Week 1 - matt Fox vs. Sivsyboi

[FromTheSouth]

This thread will be judged by TM and remain open until Sunday at 6 PM CST.

Matt Fox willa ffirm the topic that:

Resolved: When in conflict, the individal's right toliberty ought to supercede the national goal of order.

 

[Spaceman Spif]

(Good luck and happy debating Sivsyboi)

"Liberty is a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will."

In almost every civilized country with a strong legal and justice system we as a free people are guaranteed our liberty, our free will. However given their our laws set in place to protect us, our liberty can be taken away if these laws are broken. These laws are indeed in place to maintain order, peace, to keep us in line. This is understandable and acceptable. we have come to live the with the fact that yes we have liberty, but we also have laws we need to follow. I believe though that in conflict we have a right to maintain our liberty, our freedoms even above our society's goal of keeping order. We have a right to defend ourselves and defend our way of life.

Our life, our freedom, our liberties are all that is important to us as a people, and if we do not defend these things because we turn the other cheek in order to maintain order, then we are not deserving of our liberties. It is our duty to defend them, to protect them and keep them. Order is important, but truly keep order you can not take away our liberties and for those that try, the only option we have to fight back, to not let them take away our freedoms.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This is from the Constitution of the United States of America. We are created equal and we have the right to maintain that equality, despite order. No one has the right to take out liberty away from us, if we have done nothing wrong. So why should we not defend those rights? Why should we sit back, and let them be taken away just because we wish to keep order? Order is needed, but damned if I will not fight back and defend myself and I believe it should be alright to do so. In chaos we can find peace, in disorder and conflict, order is restored when the fight is over. This lack of order is temporary, our liberties be taken away is permanent.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

This passage states the biggest reason the constitution was written was to secure and protect our liberties. So as it is written, our right to liberty does supercede the right to order if we are invovled in conflict. It would be almost hypocritical then to not defend ourselves wouldn't it? I believe and many like me believe as well, that those who endeavor to take away our personal liberties shall be resisted and fought back against. Even if it is our own government that is trying to take our liberties, we have a constiutional right to defend ourselves, whether it be challenging elections, laws or regulations that are trying to be passed. We can not let these things happen, what kind of people would we be if we did not have our liberties? We are democracy, not a dictatorship, we are a free country lead by a leaders we choose, why we let people we put in positions of power take away what is rightfully ours? We shouldn't and we wouldn't. The goal of order has no hold over us if our liberties are threatened. I'll be damned if I will maintain order, maintain peace and orginazation if I would lose my freedoms and liberties.

 

[Sivsyboi]

Sorry in advance if I have misunderstood the question.

Right...here goes nothing

Negate: When in conflict, the individual's right to liberty ought to supersedes the national goal of order.

The rights of a man to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' are the basic principles of modern society. It is true, that no man can be denied his right to live in a safe environment, where he can make his own choices. But, under certain circumstances, the national goal of order WILL take control. Should a man be violently protesting against a popular law (In this strange example, let's say it's prohibition), his right to protest should be taken from him as he assaults other people, who also have their right to life and liberty. When a person creates a conflict by breaching another persons rights, damn right he should lose certain rights of his own. Order should control those members of the population who do not take into consideration their own responsibilities. When creating a conflict by (for example) assaulting someone else, your rights are immediately taken from you as you take someone else's away.

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” - UDHR

When acting towards one another in a 'spirit of brotherhood', you are simply being a member of society. This should not be seen as something asked of you. It should be seen as something that is the basic principle of living in society. As soon as you prohibit someone else's rights, the national goal of order supersedes your rights. You may argue that by having your rights taken away, you are unconstitutionally being stripped of you liberty and freedom. But by doing enough to have your rights taken from you in the first place, you are breaching your responsibilities that come with having rights. When you break your responsibilities, you lose your rights. That's how modern society works.

The national goal of order can supersede your rights when you breach your responsibilities of living in a society of people. As soon as order takes the place of rights, you have done enough to lose your rights in the first place.

 

[Spaceman Spif]

The rights of a man to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' are the basic principles of modern society. It is true, that no man can be denied his right to live in a safe environment, where he can make his own choices. But, under certain circumstances, the national goal of order WILL take control. Should a man be violently protesting against a popular law (In this strange example, let's say it's prohibition), his right to protest should be taken from him as he assaults other people, who also have their right to life and liberty.

