to use their freedom to take away another's. That is why it is a constant fight. so some are
Never the creator, always the destroyer
Never the artist, always the critic
Never the writer, always the publisher
Never the debtor, always the banker
Never the soldier, always the politician
Never the player, always the owner
Never the boxer, always the promoter
Never the lover, always the rapist
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.
remember the real brave kids out there
http://palestinefreevoice.blogspot.com/2007/10/palestine-assault-on-health-and-other.html
what you religious belief. Jesus along with other wise men spoke many truths.
i don't and can't disagree with jesus's words when jesus said to not harm a head on the little ones. When he said to expose evil. (you can't expose good) When he said the blind lead the blind and come out from amoung them-the evil ones. or seek and ye shall find or to be sober, be vigilant;
because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion,
seeking whom he may devour. that the devil/satan/evil whatever you want to call the evil, is the opposite to good/god/truth/joy/peace/love/understanding. By their fruits ye shall know him.
and when he said about public servants/goverment in relation to the people the taxpayer master...'A servant is not greater than his master.'
If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you.
again I agree with his statement to resist/have no dealing with the devil/evil person/pyscopath and he will flee from you. they do if you resist. NOT submit. I agree when he says i must put on the armour of truth and love to stand against the wiles/deciet/trickery of the devil/evil.
we all know where the lie sandwhich leads us. a little bit of evil/lies a little bit of truth/good- so
No one can serve two masters;
for either he will hate the one and love the other,
or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other.
You cannot serve God/truth/good and mammon. for the LOVE of money (over humans) (greed) is the root of all evil. love good/eschew evil.
so if the goverment is serving the master of evil/money they can't be serving us the people their real human masters. which we all know at the deepest level they do not.
For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of POWER and of LOVE and of a SOUND MIND.
The devil wants to destroy that and take it away. and he comes up with many ways to do so. taxes wars rape pillage torture fear
The only thing you have to fear is fear its self. When you are in the lower vibrations of fear then you are not a whole person. Thats why they do it.
Ye though we walk through the valley of the shadow of death i will fear no evil/threats/abuse.
Do unto others as they would do unto you.
my coffees ready. ciao.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From DeeJay
Thursday, November 20, 2008, 16:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, you really have outdone yourself this time haven't you? You've even managed to become more annoying than Sam, which many people can tell you, was once thought an impossible feat.
I think I can safely say I've been a big advocate of free speech on this site, which co-incidentally also covers my right to say - Eat your own fucking shit and die. Please just die. Your dead pedophile (or was it the carpenter? I have a hard time remembering now. It's all the same shit so who really cares where it came from?)said, "Rebuke the devil and he will flee from you!" Too bad it doesn't work for fucking dipshits like you.
Since you don't know me or what I've done, why don't you refrain from "jumping to conclusions" about what I've done with my life? Or do you really want to get into a battle of labels?
First they came for tuneman7, and I didn't speak out because he was a violence loving psychopath. Then they came for prince c, and again I didn't speak out because he was an illegible psychopath. Then they came for scarface, and I didn't speak out because he was an arrogant, obnoxious, condescending little shit. Then they came for Samuel. Again I didn't speak out, because frankly he was acting like a moron. Finally, they came for me....wait no they didn't. Because I wasn't being a blithering, stumbling, annoying as FUCK little dipshit.
As for your zombie carpenter. He didn't die on that cross. Thus he didn't rise from the dead. His words were bullshit and his words enslaved, entrapped, destroyed, incited fear and terror in me for most of my life and inspired others to continue in this tradition. WE ARE FREE OF THOSE WORDS NOW AND WOULD KINDLY APPRECIATE YOU NOT REGURGITATING THEM HERE. SO KINDLY, EAT YOUR OWN SHIT AND FUCKING DIE SOMEWHERE FAR, FAR AWAY FROM HERE!
Also, isn't fear one of your body's surivival mechanisms? You are so hypocritical. It's alsmot like your single aim is to incite a fear of fear itself. Fear is good. Fear is my friend. Fear has saved my life on many occassions. Fuck you!(reply to this comment) |
| | from Samuel
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 05:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
I should have figured out at the beginning when you admitted that your article had been inspired by Neitzsche that it would be little more than redundant folly and inane talk.
