Subject:
|
Foundation of a republic (was Gun control)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Jan 2001 02:58:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
166 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek has been snipped...
> > You have whatever rights the majority of the
> > people of Canada decide are reasonable to grant you _at this time_
>
> That's my point. The US is (theoretically) constrained in what rights it
> can usurp because the US is founded on the principle that rights come from
> the (individual) people and are granted to the government, rather than the
> other way round.
Although Australia is a constitutional backwater (no bill of rights, still a
monarchy etc) our High Court has come up with some interesting jurisprudence
on this point. Rather than declaring our independence in one bold revolution
we have evolved from a bunch of colonies to a republic (almost) over the
course of a century, leading to severe conflicts between constitutional
principle and practice. The solution to these has been for the
interpretation of our sovereignty to change, so whatever the constitution
says about the crown of Britain, it is now axiomatic that the government of
Australia is founded on the will of the people.
> Tim is stuck. He lives in a country that is ruled, ultimately, by fiat (3).
> He can't win the argument he is in (or ANY argument about rights) because he
> *has no* inalienable rights. Only "rights" temporarily granted by sufferance
> because no one has gotten around to making the political case that he'd be
> better off without that particular right. And rights that can be taken away
> are not rights, they're privileges.
I'd assert that all people have several universal and inalienable human
rights. Certainly most are political, arguably some are economic, I doubt
whether any are ballistic. Personally I think the second amendment is
ineffective against government firepower -- or maybe not: who won the war on
drugs?
--DaveL
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Foundation of a republic (was Gun control)
|
| (...) The only reason the 2nd might be ineffective against government firepower is that we have allowed the government to overly restrict the weapons an individual may possess. At this point, we better darn well hope that if the government goes on a (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
