Consitutional rights verses company policy.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Cephus Just interesting to note that the people who are most against authority are the ones who can't get any.

Where did I indicate I want a position of authority? Here you're presenting one of the fundmental idiotic assumptions behind authoritarianism: "Those who dislike authority must only be jealous." In my case, this is a theory which breaks down when exposed to reality.

Grandpa h.

[Cephus]

Quote by: grandpa Where did I indicate I want a position of authority? Here you're presenting one of the fundmental idiotic assumptions behind authoritarianism: "Those who dislike authority must only be jealous." In my case, this is a theory which breaks down when exposed to reality.

It's really irrelevant whether you want it or not, as people get older and mature, they are naturally put into positions of authority over those who have neither the experience nor the ability to handle themselves without oversight. I've noticed that most of the people who are bitching about authority are the ones who have never actually been put in such a position. That implies that they are, in fact, lacking in experience, ability and maturity to handle such positions.

Kind of explains a lot, actually.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Cephus It's really irrelevant whether you want it or not, as people get older and mature, they are naturally put into positions of authority over those who have neither the experience nor the ability to handle themselves without oversight. I've noticed that most of the people who are bitching about authority are the ones who have never actually been put in such a position.

Having a position of power doesn't necessarily mean you're more mature. Quite often it only means you are conniving. They are not entirely clean themselves and are frequently even stupider than those below them.

Grandpa h.

[Cephus]

Quote by: grandpa Having a position of power doesn't necessarily mean you're more mature. Quite often it only means you are conniving. They are not entirely clean themselves and are frequently even stupider than those below them.

*yawn* Sure, you keep telling yourself that. Get back to digging ditches.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: grandpa Having a position of power doesn't necessarily mean you're more mature. Quite often it only means you are conniving. They are not entirely clean themselves and are frequently even stupider than those below them. Grandpa h.

I'm not taking a position in this little spat.

However, I feel compelled to point out that this is exactly what someone who is too immature or irresponsible for a position of authority might say.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Cephus *yawn* Sure, you keep telling yourself that. Get back to digging ditches.

Whatever. Come back when you've actually got a reasonable argument.

Grandpa h

[grandpa]

Quote by: tivodan1116 I'm not taking a position in this little spat. However, I feel compelled to point out that this is exactly what someone who is too immature or irresponsible for a position of authority might say.

He and you are just saying, "My paycheck is bigger than yours! I have people under me, aren't you jealous?" For lack of a better word, it's moronic. It's just personal attacks, ane I'm not here to impress anyone with the size of my paycheck. But this does show just how stupid capitalism is, where one's lintelligence is supposedly tied to the size of one's paycheck.

It's amazing how you call this "maturity." It's an infantile way to argue anything. But it does fit the pattern of capitalist shaming and oneupmanship. If you kiss enough ass, tell enough lies and rule over enough people, you're somehow better. And you can pat yourself on the back the whole time, too.

Grandpa h.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Because I understand the Constitution and you apparently do not?

Your analysis of the Constitution was actually quite poor.

Yes, the Bill of Rights functions as a limitation of federal power. In defining these limitations, however, it enumerates plenty of those protected rights along the way.

"Constitutional rights" refer to those enumerated rights within the amendments, not the federal limitations to not infringe on those rights.

For example, from the Second Amendment: "...the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The amendment as a whole functions as a limitation of federal power. In defining that limitation, however, it mentions - or "enumerates" - "the right of the People to keep and bear arms," whatever you want to argue that really means.
"[T]he right of the People to keep and bear Arms" is the Constitutional right.

-----

Getting on topic, the OP asks us to compare limitations on the government and limitations on corporations (or other private entities) from infringing on Constitutional rights.

...

And I really don't have much of an opinion. I don't think rights matter anyway, so the question is kind of a non-issue.
I'll throw in there differences I see:
1) Obviously, the federal government's limitations on infringing rights are well-defined by a founding document. Corporate limitations, not really.
2) If you like thinking of the Constitution as a social contract (I don't, but eh), then the government and the people have made an agreement as to what rights should be protected.
Within the people, however, individuals and private entities are free to make contracts between each other as to what rights can be infringed.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Fangrim Your analysis of the Constitution was actually quite poor. Yes, the Bill of Rights functions as a limitation of federal power.

If the people are willing to challenge federal power in its name, then yes. If not, federal power will no doubt reign supreme.