Yeah, the Declaration of Independence declares that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with rights. To be quite honest, I find this rather harmless as it allows the man to determine who or what the Creator could possibly have been. Darwin had his idea of what the Creator was, he called it "natural selection", so I see no problem with this being placed in the Declaration of Independence. In fact, it does a lot of good because it elevates these rights in the eyes of theists, who made up a vast majority of the new Colonists. If people are taught to beleive that these rights are sacred, then they more likely to protect their own rights and less likely to infringe on the rights of others.
I would like to dispute your idea that Franklin and Jefferson were atheists. Benjamin Franklin was quoted as saying the following:
"I believe there is one Supreme most perfect being. ... I believe He is pleased and delights in the happiness of those He has created; and since without virtue man can have no happiness in this world, I firmly believe He delights to see me virtuous.
"Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion" (1728)
(reply to this comment)
| From Samuel
Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 06:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
I am NOT done yet! :)
I've lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing Proofs I see of this Truth — That God governs in the Affairs of Men . And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that except the Lord build the House they labor in vain who build it. I firmly believe this, — and I also believe that without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our Projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a Reproach and Bye word down to future Ages.
- Speech to the Constitutional Convention
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble.
- As quoted in Benjamin Franklin: An Exploration of a Life of Science and Service (1938) by Carl Van Doren, p. 777
And if you have heard the "quote before" that beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy, lacks an authoritative source. It was probably taken from another quote by Franklin about wine. ""Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards; there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine; a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy."
While Jefferson may or may not have been a Christian, there is little doubt that he was a theist.
Now, onto the rest of your article. It is unfortunate that rights to do not usually become rights until it is demanded that they be so. Yes, conan, there were primitive times when these rights did not exist, and there were less enlightened civilizations that tried to infringe on these rights. Certainly the Founding fathers understood this, and this is why they wrote these rights into the Supreme Law of the land. You saw you are against the claim of equality and justice for all when that is not the case ebcause there are people that we feel superior to and as long as there are sundry factions that feel their rights are being infringed. Gee, conan, I had no idea that just because someone "feels" their rights are being infringed tha automatically makes it so. And there will always be people that we feel ourselves superior to, but that does not mean they don't have equal rights. There may be a bum across the street that everyone looks down on, but wait until someone starts beating him up in the crowded mall and you'll see how many people are willing to defend his equal rights.
You are not right, conan. Why on Earth would we want to eliminate these rights? Since when is the right to free speech unnecessary? Since when is the right to bear arms unnecessary? Since when is the right against unreasonable search and seizure unnecessary? I don't know about you conan, but I am for equal protection and genuine equality for all. That is why I voted against the same sex marriage amendment here in Florida, I guess you guys had one too. Sorry to hear that it passed. I am for genuine equality for gays, so I was a bit dissapointed when it passed, but I wasn't that surprised. I am hoping that the Legislature will find a way to preserve these rights for gays such as civil unions etc.
I cannot beleive you brought pedophilia into this. That is ludicrous! And you know there is a difference. Pedophilia is against the law and it is harmful to children. Yes, it is a sexual preference, which is why I wouldn't want someone to be arrested or demonized for simply thinking thoughts about pedophilia, but there is a big difference between thinking about it and actually breaking the law and performing such acts. I cannot understand how anyone could even think of doing such a thing, but they do have the Constitution that says they are allowed the same rights as everyone else such as free speech, the right to petition the government, the right against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to a trial by a jury of their peers, the right against double jeopardy! We may not want them to be equal to us, but under the law, they are.
By the way, I would like to note that comments such as "string them up" and "lock them up for good" usually happen only when a male pedophile is caught. Why is it that a female pedophile can get away with pedophilia with a light sentence? Yes, there is an inbalance of justice there, but it should be dealt with according to the law of the land. It is not an excuse to take the rights away as "unnecessary". I cannot name my source, but I do remember watching a television program where they noted that a majority of pedophiles were sexually abused as children. What that shows me is that their urges are not natural, as you suggest, but they are learned. Homosexuality? Well, one day we'll find out for sure if it is genetic or not but until then I try to give gays the benefit of the doubt. Whatever research comes out to finally put a nail in the coffin of that debate, I have a feeling it won't come from the Gay and Lesbian Association OR Family Research Council. It would have to be done as a conjunctive effort to assure the public that it is unbiased.
