File APIs for Java Developers
Manipulate DOC, XLS, PPT, PDF and many others from your application.
http://aspose.com/file-tools
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes right to be good Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "right to be good" Watch "right to be good" New topic
Author

right to be good

Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:

I'll check that out. When I was in elementary school, this was required reading. I highly recommend it.

I have read it and UNDERSTOOD it. Perhaps you might try that. Have you ever tried reading any of the Supreme Court decisions that interpret the Constitution? Otherwise you are like a fundamentalist reading the Bible and then running out to throw stones at homosexuals.


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Matthew Phillips
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 09, 2001
Posts: 2676
I can't claim to have read many of the Supreme Court interpretations. I am in the process of reading "The Federalist Papers" which is the interpretation of John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. The purpose of the U.S. Constitution was to limit the scope of the federal government.
I'm going to move back to the workplace safety issue shortly, I'm still working on wording it in such a way that it expresses my opinion properly.


Matthew Phillips
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
The problem with relying on the federalist papers is that they were written 80 years before the 14th ammendment. You should really read the discussions that took place around the passage of the 14th ammendment and the Supreme Court interpretations of it.
Melvin Menezes
Ranch Hand

Joined: Aug 03, 2002
Posts: 156
Sorry to interrupt your discussion about 'the constitution and its amendments'
TP: Poor Joe should be glad that the government does intervene and give him until the kid is 18 or his 16 year old kid could just walk out on him. The law is the only thing that is giving poor Joe any authority over his son in the first place
So do you consider it a good thing or do you consider it a sad thing that parents have to rely on the law to have any authority over their own children? that parents have to rely on the law so that they can correct their kids' bad behaviour?

MP: You lost me on this one. I don't think that I would call leading a child in the right direction a right. That is a responsibility that goes along with having a child.
That is just a different way of looking at it. Would you lead your child in the right direction because you want to (from your heart) or Would you lead your child in the right direction because you think it is your responsibility and just because you have to fulfill your responsibility (by law)
[ May 05, 2003: Message edited by: Melvin Menezes ]
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:
So do you consider it a good thing or do you consider it a sad thing that parents have to rely on the law to have any authority over their own children? that parents have to rely on the law so that they can correct their kids' bad behaviour?
I think it is sad that parent's must sometimes rely on the law but if your child is a runaway you would thank the government to no end that the law is on your side and you can use the power of the law to find your child and bring her home.
Matthew Phillips
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 09, 2001
Posts: 2676
I think we all agree that a person has a right to harm themselves by smoking. I haven't seen anyone make a statement otherwise. The point of contention seems to be where a person can do this. A right is not a right when it harms the ability for someone else to exercise their rights. Smoking in public places would seem to be covered by that.
The real question is "what is a public place." I would say that a public place is a place where the community as a whole has "ownership" in the property. A park would be a fine example.
Is a place of business a public place? I would say no, unless the building it is housed in is public property or the owner is the community as a whole.
Assuming a business is no a public place, in that it is engaged on private property and owned privately, why shouldn't the owner be able to engage in business practices that do not impede the rights of others. If you can argue that you have a right to a job, then you can certainly argue that allowing smokers to smoke inside a place of business is an infringement of your rights.
The reality is, that a right to a job would cause harm to someone else's ability to exercise their rights. Since a business is a private entity, so long as it doesn't interfere with your rights it should be able to operate as the owner sees fit.
If a business attempts to defraud you by mis-stating or covering up the dangers of working their, then that is certainly an infringement on you exercising your rights.
Matthew Phillips
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 09, 2001
Posts: 2676
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
The problem with relying on the federalist papers is that they were written 80 years before the 14th ammendment. You should really read the discussions that took place around the passage of the 14th ammendment and the Supreme Court interpretations of it.

I'll have to check out some of the Supreme Court cases, because the amendment seems pretty cut and dry. Many of the "liberty-minded" people I talk to point to that as the turning point in this countries move towards big-government. I personally think that the 16th and 17th amendments are far worse.
Matthew Phillips
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 09, 2001
Posts: 2676
Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:
That is just a different way of looking at it. Would you lead your child in the right direction because you want to (from your heart) or Would you lead your child in the right direction because you think it is your responsibility and just because you have to fulfill your responsibility (by law)
[ May 05, 2003: Message edited by: Melvin Menezes ]

I disagree. You can "want" to fulfill your responsibilty "from your heart" or fulfill your responsibility "by law." In either case I don't think you could define raising a child as a right because it impairs the rights of another person, the child. For example, if you chose to no longer eat then the only person affected by your right is you. You will die of starvation. If you choose not to feed your child, you are not exercising a right because your child may die as a result. You are avoiding a responsibility to feed your child.
By the same token, I wouldn't be opposed to a local government passing a law stating that parents could not smoke in their house or vehicle while a child is present. By raising a child, a parent implicitly agrees to protect the rights of that child to the detriment of their own.
Matthew Phillips
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 09, 2001
Posts: 2676
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
The problem with relying on the federalist papers is that they were written 80 years before the 14th ammendment. You should really read the discussions that took place around the passage of the 14th ammendment and the Supreme Court interpretations of it.