Grandpa h.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Fangrim Your analysis of the Constitution was actually quite poor.

Yes, I'm sure your knowledge and education on the topic is vastly superior to people with doctoral level studies of the Constitution, Despite that "fact", I feel compelled to respond...

Yes, the Bill of Rights functions as a limitation of federal power. In defining these limitations, however, it enumerates plenty of those protected rights along the way. "Constitutional rights" refer to those enumerated rights within the amendments, not the federal limitations to not infringe on those rights.

What are The Omega Man's rights? Well, the last man on Earth has unlimited "rights" because there is no one who can have any power over him.

RIGHTS do not exist in a vacuum. Implicit (and necessary) in the definition of any right is an expression of against whom the right is enforceable. If every being existed in its own individual universe, "rights" would not exist, as they would be superfluous.

Rights are rights to force another party to do or not do a certain thing. They are the Constitutional equivalent of an injunction.

In the Constitution's case, that party is the Federal Government (and the States as incorporated by the 14th Amendment).

Constitutional rights are rights that exist against the government. In the context of the OP, which said:

Quote by: Technosoul But a private business can have a company policy to forbid you from your consitutional right of free speech.

... a corporation cannot "infringe" upon a "Constitutional right" since they do not exist against a corporation.

As far as the rest,

And I really don't have much of an opinion. I don't think rights matter anyway, so the question is kind of a non-issue.

Why not? They seemed to matter to the Constitutional delegates who wouldn't sign the thing until a Bill of Rights was promised.

1) Obviously, the federal government's limitations on infringing rights are well-defined by a founding document. Corporate limitations, not really.

Corporate limitations on infringing rights are defined by statute, regulation, and contracts the corporation is a party to. Whether or not that is "well-defined" is a matter of opinion.

2) If you like thinking of the Constitution as a social contract (I don't, but eh), then the government and the people have made an agreement as to what rights should be protected.

More precisely, what rights the people have against the federal government.

[Cephus]

Quote by: grandpa He and you are just saying, "My paycheck is bigger than yours! I have people under me, aren't you jealous?" For lack of a better word, it's moronic. It's just personal attacks, ane I'm not here to impress anyone with the size of my paycheck. But this does show just how stupid capitalism is, where one's lintelligence is supposedly tied to the size of one's paycheck.

No, it's more along the lines of "How can you rationally argue against something you don't have a bloody clue about?" I don't see CEOs of Fortune 500 companies whining about how much they hate authority, we only see pissant ditch diggers doing it. We're pointing out how ludicrous it is to bitch about how much you hate authority because no one will give you any. Coming from someone who can't even qualify as a shift leader at McDonalds, that's hysterical.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Cephus No, it's more along the lines of "How can you rationally argue against something you don't have a bloody clue about?" I don't see CEOs of Fortune 500 companies whining about how much they hate authority, we only see pissant ditch diggers doing it. We're pointing out how ludicrous it is to bitch about how much you hate authority because no one will give you any. Coming from someone who can't even qualify as a shift leader at McDonalds, that's hysterical.

I don't think it's an issue of being incapable of leadership in his case. I think its simply his communist-anarchist notions that authority is inherently evil, the corporation is an institution of slavery, that no one should be allowed to own property or charge others for the use of that property, etc.

[Matt W]

How about we drop the personal comments here?

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Technosoul It is sort of a strange mixture. We got two masters - or two bosses. Sometimes a consitutional right is in conflict with the rules of a business because of the difference between private and public areas. Sometimes it is not. For example a private business cannot violate your consitutional right not to be discriminated agenst because of your race. But a private business can have a company policy to forbid you from your consitutional right of free speech.

All constitutional rights have limits! Such as you can't yell fire in a busy theater. Or slander.

A private business can not forbid an employee from saying something. But they are under no obligation to keep someone employed (unless their is a whistle blower statute) if they say something. Sometimes you contract for confidentiality. If you reveal that information the company can't get you arrested, but they can sue you for loses.

Private business can't infringe on you constitutional rights you have it incorrect.

The limits are set via common law set by court rulings interpreting the constitution!

[Fangrim]

Quote by: tivodan RIGHTS do not exist in a vacuum. Implicit (and necessary) in the definition of any right is an expression of against whom the right is enforceable.

tivodan,

I disagree.

A "right" is simply a property or condition recognized as being of higher moral import or significance, such that other properties or conditions can be enforced, manipulated, or inhibited to protect that recognized property.