Yes, conan, pedophiles are human. They can bear arms, they have the right to a free press, they have the right to vote, until they commit a crime. It really doesn't matter what kind of crime it is, whether they molest a child or drive drunk and run over a pedestrian. If the justice system is fair, they will go to jail either way and will be tried based solely on the fatcs of the case. If they are being tried for drunk driving, their feelings toward young children should be a non-issue in the case. If they are being tried to molesting a child, their drunk driving should not be an issue in the case.
A jury of peers does not mean only pedophiles on the jury anymore than a man of trial for murder would expect to find only murderers on the jury.
Let's define equal, conan. In my view equal is in reference to equal justice, equal protection, and equal treatment under the law. Even pedophiles have the right to all of these. I don't think it's so much people considering them unequal, but it has to do with them wanting to protect their families and children from harm. Just like you would probably wouldn't hire Ken Lay or Enron fame as your Accountant, would you? I wouldn't. Not because he does not have equal rights, but because I believe he's a crook and I wouldn't trust him with my money. Before he was convicted, I may have given him the benefit of the doubt, but not naymore. Neither would I share any big secrets with Scooter Libby.
We all have the same rights, but government also has a responsibility to protect the people. I'm sure that if a pedophile was released from prison and moved right next door to your neighbour, and the police did nothing about it, you would be upset. And if the pedophile was allowed to make friends with the neighbour, then you would at the very least question their motivations. And if the pedophile ended up breaking into the neigbour's house and molesting their little boy, you would be calling not only the the arrest of the pedophile, but for the head of someone else- the police! The pedophile is entitled to equality, but they are also liable if they break the law. And the police can do whatever they want without infringing on their rights to determine if they are breaking the law or not.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Fish
Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 08:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
That does it, I'm officially frothing at the mouth! DIE DIE DIE!!!! O for a million megaton nuke! You have no rights, you are NOT special, in a proper world you would long ago been eaten by a giant frog or something. God, I hate Americans!
"Uh yeah, its my right man. I deserve this. I deserve better. I'm beautiful. I'm special. God loves me."
No, no, no. Die. There are no rights except those provided by the state, and those only work when coupled with equal responsibility. As the vast majority of Americans, or for that matter, modern humans, don't take responsibility for their nation's actions, they deserve no rights. Where are those bloody fascists when you need them?
Die!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Samuel
Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 09:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wow. And who is going to decide whether a man has taken on equal responsibility, and deserves his rights? Do the rights come after he has taken on equal responsibility, or before? If the rights come before, what motive is there to take on equal responsibility? If he does not, who is it that would have the power to take his rights away, and would they be held accountable to the government or would they be allowed to just roam free and do as they please? Or maybe we'll just see what happens when the police think you're peddling counterfeit drugs on the internet and they feel like shoving a crowbar up your ass and taking away your computer, eating your food, selling your car, house and property, and dividing the money among themselves. They take you to jail, where the "security cameras" in prison are also connected to the internet and all pictures and videos (including videos from say, the shower, or of you exercising in your jump suit) are being posted on a website for lonely Ukranian women and gay men that are willing to pay $15 a month for the 24/7 service. Then the butchy female warden figures out that if she orders you to take off your clothes and have sex with her while she whips you with a chain and calls you her bitch, you have no choice in the matter. Then you will suddenly be concerned about human rights.
Now do you see why we need a Constitution, or other system of unalienable rights?
I always find it very funny that you say you hate Americans, while you yourself are American. Do you really hate yourself, or do you just see yourself as superior to all other Americans?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Fish
Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 20:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Uhh...how about you keep your bizarre sexual fantasies to yourself. Seriously, WTF. Aside from the erotic details, the situation you describe is more a matter of law than of rights. If any of the above happened, I would not say "My rights have been violated (and my ass, you kinky dog)," rather I would accuse the wrong doer of breaking the law. Read the comment I posted below, and maybe you'll get what I mean (unlikely, but one can hope).
And yes, I am superior.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Wednesday, November 19, 2008, 06:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well you're a dense SOB, aren't you? Those things are illegal BECAUSE they would infringe on your rights! In certain cases mentioned above, you may not be able to put your abuser in jail, but you WOULD be able to sue the state for violating your Consitutional rights. At least that's how it is in this country. For example:
The police come into your house without a warrant: civil law applies
The police eat your food: criminal law may apply, as well as civil law
The police shove a crow bar up your ass: civil law applies, criminal law may apply as well but the burden of proof is almost impossibly high.
