Restriction of rights and left/liberalism versus right/conservatism.

[EP45]

I am trying to explore the idea of restriction of rights and left/liberalism versus right/conservatism.

I realize the rights have responsibilities attached to them and rights can be lost by being irresponsible.

I would generally say that the right/conservatives generally feel that rights should not be restricted, infringed upon, etc. unless there is an overwhelming reason.

At the same time, the left/liberals generally feel that rights are fair game for infringement and restriction with any reason.

Some examples:
1. Infringement on the right to bear arms.
2. Country wide lock downs and mask mandates
3. Shutting down speech for speech we view as heinous

I actually understand not bearing arms if visiting the White House and I personally wear a N95 mask (by the way against CDC guidelines) but feel forcing many of those restrictions on others to be a leftist/liberal ideal.

I can think no examples where a true conservative value is to restrict a right (“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord” …… is a conservative. Matthew 7: 21) without a truly overriding and legitimate reason.

Where am I wrong?

[flechero]

You have to give people the opportunity to assess their own risk and take responsibility for themselves.

If one wants to hole up and say away from public, that's their right. But if I or anyone else needs, wants to or feels like they need to go to work and can take their own precautions, then they should be allowed to ... otherwise you aren't being governed, you are being parented.

The issue is that the left has tried to give themselves the power to mandate and dictate what we all do, without consent from the rest of us.

[crazy2medic]

The issue is that the left has tried to give themselves the power to mandate and dictate what we all do, without consent from the rest of us.

Very difficult to impose your will on a Armed Man or an Armed Society, hence the lefts desire to disarm us

[jason812]

Just don't equate right/conservative with the republican party.

[EP45]

I am really trying to figure out a conservative position that does restrict a right without a good reason.

I often think Libertarian but even then, I am not comfortable "allowing" certain things. I do not feel you have the right to use illegal drugs. I feel the government has the right to restrict drug use due to the potential damage to society. At the same time I am laissez faire to some degree.

I really feel that a true conservative position does not restrict a legitimate right without an overriding reason.

[Middle Age Russ]

I think of myself as a Libertarian leaning Conservative (or maybe a Conservative leaning Libertarian). I haven't voted Libertarian due to their stances on open borders and a few other issues. That said, Jason812s statement is absolutely true and should always be remembered -- Conservative does not mean Republican. Another absolute truth is that those we loosely term Liberals these days are NOT liberal in the classic sense. The Left is instead Progressive, or Statist, or Collectivist, or Socialist, and all of these put the collective "good" -- as defined by those in power -- over the individual Rights of the People. As such, if Conservative is the other end of the scale, Conservatives put the individual Rights of the People over the "good" of the many.

[Grayling813]

Just don't equate right/conservative with the republican party.

[03Lightningrocks]

Another absolute truth is that those we loosely term Liberals these days are NOT liberal in the classic sense. The Left is instead Progressive, or Statist, or Collectivist, or Socialist, and all of these put the collective "good" -- as defined by those in power -- over the individual Rights of the People. As such, if Conservative is the other end of the scale, Conservatives put the individual Rights of the People over the "good" of the many.

Perfect description in the difference between the two.

[Lynyrd]

I believe it is the case jurists break down rights into two categories, positive and negative.

Some Positive Rights:
Free Housing
Free Higher Education
Free Health Care

Some Negative Rights:
Freedom of Speech
Freedom to Bear Arms
Freedom to Remain Silent

You get to choose. Free stuff or Freedom. Choices have consequences.

Anything that has to be paid for with money is not a "right." It is a benefit.

[Soccerdad1995]

I am really trying to figure out a conservative position that does restrict a right without a good reason.

I can think of a few. Gay marriage being one example where I think you would have to really stretch to find a significant harm to society as a whole from 2 people of the same sex getting married. You mentioned drug use, but I'm not convinced that the harm from addiction to drugs that conservatives want to outlaw is really significantly greater than the harm from drugs those same people are fine with being legal (namely alcohol). Prostitution is another example. The line between a married man having a mistress that he showers with gifts (which is legal) and the same man who hires a high class escort is pretty gray, IMHO.

I describe myself as a Conservative Libertarian, because I am generally a libertarian of the Thomas Locke school of thought (people choose to establish governments to protect their rights and freedoms, not to restrict them). But where I differ from true Libertarian beliefs I tend to align with Conservatives as opposed to Liberals, hence the "Conservative" part.

IMHO both Conservatives and Liberals want to restrict the rights of the people they should be answering to. I think this is an inherent danger of politics and politicians who tend to get carried away with the exercise of power.

[Don T]

I believe it is the case jurists break down rights into two categories, positive and negative.

Some Positive Rights:
Free Housing
Free Higher Education
Free Health Care

Some Negative Rights:
Freedom of Speech
Freedom to Bear Arms
Freedom to Remain Silent

You get to choose. Free stuff or Freedom. Choices have consequences.