I haven't looked to deeply, but I can already see that the Supreme Court has made some really boneheaded decisions and based them on the 14th amendment.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:
I'll have to check out some of the Supreme Court cases, because the amendment seems pretty cut and dry. Many of the "liberty-minded" people I talk to point to that as the turning point in this countries move towards big-government. I personally think that the 16th and 17th amendments are far worse.

Here are the two interesting parts of the 14th ammendment:
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
What are the priviledges and immunities of citizens of the US? Are they only those listed in the Bill of Rights? Then why didn't the ammendment say that?
And then there is this:
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
If ever there was an open ended ammendment...
Melvin Menezes
Ranch Hand

Joined: Aug 03, 2002
Posts: 156
MP: ...In either case I don't think you could define raising a child as a right because it impairs the rights of another person, the child...
I just don't get that part. If you read my posts, we are not talking about whether the parents can starve or feed their kids. We are talking about the right of a parent to decide how to raise his/her kids. In the sense the right of a parent to decide what values to teach the kid.
Some examples:
- What to feed the kid? A Jew parent can enforce strict kosher diet. It violates the right of a human kid to have non-kosher food.
- What religion to teach. A Christian parent can decide whether and which church to take his kids to. It impairs the right of a human kid to learn about other religions.
- Which school to send him too. Public, private, ...?
- Should the kid be given horse-riding lessons or music lessons or both or none?
- should the kid be allowed to watch TV 2 hours a day or 6 hours a day?
- instill good reading habits. What constitutes good reading? What if the parents have socialistic and liberal or even communististic mind-set and background and encourage and buy the kids only those types of books.
Can a local govenrment dictate any of the above?. Making sure the kid is not starved and is in a safe non-smoking environment is your responsibility. But raising your child the way you like is your right!
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:
Can a local govenrment dictate any of the above?. Making sure the kid is not starved and is in a safe non-smoking environment is your responsibility. But raising your child the way you like is your right!

Exactly. You have a lot of leeway in how you raise your child as long as your parenting methods aren't abusive. For example, you can't withhold medical treatment because you believe that prayer will be more effective.
The non-smoking environment is an interesting case. Normally, you can raise your kid in a smoke filled house without any trouble from the law. But there was recently a case (I forget which state) in which a father sued for cistody on the grounds that the mother was a smoker and was creating a dangerous environment for the child. The judge let the woman retain custody if she agreed not to smoke in her house or car.
Matthew Phillips
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 09, 2001
Posts: 2676
Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:
MP: ...In either case I don't think you could define raising a child as a right because it impairs the rights of another person, the child...
I just don't get that part. If you read my posts, we are not talking about whether the parents can starve or feed their kids. We are talking about the right of a parent to decide how to raise his/her kids. In the sense the right of a parent to decide what values to teach the kid.
Some examples:
- What to feed the kid? A Jew parent can enforce strict kosher diet. It violates the right of a human kid to have non-kosher food.
- What religion to teach. A Christian parent can decide whether and which church to take his kids to. It impairs the right of a human kid to learn about other religions.
- Which school to send him too. Public, private, ...?
- Should the kid be given horse-riding lessons or music lessons or both or none?
- should the kid be allowed to watch TV 2 hours a day or 6 hours a day?
- instill good reading habits. What constitutes good reading? What if the parents have socialistic and liberal or even communististic mind-set and background and encourage and buy the kids only those types of books.
Can a local govenrment dictate any of the above?. Making sure the kid is not starved and is in a safe non-smoking environment is your responsibility. But raising your child the way you like is your right!

Maybe I'm reading more into your initial post that is really there. My point is that parents have a responsibility to their children to prepare them for the world. Different parents will do this different ways. I don't see that it is the parent's "right" to choose what food a child eats as much as it is their responsibility to make that choice. As the child gets older, the child will begin to make more decisions for themselves and the parent's responsibility will dwindle. At some point a person has to begin to make decisions. The parent's responsibility dwindles as the child accepts more responsibility. It is a natural transfer of responsibility. Although the government declares a person to be legally an adult at 18, that is rarely the point when responsibility is completely shifted away from the parents. I'm not a parent myself, but from talking to parents it seems that the responsibility never completely shifts away.
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: right to be good