The police take away your computer and use it to make trades on your forex program: civil law applies
The jail has security cameras connected to the porn site on the internet: civil law applies, invasion of privacy
The warden rapes you: civil law applies, criminal law may apply as well but the burden of proof is higher.
Now, I don't know how things go in Russia, but if this were to happen to you in the United States, you would have recourse for a lawsuit of at least $25 million against the State or the Federal government. And if you had a really good lawyer, you could probably get at least one of these people in jail. Why? Because of the rights guaranteed to every person in this country, even illegal aliens, by the Constitution.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 06:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27774058/?GT1
Admirals, generals: Let gays serve openly
More than 100 call for repeal of military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy
Nov. 17, 2008
ANNAPOLIS, Md. - More than 100 retired generals and admirals called Monday for repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays so they can serve openly, according to a statement obtained by The Associated Press.
The move by the military veterans confronts the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama with a thorny political and cultural issue that dogged former President Bill Clinton early in his administration.
"As is the case with Great Britain, Israel, and other nations that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion, and sexuality," the officers wrote.
While Obama has expressed support for repeal, he said during the presidential campaign that he would not do so on his own — an indication that he would tread carefully to prevent the issue from becoming a drag on his agenda. Obama said he would instead work with military leaders to build consensus on removing the ban on openly gay service members.
"Although I have consistently said I would repeal 'don't ask, don't tell,' I believe that the way to do it is make sure that we are working through a process, getting the Joint Chiefs of Staff clear in terms of what our priorities are going to be," Obama said in a September interview with the Philadelphia Gay News.
Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama's transition team, declined comment.
Flash point for Clinton The issue of gays in the military became a flash point early in the Clinton administration as Clinton tried to fulfill a campaign promise to end the military's ban on gays. His efforts created the current compromise policy — ending the ban but prohibiting active-duty service members from openly acknowledging they are gay.
But it came at a political cost. The resulting debate divided service members and veterans, put Democrats on the defensive and provided cannon fodder for social conservatives and Republican critics who questioned Clinton's patriotism and standing with the military.
Retired Adm. Charles Larson, a four-star admiral and two-time superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy who signed the statement with 104 other retired admirals and generals, said in an interview that he believed Clinton's approach was flawed because he rushed to change military culture.
Larson said he hoped Obama would take more time to work with the Pentagon. Joining Larson among the signatories was Clifford Alexander, Army secretary under former President Jimmy Carter.
"There are a lot of issues they'll have to work out, and I think they'll have to prioritize," Larson said, noting that the new administration will immediately face combat-readiness issues and budget concerns. "But I hope this would be one of the priority issues in the personnel area."
The list of 104 former officers who signed the statement appears to signal growing support for resolving the status of gays in the military. Last year, 28 former generals and admirals signed a similar statement.
Generational shift cited Larson, who has a gay daughter he says has broadened his thinking on the subject, believes a generational shift in attitudes toward homosexuality has created a climate where a repeal is not only workable, but also an important step for keeping talented personnel in the military.
"I know a lot of young people now — even people in the area of having commands of ships and squadrons — and they are much more tolerant, and they believe, as I do, that we have enough regulations on the books to enforce proper standards of human behavior," Larson said.
The officers' statement points to data showing there are about 1 million gay and lesbian veterans in the United States, and about 65,000 gays and lesbians currently serving in the military.
The military discharged about 12,340 people between 1994 and 2007 for violating the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a military watchdog group. The number peaked in 2001 at 1,273, but began dropping off sharply after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Last year, 627 military personnel were discharged under the policy.
Political observers say that even though the issue may not be as controversial as it was when Clinton addressed it, it's impossible to forget what happened then.
Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, said Obama is unlikely to tackle the issue early on. Sabato said he expects Obama to focus on economic recovery and avoid risking the spark of a distracting "brush fire" controversy at the outset.
"I can't imagine that he will do this right in the beginning, given the Clinton precedent," Sabato said.
Aaron Belkin, who has studied the "don't ask, don't tell" policy as director of the Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara and organized the officers' statement, said how Obama addresses the issue will be the first test for the new president on gay rights.
"Everyone is going to be interested to see how he responds," Belkin said.
