freedom of thought, which amendment protects that?

cannabineer said:

Rights are social constructs, conventions, agreements. Imo that are promotable and revocable. The only inalienable right i can find is, so far and eventually, to die.

Click to expand...

So far, for the majority, it is due process, but that hasn't got long.

DNAprotection said:

ah this is a good one (and one being dealt with in my county right now)...
imo my 'right' to grow the plant for my use trumps your 'right' to 'smell free air' unless you can somehow prove that the air causes a real physical effect other than you just dont like it...i can assure you that my broccoli patch stinks far worse than cannabis to some, but is it 'toxic'?
but what really matters in that situation is to do your best to be good neighbors and always try and work things out like reasonable human beings etc...

Click to expand...

So that means that neighbor on all sides of you have the right to barking dogs, and simply because you don't "like" it, does not mean they are infringing on your life and "right to quiet and peaceful enjoyment of your property"?


But I noticed that no one addressed my right to cook.

cannabineer said:

Is a right by definition inalienable?

Click to expand...

in the usa we are working with a contract/constitution that seeks to fundamentally answer 'yes' and seeks to protect that answer...

inalienable rights carry a weight of moral importance or intrinsic value that is not negotiable. We really have nothing to regard so highly?

Yet, the constitutional statement comes with a clause that is often forgotten "except by due process of law", which by virtue of it's very unpredictible outcome means that the rights enumerated before it are indeed alienable - should "due process of law" go badly for the "processed". This is the crux of my argument, there simply are no human rights.

canndo said:

So that means that neighbor on all sides of you have the right to barking dogs, and simply because you don't "like" it, does not mean they are infringing on your life and "right to quiet and peaceful enjoyment of your property"?


But I noticed that no one addressed my right to cook.

Click to expand...

a barking dog is not a growing plant no mater how hard anyone tries to make it such...
and in either case we need to work at being better neighbors in whatever ways we canndo...

canndo said:

So that means that neighbor on all sides of you have the right to barking dogs, and simply because you don't "like" it, does not mean they are infringing on your life and "right to quiet and peaceful enjoyment of your property"?


But I noticed that no one addressed my right to cook.

Click to expand...

No cooking. It is a public burden as a safety concern and that is greater than the "benefit" The use of substances I condone. Adults consent to risks on their own time is not criminal.

Oddly, the absence of penalty is beginning to sound like a right. The right to think freely is inalienable. more and more the limitations on torture, and violence seem like rights

canndo said:

Yet, the constitutional statement comes with a clause that is often forgotten "except by due process of law", which by virtue of it's very unpredictible outcome means that the rights enumerated before it are indeed alienable - should "due process of law" go badly for the "processed". This is the crux of my argument, there simply are no human rights.

Click to expand...

just because your born with legs and have a 'right' to keep and use those legs doesn't mean you wont lose a leg if you stick it into a wood chipper...

canndo said:

So far, for the majority, it is due process, but that hasn't got long.

Click to expand...

DNAprotection said:

in the usa we are working with a contract/constitution that seeks to fundamentally answer 'yes' and seeks to protect that answer...

Click to expand...

In this instance, I agree wholeheartedly with canndo. And as he probably very well understands ... I would wish it were otherwise. When entrenched interests dictate the social discourse by means that escape disclosure and broad scrutiny, the premise of the Republic is undermined, and imo fatally so. The Framers assumed that if you codify some basic rights, notably free speech, association and commerce ... a durable barrier against corruption by oligarchs andor plutarchs is established. I don't know what is worse - the successful subversion of that model, or the fact that not many citizens see it, and see that the established electoral process doesn't provide a good way out. Absent transparent working of the State, "freedom" is a gelded slogan. And while I am an impassioned champion of the Second Amendment, it is entirely declawed when the society it is intended to uphold is hollowed out from within by a shadowclass with undeclared extraordinary privilege. Guns won't fix that. They certainly will make the death throes interesting, in the grim Chinese sense.

cannabineer said:

In this instance, I agree wholeheartedly with canndo. And as he probably very well understands ... I would wish it were otherwise. When entrenched interests dictate the social discourse by means that escape disclosure and broad scrutiny, the premise of the Republic is undermined, and imo fatally so. The Framers assumed that if you codify some basic rights, notably free speech, association and commerce ... a durable barrier against corruption by oligarchs andor plutarchs is established. I don't know what is worse - the successful subversion of that model, or the fact that not many citizens see it, and see that the established electoral process doesn't provide a good way out. Absent transparent working of the State, "freedom" is a gelded slogan. And while I am an impassioned champion of the Second Amendment, it is entirely declawed when the society it is intended to uphold is hollowed out from within by a shadowclass with undeclared extraordinary privilege. Guns won't fix that. They certainly will make the death throes interesting, in the grim Chinese sense.

