TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 7,009
In a thread a while ago I talked about how it would be practical if there were age limits in accessing voluntary euthanasia and the right to die. There were some mixed reception from the thread ranging from hard disagree to some acceptance of limits, but ultimately it was a gray stance, meaning that there is no absolute right or wrong stance on what age would be appropriate, but it seems like the legal age for an individual to be considered an adult would be a good starting point. There has to be a place or origin when it comes to making policy and setting boundaries, then after the initial baseline is established, nuances and tweaks can be made towards the baseline, whether to increase or decrease it.
Anyways, so onto the actual topic. In a similar vein, I'm going to be discussing why rights have limits. Rights have limits in order to ensure that they do not interfere or cause harm to another (unwilling participant) party or entity. This is why the quote of "a person's right to swing their arm ends at another person's nose" (paraphrased but the idea is still the same) is relevant. This means a person is free to do whatever they want as long as their action(s) do not harm another individual.
For example, the right to free speech ends where it causes actual harm to another person, party, or entity, meaning that while one is free to speak about their opinions and say things (even if it isn't in agreeance with the other party), but that ends when it starts to damage another's reputation by the spread of lies and false information (causing unwanted life changes and upheaval in their lives) such as defamation, slander, libel to name a few. Another example where free speech ends is when it is used to incite harm (whether it is panic, violence, or physical harm) towards another party, such as threats of harm and violence.
(This one mainly applies to the US, so I will be solely focusing on the US) The right to bear arms, aka the 2nd amendment, is also one of the basic rights of the Constitution, it too, has limits on who is able to enjoy said right and who is prohibited from exercising said right. By default, an US citizen (or qualifying resident that meets specific criteria) with no prohibitive criteria (no conviction of domestic violence, nor a crime that exceeds a year in imprisonment (felony or serious misdemeanors), not a fugitive from justice, not adjudicated mentally defective, not an unlawful user nor addicted to any controlled substances (drugs), etc.) would be able to fully enjoy the right without question. However, someone who is a prohibited person according to the law would not be able to enjoy the 2nd amendment. The law, specifically the Gun Control Act of 1968 is aimed to prevent dangerous people from accessing the right. Which brings me to the next point. One also loses or has diminished ability to exercise said right(s) if they do something that would warrant restriction or denial of said right(s) to the said person(s).
Additionally, there are two different rights that an individual has. Natural rights and civil rights. Natural rights are innate, or those that are already given to an individual and no individual, entity, nor the government can take them away (except in special circumstances where an individual has done something that forfeits their said right). Then there are civil rights, which are rights that are given and granted by the power of the state (one's own country, government, jurisdiction). So natural rights are essentially absolute and cannot be infringed upon (except in special circumstances) while civil rights hold weight from one's own state/government and can be limited in some way (if and when necessary) by the state/government in specific scenarios.
Anyways, so onto the actual topic. In a similar vein, I'm going to be discussing why rights have limits. Rights have limits in order to ensure that they do not interfere or cause harm to another (unwilling participant) party or entity. This is why the quote of "a person's right to swing their arm ends at another person's nose" (paraphrased but the idea is still the same) is relevant. This means a person is free to do whatever they want as long as their action(s) do not harm another individual.
For example, the right to free speech ends where it causes actual harm to another person, party, or entity, meaning that while one is free to speak about their opinions and say things (even if it isn't in agreeance with the other party), but that ends when it starts to damage another's reputation by the spread of lies and false information (causing unwanted life changes and upheaval in their lives) such as defamation, slander, libel to name a few. Another example where free speech ends is when it is used to incite harm (whether it is panic, violence, or physical harm) towards another party, such as threats of harm and violence.
(This one mainly applies to the US, so I will be solely focusing on the US) The right to bear arms, aka the 2nd amendment, is also one of the basic rights of the Constitution, it too, has limits on who is able to enjoy said right and who is prohibited from exercising said right. By default, an US citizen (or qualifying resident that meets specific criteria) with no prohibitive criteria (no conviction of domestic violence, nor a crime that exceeds a year in imprisonment (felony or serious misdemeanors), not a fugitive from justice, not adjudicated mentally defective, not an unlawful user nor addicted to any controlled substances (drugs), etc.) would be able to fully enjoy the right without question. However, someone who is a prohibited person according to the law would not be able to enjoy the 2nd amendment. The law, specifically the Gun Control Act of 1968 is aimed to prevent dangerous people from accessing the right. Which brings me to the next point. One also loses or has diminished ability to exercise said right(s) if they do something that would warrant restriction or denial of said right(s) to the said person(s).
Additionally, there are two different rights that an individual has. Natural rights and civil rights. Natural rights are innate, or those that are already given to an individual and no individual, entity, nor the government can take them away (except in special circumstances where an individual has done something that forfeits their said right). Then there are civil rights, which are rights that are given and granted by the power of the state (one's own country, government, jurisdiction). So natural rights are essentially absolute and cannot be infringed upon (except in special circumstances) while civil rights hold weight from one's own state/government and can be limited in some way (if and when necessary) by the state/government in specific scenarios.