(reply to this comment) |
| | from Fish
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 03:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think you bring up an interesting question. (I say think as thanks to your excessive thesaurus use I can’t be “unequivocally” certain what you meant in some of your more exuberant sentences) Snideness aside, my position on “natural” human rights is that there are none. I side with the social contract ideology, basically: that rights are given to the individual by ones particular society, rather than something one is born with. For example, I think its fine to talk about “American rights” whereas I would hold that “human rights” are nonsense. (At least until there is some kind of unified “human state.”)
How anyone can hold that people are somehow born with certain innate rights simply because of their species is incomprehensible to me. Historically this is clearly not the case. To my knowledge the Sumerian “Code of Hammurabi” is the oldest statement of law or rights of any kind. On it, it gives its purpose as: “To bring about the rule of law, so that the strong should not hurt the weak.” Therefore, if one were a Sumerian one would have the rights and protections granted by Hammurabi’s “rule of law,” while if one were Egyptian or Celtic, such rights would not apply and unless otherwise specified “the strong” could go on hurting “the weak.”
This brings out another point you addressed, namely, that rights are social constructs. Not only are they contingent on the state, they also rely heavily on current social values and norms. Your point about pedophilia nicely illustrates this. There’s a lot that has been said on the issue of socially acceptable behavior and mob morality, particularly by the French. I think some of Foucault’s studies on the treatment of social deviants throughout the ages are particularly relevant. And though I hate to utter the name of the accursed anti-western Frenchman Derrida, he does make a good point with regard to the artificial nature of morality. What does this all mean? Well, practically speaking, if you asked me if I thought pedophilia morally wrong, I would say yes, it is wrong, but only because our culture has decided it’s wrong. Fifty years ago homosexuality was punishable with the death penalty, twenty years ago it was considered a severe mental illness, and today we are debating their tax status. Who can say what we will be doing with pedophiles in twenty years?
To summarize the matter, I would say that in a democratic society there are essentially two kinds of laws. There are the age old “social contract” variety which aim at “bringing about the rule of law, so that the strong should not hurt the weak” (like laws prosecuting theft, rape and murder) and then there are Foucault’s favorite kind, the laws whose primary purpose is to enforce societal values and “norms.” Simply put, these are all the laws which seek to control an individual’s behavior, even when it does not demonstrably harm another. Personally, I find all laws of this kind inherently arbitrary, and thus, distasteful. However, I believe this is one of the many prices of democracy. We look back now and deride the Athenians for condemning Socrates, but we essentially do the same thing. He was executed for the same reasons pedophiles and drug users are prosecuted today. He went against the tide of publicly accepted morality.
Is it wrong to punish people simply for being different? Not necessarily, but we could at least be honest about it.
(reply to this comment)
| From conan
Wednesday, November 19, 2008, 16:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks for the backhanded compliment. Rights are social constructs and that is why as society changes, so do rights. Of course, as far as nature goes, nature tends toward disorder, chaos and death for the most part so I definitely agree with your thoughts on the idiocy of 'species-born rights'. I think that you worded your distaste for law very nicely and readily concur with your conclusion.
Always a pleasure to read your thoughts, man...or, usually at least. :p(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Wednesday, November 19, 2008, 17:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Is that so, conan? If scoiety gives us these rights, then doesn't society have the right to take them away as well? Did the Russians suddenly lose their rights to free speech and their rights to protest the government when the Communist regimes took over, or did they have those rights the whole time (and the government should have recognized them)? Did they then regain them after the fall of the Soviet Union? What about slaves in the 1800's? Did the always have the right to freedom from their birth, or did they suddenly gain this right the moment Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation?
If rights are not given at birth and society is the one that gives these rights, then why can't we just decide that certain people don't deserve these rights and take them away? We could do that, but under the law that would be illegal because the government still recognizes those rights for all people, as well they should. Rights may increase as society becomes more enlightened, but for your idea to work rights would have to be able to decrease also. They do not. In Cuba, people are still entitled to the right to worship freely and practice free speech. It's just that the government does not recognize these rights. That does not mean they don't exist.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Friday, November 21, 2008, 04:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
I finsihed my comment there with..
"it is possible that what happened at Abu Ghraib was, in fact, abuse, but I really don't think it was anything out of the ordinary for war times. I guess you'd have to talk to American POW's or the like to find out how prisoners of war are usually treated."
So, thatata, which American POW's have you talked to?
