Can individual liberties be lost?

[pevinsghost]

I recently got into a conversation with gunslnger in which we had different oppinions about whether a person can lose, or even contract away rights. Currently, legally the answer is yes, but I wanted to find out what all of your opinions were on the matter, and if possible I'd like to know what the official line of the LP party is

Comments

[greap]

There is no such thing as a right to privacy, just a right to avoid being spied upon. Even if AT&T recorded your conversations without telling you, as long as the contract didn't explicitly say they would not, for whatever use they wanted then they have not violated anyone’s rights.

Likewise I can setup a telescopic camera pointing in a cute girls window without violating her rights. She has the right to close her curtains and I have done no wrong unless I break in to her house to open the curtains.

We certainly have the right to counteract spying but no right not to be spied upon.

[greap]

The short answer is yes. If rights were enforced over private property by law then it simply violates property rights. Certainly people must be given a choice between not participating or giving up some of their rights but as long as they are given that choice then all is good. I would go as far as to say that in order for self-ownership to exist one has to be able to make those kind of choices, if they don't then do they really have ownership over themselves?

Is it ok if AT&T taps your phone and records your conversations as long as you know they're doing it?

Yes.

Is the current surveilance/neighborhood warnings about sex offenders justified?

No, violation of due process and significantly undermines the entire concept of justice.

Should people convicted of felonies, especialy violent felonies, lose the right to bear arms?No. As the law stands right now I would say doubly no, with the federal government's war on liberty accelerating every day removing weapons from those convicted of felonies will just ensure that the people who

[greap]

If you don't read the contract properly or hire a lawyer to check it for you then it is your own fault and you deserve everything you get.

Social darwinism is awsome that way.

[rasilio]

go back and think through the implications of that.

If all contracts are sacrosanct and therefore must be reviewed by legal counsel before one could safely agree to them to ensure nothing harmful was in them (or required a person to have the equivalent education of a lawyer to reasonably protect themselves) then how can society exist?

The transaction costs on even the simplest of transactions would exceed the value of the goods and services which exchanged hands by at least an order of magnitude.

A universal assumption that anything written into a contract is valid and enforcable is the death knell of all commerce because no one would ever dare to buy or sell anything and where they did dare they could not afford it.

[montecristo]

1. Is it ok if AT&T taps your phone and records your conversations as long as you know they're doing it?
   
   If it is voluntary it is not a violation of rights. It is only a violation of rights when one is forbidden to communicate without privacy.


2. Is the current surveilance/neighborhood warnings about sex offenders justified?
   
   It's almost certainly counter-productive. All it does is take the stigma out of sexual offenses by showing them to be commonplace. Look at the maps on a sexual offender website some time.


3. Should people convicted of felonies, especialy violent felonies, lose the right to bear arms?
   
   Do they lose the rights of speech and assembly or any of the other rights?
   Do they lose the right of self-defense? No?
   


4. Is the death sentence, which is the removal of a persons right to life, ever justified?
   Probably it is justifiable all of the time. Human justice is imperfect though. Any system which renders imperfect justice should not be handing out irrevokable permanent punishments.


5. Most importantly to what we had discussed, can you

[rasilio]

"You can contract away your free will"

I wouldn't go that far. I would say you can contract away the right to control your actions, but free will would still allow you to struggle against that control should you desire it.

As you said, Free Will is inalienable, it is essentially the right to try which nothing can prevent.

Re: Due process.

[pevinsghost]

Human justice is imperfect though. Any system which renders imperfect justice should not be handing out irrevokable permanent punishments.

Absolutely true. And since there will never be a perfect justice system, well I'd rather pay for keeping people imprisoned than find out "Oops, we imprisoned an innocent man!" But of bigger concern to me is that I don't trust the government with much, and trusting it with the ability to end life.. Just not a good idea in my book, too easy to silence those that don't do as their told.

I do think people can lose their right to life, if they are threatening a life or have just taken a life and still have in their hands means to take more, anyone that killed our theoretical villian would be completely justified. But death sentences don't take place in situations like that, they take place months later while the criminal is in jail unarmed. If someone is not an immediate threat to anothers life then killing them is a violation of their right to life.

Re: Due process.

[montecristo]

Agreed on all counts. Well said.

[kizayaen]

Specific opinions:

Is it ok if AT&T taps your phone and records your conversations as long as you know they're doing it?

Only if you actively consent. Knowing is not enough without consent.

Is the current surveilance/neighborhood warnings about sex offenders justified?

No. If they're still a threat to society, they should still be imprisoned. If they are no longer imprisoned, then they've repaid their debt to society.

Should people convicted of felonies, especialy violent felonies, lose the right to bear arms?

Same as above. If you can't trust them with a rifle, then they should still be in prison.

Is the death sentence, which is the removal of a persons right to life, ever justified?Sure... generally in cases where the loss of one life in turn saves the loss of more than one life. I.e. serial killers and whatnot. If the options are that a murderer loses his right to life, or a bunch of young girls lose their lives despite having the right, I know which one I'm chosing. This ignores the possibility of life imprisonment,

[thomasblair]

I.e. serial killers and whatnot.

If justice is being applied, then the murderer has been captured and no more lives are at stake. Sunk costs are irretrievable.

[kizayaen]

Absolutely. The point is cutting later costs off before they occur.

[thomasblair]

Then you're talking about a deterrent effect, not the morality of capital punishment as justice.

[volkris]

they have a right to do with their property (phone lines, cell phone towers, etc.) what they want, as long as they notify you beforehand

This seems contradictory: On one hand you recognize that they can do what they wish with their property, but on the other you require them to get your permission before they do what they want with their property? That's no longer their doing what they want, but rather their doing what they AND YOU want.