To use prohibition is a bad example, as it was that law and ban on spirits, that changed how we look at government control. Granted perhaps the extreme force that was sometime used by both sides was not needed, but think about this. The government is here to serve the people correct? So how do they expect there to be no conflict when they put a law into affect that the majority of the country did not agree with? We as free Americans and a free people have a right to put into our body what we please, the government should not be allowed to tell us what we consume. So we did have a right to fight back for what was and is rightfully ares, and in order to make a stand, our liberties did indeed supercede the right to control.

When a person creates a conflict by breaching another persons rights, damn right he should lose certain rights of his own. Order should control those members of the population who do not take into consideration their own responsibilities. When creating a conflict by (for example) assaulting someone else, your rights are immediately taken from you as you take someone else's away.

No one would argue that a man consciously and maliciously breaking a law should not be punished, they should. I think the question was ment to be more so to the fact of defending one's self. That is where I believe our liberties most definitely do supercede the goal to national order. I will not let someone harm me just because it will keep order. The government has no right to deny me the right to protect myself or to protect innocent people. That is our right, and no one can take that away.

When acting towards one another in a 'spirit of brotherhood', you are simply being a member of society. This should not be seen as something asked of you. It should be seen as something that is the basic principle of living in society. As soon as you prohibit someone else's rights, the national goal of order supersedes your rights. You may argue that by having your rights taken away, you are unconstitutionally being stripped of you liberty and freedom. But by doing enough to have your rights taken from you in the first place, you are breaching your responsibilities that come with having rights. When you break your responsibilities, you lose your rights. That's how modern society works.

The national goal of order can supersede your rights when you breach your responsibilities of living in a society of people. As soon as order takes the place of rights, you have done enough to lose your rights in the first place.

Agreed, but we do not have to let it supercede our rights if we breach that responsibility to defend our homes and our lives. I will let no man, or no government take what is my constitutional right if it is not deserving.

 

[Sivsyboi]

To use prohibition is a bad example, as it was that law and ban on spirits, that changed how we look at government control. Granted perhaps the extreme force that was sometime used by both sides was not needed, but think about this. The government is here to serve the people correct?.

Wrong. The government is here to control the people and Keep Order. The government is elected to keep control of the population while the population are off working and making a living. This is why a Community cannot rule themselves. While you are making a living for yourself, you can't run a certain population at the same time. The government is here to control the people while they keep society and the economy going.

No one would argue that a man consciously and maliciously breaking a law should not be punished, they should. I think the question was ment to be more so to the fact of defending one's self. That is where I believe our liberties most definitely do supercede the goal to national order. I will not let someone harm me just because it will keep order. The government has no right to deny me the right to protect myself or to protect innocent people. That is our right, and no one can take that away.

I take it you live in America. I live in England, and here the laws are extremely iffy about this kind of thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in America, if a man is trying is breaking and entering, you are allowed to strike him and kick his ass. In England, you can't do that. According to the English government, if you assault the man breaking into your house, you will go to jail for it.

Agreed, but we do not have to let it supercede our rights if we breach that responsibility to defend our homes and our lives. I will let no man, or no government take what is my constitutional right if it is not deserving.

Ok, now to actually make a point on the topic. The problem with this whole rights/responsibilities thing is that not every person understands that by having rights, they also have responsibilities to respect other people's rights. You may not realise that by doing something you believe you are entitled to, in some scenarios, you are breaching your responsibility to respect other people's rights. In this rare scenario, keeping order will be prosecuting the person who honestly does not believe he has done anything wrong. Sometimes, when what you believe your right to liberty to be, conflicts with another person's right to liberty, the National goal of order supercedes your rights.

When conscription was introduced in World War 2, a person's right to choose his occupation was taken from him as he was forced into fighting in the war. He was given no choice in the matter. Anyone who refused to fight and had no genuine reason not to, was thrown in jail. In that example, the national goal of order HAD to supercede your rights or England would have been beaten and invaded by Germany. In extreme conflicts, the goal of order should definately supercede your rights.

 

[Mr. TM]

I was against Matt Fox's argument here, but damn he did a good job working my opinion over. He did good in his opening, although he focused too much on America, but being American he knows that best. Sivsyboi was a little short on his opening post for points, but his last response helped him out.

Matt Fox 35-Sivsyboi 25