Do not forget that Lyndie England is in jail, where those who violate human rights should be.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From conan
Wednesday, November 19, 2008, 17:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
Fuck, you are dense. Society defines rights you little halfwit. So, Russian society said those rights didn't exist, and they did not. Get it? If humans were actually fucking equal, regimes wouldn't be permitted to occur so the rights wouldn't need to be labeled as 'rights' as they'd be assumed. But forget it. It's not worth getting into with you, you dope.(reply to this comment) |
| | From rainy
Thursday, November 20, 2008, 03:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
This is what I was uneasy about. I was hoping you weren't going to jump to this step in the logical train of thought. Here's what I think: Human rights are universal. Regimes that deny you your rights are committing crimes against nature. Everyone within the regime can feel it. It doesn't suddenly become okay or normal. Everyone associated with the crime of denying human rights, whether as victim or perpetrator, will come away damaged. We all know what is wrong. We all know when we are seeing it happen. Children born into situations where they have never had any rights know. How is this? Because human rights exist because we are biologically wired to bestow them on others.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Fish
Thursday, November 20, 2008, 06:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
You are basically giving us the Platonic Ideal as spelled out in "The Republic," except that Socrates would have said we "remember" these "absolute truths" from another life rather than that we are "biologically wired" with them. Either way, its a nice idea, but easily disproven. Historically, standards in ethics, law, morality, and rights have continually changed as cultures and societies emerged, evolved, and declined. This being the case, I find it hard too see how "human rights exist"(as in always existed, the clearly didn't) or how they are "biologically wired" into us (our past shows they clearly aren't).
However, just because morality and rights are social constructs does not mean that any version of them is as good as any other. Obviously, during some portions of our history social ideals were more in line with the optimal conditions for human excellence than they were in others (Ex: Periclean Athens vs Medieval Scholasticism).
Another problem with your claim is the rather vague notion of "rights." I find this term perplexing nebulous. Nonetheless, regardless of whether you mean legal codes, religious freedom, self determination, or any other of a million posible definitions, I think you will find them all contingent on somewhat arbitrary societal judgements on morality and expedience rather than on the "rediscovery" of past life memories or biological wiring.(reply to this comment) |
| | From rainy
Thursday, November 20, 2008, 12:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
The reason I'm keeping them vague is because they can be interpreted in different ways. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a nice guideline, but of course that is one interpretation that a group of our peers put their heads together and came up with.
To find what human rights are, follow your conscience. Your conscience will be satisfied when you are helping rather than hurting, nurturing, protecting, sharing. When your fellow humans have the basic necessities of life and freedom.
Another way is to remember your childhood. Whether you received what you needed or not, you know you needed food, water, cleanliness, shelter, education, freedom of thought, freedom from bullying, freedom to play, protection from sexual advances, respect, space to grow and develop and be a child.
Since a person cannot develop into a healthy and complete human being without the above things, anyone around the child, including the child, will not be comfortable if these things are being denied the child. Something will be wrong, and if these rights are traditionally violated, the culture will be sick. It will be producing unwell minds and perpetuating itself like a virus. This is what we see in cultures where children are routinely married, etc.
Basically, the right not to have your life ruined or sabotaged either physically or any other way. I know that a child can't have these rights unless they are bestowed by other humans, but I do contend that we have developed the instinct to bestow these rights because evolutionarily it makes sense. It allows our species to survive, thrive, and go on developing and inventing. Our mental evolution works using memes and it's leading us toward ever more tolerance and caring as we advance.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from rze
Monday, November 17, 2008 - 21:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
"All [humans] are [born] equal" is a very different claim than "all humans are equal.” The first implies that people should, in an ideal society (easier said than done, of course), have the same opportunity to education, ability to make connections, the freedom to prove themselves & to make & act on decisions that will influence their level of power in society (or lack thereof), etc. I think it also tries to serve as a deterrent from ideologies based on the notion that any one race, class, gender, etc. is naturally, at its core, superior to others. Yeah, there's a lot of irony in Western history. "All humans are equal", however, is just ridiculous. We may try to decrease the gap between those with the most power & those with the least, but it'd be a bit naive to reassure ourselves that pressing for equal rights will someday mean a society with equal opportunity "for all".
