The difference between "regulate" and "prohibit".

[Osborn F Enready]

I am beginning to think many people simply don't know the difference between the words "regulation" and "prohibition" because I see them used with such improper interchangability.

Regulate:
1 a: to govern or direct according to rule b (1): to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2): to make regulations for or concerning <regulate the industries of a country>
2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to <regulate one's habits>
3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <regulate the pressure of a tire>

Prohibit:
1: forbid: command against;
2: To forbid by authority
3: To prevent; preclude

A government has many rights of regulation, but some governments, such as the United States, have a Constitutional PROHIBITION of infringing on certain individual rights of its citizens.

For instance, the right to free speech.

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

People have a right to speak freely with responsibility, meaning, to speak freely to the point before it would cause unjust, or undue harm to others.

I have a right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there is a fire.
I have a right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire, but the government has regulated that if that act causes harm to others for the false alarm, I can be held responsible for the damages, both economic and property damage.

I have that right, but with that right comes responsibility for that action, if it causes direct and objectively provable harm or damage to others or their property.

The U.S. learned the hard way that there is a limit to prohibition, and it learned that lesson with alchohol. Unfortunately, they also didn't learn enough to prevent them from making the same foolish error with the prohibition of drugs, and that battle is about to come to a head either legally, or socially through yet another expansion of the black market illegalization created.

The government has a right to punish irresponsible action that causes direct harm to others. It does not have the right to prohibit actions, other than actions that cause direct harm to others, but it can attempt and should attempt to regulate them to a point of resonable respect for individual rights when regulation would prevent abuse of the courts.

My point is:
These two words are not interchangeable.

Having the power to regulate does not imply or authorize the power to prohibit.

[Jack]

Something that is not prohibited is not necessarily regulated, either. The government cannot prohibit the exercise of free speech, but nothing in the first amendment suggests they can regulate it. Yet it seems we're seeing attempts to do that (hate speech, free-speech zones, etc.).

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Isherwood Something that is not prohibited is not necessarily regulated, either. The government cannot prohibit the exercise of free speech, but nothing in the first amendment suggests they can regulate it. Yet it seems we're seeing attempts to do that (hate speech, free-speech zones, etc.).

Technically, isn't "regulated speech" less than free?

[Jack]

Exactly. If we begin to regulate speech, it's no longer free speech. It's either limited free speech or loosely regulated speech, the first is obviously an oxymoron.

[tinybear]

No freedoms are absolute and all are subject to regulation. The other side of the coin, however, is this: rights which are protected by the constitution or by law cannot be absolutely prohibited either.

[Osborn F Enready]

tinybear said: No freedoms are absolute and all are subject to regulation.

I beg you to show me what would lead to such an incorrect observation.

Tinybear said: The other side of the coin, however, is this: rights which are protected by the constitution or by law cannot be absolutely prohibited either.

So, you are talking of the U.S.A. in this statement, as well as the one before?

They can't be prohibited, period. They can be regulated, but prohibition has little to do with regulation.

[Elminister]

So what is the debate? Deffinition? Not trying to be a prick.Just looking for something to,possibly,bite onto.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I beg you to show me what would lead to such an incorrect observation. So, you are talking of the U.S.A. in this statement, as well as the one before? They can't be prohibited, period. They can be regulated, but prohibition has little to do with regulation.

Which freedoms can you think of which are absolute?

[Osborn F Enready]

I made the argument that regulate and prohibit are not interchangeable, nor are they dependent on one another.

I also made the case that a government having the authority to regulate, does not necessarily give them power to prohibit.

If you disagreed with those points, that would be grounds for debate.

[Osborn F Enready]

Tinybear said: Which freedoms can you think of which are absolute?

Life.

Liberty.

Pursuit of Happiness.

The right to bear arms.

The right to free speech.

The right to privacy.

The right to counsel.

The right to own property.

many others....

[Kamehameha34]

Os, you know a person's life, liberty, and property are all subject to revokation via due process. Rights are only absolute to the point of not interfering with the rights of others.

Prohibit and regulate really describe the same act, only prohibiting something entails disallowing it altogether while regulating something entails disallowing it when certain qualifiers are attached.

If gun ownership is prohibited for the public, then ownership of a gun is disallowed.

If it is regulated in such a way that you can't own a gun without going through X amount of hoops, then ownership without those requirements met is still prohibited.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Life. Liberty.

The government does have the right to restrict liberty if you break certain laws or to enforce certain laws though. That is a form of regulation.

Pursuit of Happiness.

The government does have the right to restrict your right to be drunk in public or to go to the opera nude or participate in child pornography no matter how much these might make you happy.

