Question to ask righties: What rights are more important than property rights and private profits?

[yurbud]

To anyone capable of even rudimentary reasoning skills, they should be able to come up with something.

The follow up question is if those things are more important, should they be protected by law?

Are they protected now?

If not who is fighting for those to be protected, or which party could be moved to make businesses do so?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

1. I think assigning a general ranking of rights is poor practice.

As soon as there is an established heirarchy of rights, there becomes justification of eliminating some rights based on the requirements of "more important" rights.

IMO, there is a set of equally important enumerated and essential rights all Americans share. I would have to say property rights in addition the right to work for a living (pursuing private profits) is certainly a right everyone has. Aside from those established (and yet to be established rights) people ought to be able to act freely so long as the established rights of others are not trodden upon.

Edit: and just so I don't appear to be dodging a hypothetical question, I think several rights (voting, adequate self-defense, equal rights/protection, etc.) are more meaningful than property and private profit rights.... but NO right should trump another right. Especially without due process.

[yurbud]

3. not trodding upon rights of others is a principle for setting up hierarchy

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

5. Please clarify?

Are you saying not violating the rights of others is a hierarchical core value?
What do you mean by heirarcy... stratification of societal wealth?

Just trying to get on the same page, here. :)

[yurbud]

6. no, I'm saying that not violating the rights of others is a principle for prioritizing rights

For example, I have a right to pursue happiness, but not to the point that I can kill other people for fun, which would interfere with their right to life.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

7. Technically, there is no right to the pursuit of happines...

Although there is a bit of enshrinement of the concept through protected acts (ie: marriage) at the federal level while not explicitly outlined by edict, and several state constitutions may actually outline "pursuit of happiness" as a protected right... there is no federally enforceable right to the pursuit of happiness. The phrase to which you refer is found in the Declaration of Independence. It is The Constitution, which contains the Bill of Rights and Amendments, that the courts and the executive branch may actually be empowered and sworn to protect/enforce. Said otherwise, the Declaration of Independence itself has no binding effect in courts. Ergo, you have no federally recognized "right to the pursuit of happiness".

Also, I don't believe the phrase "pursuit of happiness" means what modern English would suggest. I mean to say, "happiness" in the sense of elevated serotonin levels (ie: haha, lol, smiles, etc.) may not been what the founding fathers had in mind whan drafting that phrase. There is evidence to suggest that when Jefferson referred to the “pursuit of happiness” he meant things like working, which were assumed to contribute to the individual virtue.

For situations in which actual rights conflict there is due process through the courts to settle disputes. For a clearer idea of the pursuit of happiness see Butchers Co. v. Crescent City Co. (1884), "The right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment."

[yurbud]

8. I meant it as a semi-hypothetical example though your court case backs me up

Are you an attorney?

[yurbud]

4. not trodding upon rights of others is a principle for setting up hierarchy

[laughingliberal]

2. Guns. 2nd amendment seems to be the only one they know. nt