Click to expand...

seems like your saying that you and i etc are not to blame and that such is beyond our reach to effect remedy?
first of all 'due process' is a 'right' that erodes depending on the proceeding and the contract(s) such proceedings orbit around...
the broadest reaching form of due process comes through civil law...
the laws most vulnerable to due process are laws passed by legislative bodies...(in other words contracts you didnt sign personally etc...
a law that comes by way of the initiative process is a degree less vulnerable to due process because folks individually voted on such etc...
a lesser degree of due process is afforded if the circumstance deals with a contract you have personally signed...
a criminal defendant has the least reach to due process...especially in cases that work from the 'general intent' crime category etc...
the point is that due process is still available to anyone who knows where and how to reach for it, but for the most part 'we' simply dont and thats nobodies fault but our own...
though far from perfect, the constitutional contract still has a chance of working if 'we' as individuals were vigilant in exercising its potential, but 'we' arent...and so our negligence opens the door for certain interests to subvert in every way they can...
i am quite convinced that it would take less than 20 and probably could do it with 9 dedicated people, to do something with 'due process' that would have far reaching effects in the short term and have snow ball effects in the long haul...but there arent even 9 folks to carry out such opps...
so who's fault is it again?
bro its ours plain and simple...

ps...
take the cannabis issue for example, do you really think norml etc doesnt understand this i stated above about due process?

"the broadest reaching form of due process comes through civil law...
the laws most vulnerable to due process are laws passed by legislative bodies...(in other words contracts you didnt sign personally etc...
a law that comes by way of the initiative process is a degree less vulnerable to due process because folks individually voted on such etc...
a lesser degree of due process is afforded if the circumstance deals with a contract you have personally signed...
a criminal defendant has the least reach to due process...especially in cases that work from the 'general intent' crime category etc..."

if they dont then they are truly more stupid than i give them credit for because from personal experience and from first hand conveyances from others across the country over the last 20+ years, norml etc has intentionally been in the 'defendant' business (so to speak) (referring folks to criminal defense lawyers only) and have intentionally discouraged folks interested in filing civil suits...
what could possibly be the 'honest' motive that justifies that?
yet 'we' allow such fraud to be the 'voice' of the dissent...

The controlling of discourse is old news, the internet has really made the disclosure and scrutiny aspects impossible to escape the way we used to. Now people trust less, see more, and care "differently." Modern Americans subvert themselves via channeling out their hopelessness. They are enthused complainers, independent from any mess caused or participated in currently. They are reactionary to pro-action and divided into rigid discourse. The blame is anywhere and everywhere and creatively deferred. A culture of irrational hopes and dreams meets another of fatalism and blanketed in stupidity we cant see past our hands.....we are lucky.

burgertime2010 said:

The controlling of discourse is old news, the internet has really made the disclosure and scrutiny aspects impossible to escape the way we used to. Now people trust less, see more, and care "differently." Modern Americans subvert themselves via channeling out their hopelessness. They are enthused complainers, independent from any mess caused or participated in currently. They are reactionary to pro-action and divided into rigid discourse. The blame is anywhere and everywhere and creatively deferred. A culture of irrational hopes and dreams meets another of fatalism and blanketed in stupidity we cant see past our hands.....we are lucky.

Click to expand...

so we are at a place where at least the 4 of us posting back and forth here seem for the most part to agree on the mechanisms that drive the circumstances, but where we seem to differ is over the question,
what can be done?
it seems to me that somehow cannabineer and canndo (as best i can figure) see these circumstances as beyond our reach to effect...
im not sure where you are at on that question really but i tend to think you feel things can be different somehow...?
and yet i am convinced that things would look very different if 'we' as individuals stepped up in just the 'right' way to yell out 'we are here'...
so where does that leave us?
odds are the dust spec will be boiled in this version...but its not boiled yet...

Things can be different, I think that if you have nothing to give than instead of draining morale just leave well enough alone. I don't have the answer, but surrendering myself to institutional fear is not the right start. I feel candid discussion is the beginning. The study of consciousness and persuasion I find interesting.

Honestly, I get depressed and disenchanted with the same reality we are all looking out at. I pout, and realize 2 things. A) Inward focus is selfish B) The solution is to focus on others and helping people solve their problems any way possible.

burgertime2010 said:

Things can be different, I think that if you have nothing to give than instead of draining morale just leave well enough alone. I don't have the answer, but surrendering myself to institutional fear is not the right start. I feel candid discussion is the beginning. The study of consciousness and persuasion I find interesting.

Click to expand...

such is why i came here...i am aware of what mostly goes on at these sort of interweb forums etc and how it mostly results in the opposite of what you have stated above lol but ive been makin lemonade from lemons all my life (so to speak as in no$ etc lol) and figured why not try it here...if 'we' could agree and organize around one simple fundamental thing that effects us all = all humans, then we could literally make a sound heard round the world...seriously ive done it before with far less and back before 'we' all had computers etc...
there are certain tactics that if employed just right the result is nothing short of domino's, but even such opportunities have a shelf life and such will expire eventually and prolly sooner than later...

I wish I enjoyed lemonade. I do enjoy a noble effort and am interested in what you are hinting at here.

burgertime2010 said:

I wish I enjoyed lemonade. I do enjoy a noble effort and am interested in what you are hinting at here.

Click to expand...

before it would be practical to get into the specifics of what practical tactics could be employed (many possibilities, but the court room is practically unavoidable in most practical 'options' lol) however painful 'we' need to slide down and walk on occam's razor in effort to agree on something fundamental in terms of humans beings and or being human etc...
ps...
the thread we have here so far in many ways reflects much of what must have been discussed by the 'framers' when contemplating a 'legitimate' declarative contractual excuse to break away in independence from the king etc lol...

I am not familiar with Occams Razor