Rights do NOT inherently subject another individual external to the right-holder to a requirement to make or not make an action. In protecting a right, however, yes, there is often a requirement set upon other individuals to not infringe on that right, or take action so as to fulfill that right.

Example:

Quote by: The Second Amendment A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Here, we clearly see that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" (whatever the heck that might mean, since it's quite debatable) does NOT inherently indicate that it shall not be infringed. This right, without this amendment, would exist without a provision or social construct for its protection, nor even a social obligation upon individuals or the government to protect it.
The amendment, however, does provide that enforcement, indicating that this right "shall not be infringed" (presumably, by the federal government).

[Cephus]

Quote by: Fangrim A "right" is simply a property or condition recognized as being of higher moral import or significance, such that other properties or conditions can be enforced, manipulated, or inhibited to protect that recognized property.

Says who? How do you know these things? Where do you get your knowledge? What do you base it upon? How do you determine what is a right and what is not a right? Wishful thinking?

Rights do NOT inherently subject another individual external to the right-holder to a requirement to make or not make an action. In protecting a right, however, yes, there is often a requirement set upon other individuals to not infringe on that right, or take action so as to fulfill that right.

Sure, you go to Iran and tell them all about your magical rights, see how seriously they take it. That's the problem with people who act like rights are these magical, mystical things that just float out there and exist without any external support. It's a completely nonsensical view.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Cephus Says who? How do you know these things? Where do you get your knowledge? What do you base it upon? How do you determine what is a right and what is not a right? Wishful thinking?

I gave you a clear example indicating that tivodan's view of rights is incompatible with the Constitution.

But yes, the analysis is my own. Are you going to rebut or argue against it, or are you just going to say "nuh-uh"?

Sure, you go to Iran and tell them all about your magical rights, see how seriously they take it. That's the problem with people who act like rights are these magical, mystical things that just float out there and exist without any external support. It's a completely nonsensical view.

...
mmk.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Cephus No, it's more along the lines of "How can you rationally argue against something you don't have a bloody clue about?" I don't see CEOs of Fortune 500 companies whining about how much they hate authority, we only see pissant ditch diggers doing it.

Thanks to comments like this, this has got to be one of lamest
threads ever.

Of course ruling elites in Fortune 500 companies don't comdemn authority. They benefit from it, which is actually something I do know a little about. However, it's not true that no people of wealth and prestige have condemned authority. For example, one of the leading figures in anarchist history was Peter Kropotkin, who was born into the title of "Prince," which led some to call him "the Anarchist Prince." In addition to being an anarchist revolutionary, he was a geographer and zoologist. He renounced his title of authority and certainly didn't totally dismiss the plight of "ditch diggers."

Another example would be Ba Jin, the Chinese anarchist. He wasn't necessarily a "ditch digger." The point is, anarchists can come from all walks of life.

Here's another example (a wrestler):
YouTube - Jeff Monson on Government.

And why do you keep assuming I want authority? I never even hinted at that. I despise authoritarianism. I don't like lying to people, using them, cheating them and coercing them. If that makes me akin to a "pissant ditch digger" in your mind, then so be it. I'm not here to impress you by how mindlessly subservient I am to the system.

Grandpa h.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Fangrim But yes, the analysis is my own. Are you going to rebut or argue against it, or are you just going to say "nuh-uh"?

I'm going to say that until you're able to back it up, it's just your opinion and we all know what opinions are like...

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Fangrim tivodan, I disagree. A "right" is simply a property or condition recognized as being of higher moral import or significance, such that other properties or conditions can be enforced, manipulated, or inhibited to protect that recognized property.

Ok... Protect that recognized property against what?

That's what you're not getting. A "right" ALWAYS has contained in it's complete definition the inclusion of someone or something against whom the right is enforced.

As long as we are not living in our own universe, there are ALWAYS two parties to a right - the party granted the right, and the party whose behavior is restricted.

Tell me a "right" that does not involve preventing someone else from doing something.

Rights do NOT inherently subject another individual external to the right-holder to a requirement to make or not make an action.

Who said an individual? It can be an individual, corporation, government, etc.

The amendment, however, does provide that enforcement, indicating that this right "shall not be infringed" (presumably, by the federal government).

You make my argument for me. The right is to keep and bear arms - it is enforceable against the federal government in this case. As I said, ALWAYS attached to a right is the party that is restricted by it.

ALWAYS