I don't mean to diminish the importance of fighting for one's rights ("to paaaaartay!"). By all means, it's definitely important to do so in that it keeps us check. It helps maintain some balance when a government is constantly being questioned: are we doing our best to uphold some semblance of the idea of due equal rights that we profess to be founded on? Even if it is a pipedream, at least it can be achieved in part. We've seen it with, for example, the end of slavery, suffrage, student loans, universal medicare (well . . . ), etc. Those who believed that, for example, Africans brought to the New World possessed just as many human qualities as Europeans shouldn't have necessarily doubted their stance on equality and subsequently not bothered making a fuss simply because the ruling demographic held a very opposite view. What I'm trying to say is that while, sure, it's important not to delude ourselves into thinking that universal equality of rights/opportunities is little more than a naive abstract, it doesn't mean that people should abandon any ambitions toward lessening the gaps.
Anyway, pedophilia – I think you forgot something. It becomes a crime when it becomes active (i.e., sexual assault/harassment, coercion – usually taking advantage of a minor's inexperience, thus their inability to gauge a situation & its consequences, and support of these things -- for instance, subscribing to porn that abuses/takes unfair advantage of the children in it). Pedophilia, by definition, is prone to infringing on the rights of others. Homosexuality & heterosexuality aren't. They're totally incomparable. So, the pedophile is allowed to enjoy the same rights, theoretically, as everyone else. But, once a child's rights are proven to be in jeopardy, the perp's rights to access the child are taken away. Once someone infringes on another's rights they rightly forfeit some of their own. Of course, again, I'm sure we can find exceptions. It does depend on the mainstream & the demographics in power. Should it?
In California, due to the nature of the vote, homophobes are apparently the demographic in power. Way to look at context, CA.
SUMMARY for if you didn’t actually read all that: Yeah, claiming equality is naive. That doesn't mean people should give up on challenging the power structures around them. And please don’t tell me you just compared pedophilia with homo/heterosexuality.
(reply to this comment)
| From conan
Wednesday, November 19, 2008, 17:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes. Beneath the cacophony of morons their lies actual opinion! Sweet joy.
I have to say I probably agree with the gist of your thoughts, and would possibly expound on them, but don't have time at the moment. I do want to comment about the bit at the end though.
I didn't forget about pedophilia being only a crime after an offense as been committed, but a person can be a pedophile without acting on their urges but would never admit to those sexual urges to anyone or else they'd be ostracized and possibly lynched. Hence, most pedophiles you would know, you only know are pedophiles because they didn't resist the urges and were caught/branded. And yes, I am comparing pedophilia to homo/heterosexuality and am surprised that you would find that odd. How is it any less of a natural urge to the 'pervert' than yours is for whichever gender you enjoy the act of sexual gratification with? I'm sure if you asked a pedophile, they would prefer to be attracted to mature adults instead of prepubescent youths but perhaps are unable to. Perhaps not. I don't know. I do know that statistically, pedophilia is a 'natural' sexual anomaly that occurs in the general population, whether dormant or active is another story.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From vacuous
Friday, November 21, 2008, 16:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
It is the evolutionary mechanism of neoteny and the sexual selection of infantile characteristics that is THE major force in driving human evolution. Paedophilia and homosexuality are a natural anomaly arising from 'sailing close to the wind' in this regard.
The book "the Eternal Child" spells out the process quite comprehensively (just avoid the end where it digresses into pseudo-science).(reply to this comment) |
| | From Fish
Friday, November 21, 2008, 02:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well it depends on how you define pedophilia. If you are using the term in its strict clinical sense, i.e. being sexually attracted to prepubescent children, then yes, perhaps it could be considered unnatural or at least anomalous. If, however, you are referring to its more common use, as in being sexual attracted to someone under legal age in your particular society, like a post pubescent 16 or even 14 year old, historically speaking, this could hardly be considered unusual. Entire societies were constructed around the idea of women marrying by or before the age of 14. Ancient Athens is one example of this.
This is not to say sex with minors is "right" or "good," rather its just a fairly new idea that its "bad" or "wrong."
Even in ancient times there was some debate on the matter, for example, under the Spartan system, women did not marry until the relatively late age of 18. Further, they were encouraged to sleep around, or as Aristotle put it, to "run wild." As the Spartan state was more community than family oriented, it was considered of little consequence who the father of any given child was, so long as they were a Spartan. (the fact that the men each had a mandatory, state provided boy lover may have had something to do with this system as well)
This was the exact opposite of the Athenian system, where the guaranty of family continuity by legitimate children was held as paramount. Thus Athenian women were kept in the house, married early, and perhaps consequently, often died in childbirth.