The right to bear arms.

The government can forbid you to bear arms in a courthouse or school or on an airliner, etc. All regulated.

The right to free speech.

You already provided examples of regulation of speech which is one of our fundamental rights. We cannot disturb the peace or incite to riot or disrupt court proceedings with speech either. It is not an unregulated right.

The right to privacy.

Yep. Unless the government wants to see if you have a closet full of AK47s or are bulding a bomb in the basement, in which case they can get a court order to see what you have. We also turn over our luggage, purses, backpacks, and contents of our pockets for scrutiny when boarding certain public transportation or attending certain large gatherings.

The right to counsel.

Even here it has to be counsel that the government sanctions. You don't have right to counsel with somebody off the street or picked out of the phone book or even visitation by unlimited lawyers.

The right to own property.

Unless the government decides it is needed for the common good. Also your use of that property is highly regulated by zoning restrictions, the existence of endangered species in the area, or the rules imposed by homeowners' associations. John Locke would be horrified at what the government has done with this one.

many others....

I bet you can't name those 'many others' though. Tiny Bear has a good case on this one I think. We do not have any rights that the government cannot regulate.

It is for this reason we need to be always vigilent lest the government take more and more of our unalienable rights away from us.

[Osborn F Enready]

My apologies Kameha, Tiny, Foxfyre.

I replied in haste to tinybear, and I was replying to which rights are objective, not absolute.

I thought Tiny was asking me what freedoms are objective..... my mistake.

Yes, due process can be used to limit rights of an individual if they abuse the rights of others.

Foxfyre, whats up with all the bold letters?

[Osborn F Enready]

And yes by the way, that was me wiping egg off my face.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Foxfyre The government does have the right to restrict liberty if you break certain laws or to enforce certain laws though. That is a form of regulation.

The collectrive entities called "governments" claim such a right, yes. However, it is up to people to determine if regulations are legitimate and necessary, and usually to provide incentives for regulation.

If people find regulations (and, of course, policymakers) to be illegitimate and unnecessary, they can break with norms (for better or worse) and not carry out policies.

Grandpa h.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready My apologies Kameha, Tiny, Foxfyre. I replied in haste to tinybear, and I was replying to which rights are objective, not absolute. I thought Tiny was asking me what freedoms are objective..... my mistake. Yes, due process can be used to limit rights of an individual if they abuse the rights of others. Foxfyre, whats up with all the bold letters?

Sorry about the bold letters. I had already inserted them to differentiate from your comments and then, as an afterthought, went ahead and put your stuff in quote boxes. It was too much trouble at that point to go back and remove all the bold formatting.

I do think, however, that regulation within this context may address abuse of rights of others, but is not necessarily to avoid 'abuse of rights of others' but rather to effect an orderly society that is pleasing to the majority or most effectively accomplishes other purposes. For instance, the constitution will not allow any form of my speech to be forbidden--I cannot be punished by law for any thought expressed--but our lawmakers and their delegates/enforcer can certainly dictate where I will not be permitted to speak those thoughts.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: grandpa The collectrive entities called "governments" claim such a right, yes. However, it is up to people to determine if regulations are legitimate and necessary, and usually to provide incentives for regulation. If people find regulations (and, of course, policymakers) to be illegitimate and unnecessary, they can break with norms (for better or worse) and not carry out policies. Grandpa h.

In a Republic, the people at large do not get to make the law nor can they decide whether or not the law can be ignored without consequence. We elect representatives of the whole to make such decisions for us. Our only lawful recourse is to recall/impeach those who are not doing their jobs and/or not re-elect them.

Those who choose not to obey the policies dictated by law enter a state of anarchy. Should a sufficient number choose to do that, the whole system collapses. The fact that we have not collapsed testifies to the wisdom of the Republic our founders took years to hammer out for us.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Foxfyre In a Republic, the people at large do not get to make the law nor can they decide whether or not the law can be ignored without consequence. We elect representatives of the whole to make such decisions for us.

I'm aware how the "Republic" wants us to be ruled, but such claims to power don't justify themselves.

Your argument that the law cannot be ignored without consequence is simply incorrect. To my knowledge, manmade laws and policies do not tend to enforce themselves, even in a highly automated age.
Those who persist in making such arguments are only espousing fantasy.

If you're a lawmaker, people can still do many things without your specific consent (even things you've declared "illegal"), and it's been this way throughout history.

Furthermore, when authority figures claim to make decisions "for us," it's still others who carry out and obey the policies. That's why myths and propaganda are so important to power. We're supposed to believe there is no "us" without our serving someone above.

Grandpa h.