Anything that has to be paid for with money is not a "right." It is a benefit.

You are absolutely correct. It can only be a "right" if you can exercise it without physical harm to, or financial contribution from, someone else. Otherwise it is a "want" rather than a "right."

[cbunt1]

Not sure where I land on the official right/left Continuum.

If someone wants to get baked out of their gourd, I say go for it. Any behavior that is detrimental to society should be punished/prosecuted in it's own right, butt note because of the fact that someone is in an altered state. Neither should that altered state be an excuse for such behavior. And yes, I do think we should dump DWI/DUI legislation and instead prosecute the reckless/dangerous diving behaviors that result, not the fact that someone has .09 instead of .06 BAC.

I personally can't justify disarming any citizen, be it at the White House, at the school, or in the Courtroom. If a person is considered free and safe enough to be in society, they are safe enough to be armed. Recognizing the danger of such a society is simply recognizing reality.

I could go on, but I think you get my general drift. I don't look to the government to protect me, and with very few exceptions think that anyone who does is fooling themselves and will be on for a rude awakening someday.

[srothstein]

Not sure where I land on the official right/left Continuum.

I think the problem of trying to place most people on the right left continuum is that it is what logic calls a false dichotomy. Most people do not realize that it is a dichotomy because they think of it as a continuous line allowing for multiple choices. I think it is still a dichotomy because it doesn't allow for people who do not belong on the line.

For example, where on the line do you put true libertarians? Are they right wing because they believe in no limits on guns or left wing because they believe in no limit on immigration? In reality, the political spectrum is at least a plane, if not three dimensional (to keep within the geometric analogy).

My beliefs are more simply stated. I believe in freedom. Government's sole function is to protect me from predators, either external like an invading army or internal like criminals. It is not to protect me from my own decisions. It is not to protect me from nature or to help me if something else does happen to me. I don't like taxes, but I recognize that they are necessary for even those minimal functions of government.

And this gets me to what I think a crime should be. The only crimes that we should have are those where my actions cause harm to another person. It might be physical injury, it might be financial injury, and it might be mental injury (though this last requires extreme care - offending someone is not an injury but threatening them is). And if there is not a specific person that can be shown to be harmed, it should not be a crime. So, to use the previously mentioned DWI example, driving with any alcohol in your system should not be illegal unless it causes an accident. A distinct near miss causing a person to think the accident was imminent though they took action to avoid it could still be illegal, but just driving home from the bar with no close calls or accidents would be fine even if the driver's BAC was .24.

So, I think Oregon was right even if it was the wrong reasons - no drugs should be illegal. If you want to kill yourself by sticking a needle in your arm, you should be allowed to. This doesn't excuse committing any other crime to pay for the habit but the habit should not be illegal.

And to put this in line with the original concept of the thread, I do not believe in any positive rights, just negative rights. You have the right to be free of others interfering in your life but you do not have the right to any other person's work output, either directly or through the government collecting taxes to pay for it.

[K.Mooneyham]

Not sure where I land on the official right/left Continuum.

I think the problem of trying to place most people on the right left continuum is that it is what logic calls a false dichotomy. Most people do not realize that it is a dichotomy because they think of it as a continuous line allowing for multiple choices. I think it is still a dichotomy because it doesn't allow for people who do not belong on the line.

For example, where on the line do you put true libertarians? Are they right wing because they believe in no limits on guns or left wing because they believe in no limit on immigration? In reality, the political spectrum is at least a plane, if not three dimensional (to keep within the geometric analogy).

My beliefs are more simply stated. I believe in freedom. Government's sole function is to protect me from predators, either external like an invading army or internal like criminals. It is not to protect me from my own decisions. It is not to protect me from nature or to help me if something else does happen to me. I don't like taxes, but I recognize that they are necessary for even those minimal functions of government.

And this gets me to what I think a crime should be. The only crimes that we should have are those where my actions cause harm to another person. It might be physical injury, it might be financial injury, and it might be mental injury (though this last requires extreme care - offending someone is not an injury but threatening them is). And if there is not a specific person that can be shown to be harmed, it should not be a crime. So, to use the previously mentioned DWI example, driving with any alcohol in your system should not be illegal unless it causes an accident. A distinct near miss causing a person to think the accident was imminent though they took action to avoid it could still be illegal, but just driving home from the bar with no close calls or accidents would be fine even if the driver's BAC was .24.

So, I think Oregon was right even if it was the wrong reasons - no drugs should be illegal. If you want to kill yourself by sticking a needle in your arm, you should be allowed to. This doesn't excuse committing any other crime to pay for the habit but the habit should not be illegal.

And to put this in line with the original concept of the thread, I do not believe in any positive rights, just negative rights. You have the right to be free of others interfering in your life but you do not have the right to any other person's work output, either directly or through the government collecting taxes to pay for it.

Malam in se vs malam prohibitum?