In a perfect example of my previous claim regarding the changing nature of "morality," today we would consider the Spartan attitude toward women far more appealing than the blatantly patriarchal Athenian system, but ironically, in ancient times, Sparta was continually lambasted for its "luxurious" and "lascivious" women, who went to school, wore scandalously short robes, owned property, and had an "overly independent" and "disrespectful" manner toward men. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From cheeks
Wednesday, November 19, 2008, 20:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have watched many, many shows and read several books on the subject. I think it is fairly safe for me to say most pedophiles do not wish to change. They do not wish they did not have an urge to molest children. Rather they wish that is was legal to molest children, and that child pornography was not a crime. Many of them either do not care, or do not understand the damage that it inflicts on a child. To many of them every child they molest, is another notch in their belt.
I don't think that pedophilia is a natural act. It certainly does not occur in nature. Most animals look for mates that are equal to them. The act of courting and mating is for survival of the breed. A lion may kill the cub of it's rival, it certainly would never have sex with it.
If one is to go down the path that you are going down, you must consider a lot of options. A rapist often starts out as a peep. And then again some peepers never escalate to rape, many rapists escalate to murder. However some do not. For the most part all of these are fantasies that have not been fulfilled. The act of rape or sexual abuse, is the fantasy being played out over, and over, and over again because they can never get it quite right. I don't know where you researched your material from. Most of this stuff you can find in your public library or on Discovery Channel. So what is the escalation of a pedophile, it starts out usually with photos of naked children often peers and it escalates. Most of the pornography tapes and photos out there are taken by parents. Some being as young as a day old. There is nothing natural about that. It is not an alternative lifestyle with a consenting adult. A child that is a day old certainly cannot consent to having an adult fondle them. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From very important
Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 07:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
in latin you have the act and the intention .
actus reus and mens rea
There are two contrasts with other elements of criminal liability that help to clarify the nature of actus reus. The first is the contrast with mens rea. Mens rea literally translated from the Latin means guilty mind. The technical legal use of the phrase denotes that prerequisite of criminal liability having to do with the state of mind of the accused when he committed the actus reus of some offense. Thus, one of the mens reas sufficient for murder is general intent: such requirement is often stated as a prohibition on "intentionally killing another human being." The word "intentionally" tells us what kind of mental state an accused must have to be guilty of this kind of murder (either an intent or a belief, as it turns out). The phrase "killing another human being" tells us two things: first, what must be done by way of action to be guilty of murder; and second, what object an accused's intention or belief must take in order to be guilty of murder (Moore, 1993). The first is the actus reus requirement, whereas the second is part of the mens rea requirement. The accused must both actually kill someone, and intend (or believe) that he is killing someone, in order to be guilty of this kind of murder.
The relationship between actus reus and mens rea is not always this close in all offenses. In what are often called specific intent offenses, for example, the object of the prohibited mens rea will not coincide with the act prohibited by law. Thus, the actus reus of common law burglary is the breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another at night, whereas the mens rea includes the requirement that the accused do such breaking and entering with the intent to commit a felony once inside. The commission of such a further felony is no part of the actus reus of burglary, but the intent to commit such a further felony is part of the mens rea of burglary.
In its actus reus/mens rea distinction the criminal law has mirrored a deep divide in morality. This is the divide between wrongdoing and culpability. Although it is disputed, morality is most often thought to contain certain prohibitions and requirements, such as "Do not kill" and "Help others in distress." Morality generally permits us either to do or to refrain from doing most acts, but morality forbids certain actions and requires others. To do an act morality forbids, or to refrain from doing an act morality requires, is to breach one's moral obligations. This is moral wrongdoing.
Morality likewise concerns itself with the culpability with which a wrongful act is done. Overall moral blameworthiness includes culpability as well as wrongdoing. One is free from moral blame for causing a harm to another if one neither intended to cause such a harm, believed one's act could result in such a harm, or unreasonably risked such a harm coming about because of one's actions.
The legal distinction between actus reus and mens rea is best seen as a reflection of this underlying moral distinction. The parallel is one of form, with criminal law and morality dividing criminal liability and moral responsibility (respectively) into these two elements. The difference, of course, lies in the content of legal versus moral norms; in many legal systems much that morality prohibits or requires the law does not, and vice versa.
(reply to this comment) |
| |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]