Would you stand for police taking your DNA?

[Howedar]

You're oversimplifying and strawmanning the individual rights side quite a bit, Mike. I agree with you on this case, but you're painting a somewhat one-sided picture of the other side.

[Darth Wong]

You're oversimplifying and strawmanning the individual rights side quite a bit, Mike. I agree with you on this case, but you're painting a somewhat one-sided picture of the other side.

How? They feel that their privacy rights are more important than getting a child rapist/murderer off the street. I don't see how that's "strawmanning" of their position. A scheme of morality based solely on individual rights is imbalanced; I have always felt this to be true, and this example simply highlights that fact as far as I'm concerned.

[Nova Andromeda]

--Darth Wong, Ashcroft is currently using your very argument to justify all sorts of unchecked power grabs. Until you find a way to protect the individual (and by extension society at large) from abuses of all this power you wish to give to the government you will only suceed in bring about a repressive gov. The reason is quite clear. Sooner or later all that unchecked power is going to be used by someone like Ashcroft to carry out their agendy by force.
-You should note that I would not oppose your idea if you could demonstrate that the gov. (or its employees) could not use it for things it is not susposed to be used for (e.g., put it into the TIA database for future data mining).

[Darth Wong]

--Darth Wong, Ashcroft is currently using your very argument to justify all sorts of unchecked power grabs.

Guilt by association is a fallacious way to debate, and it won't help you here. There is no power associated with having a record of someone's DNA. No one is being forcibly confined, no one is being harmed in any OBJECTIVE WAY.

Until you find a way to protect the individual (and by extension society at large) from abuses of all this power you wish to give to the government you will only suceed in bring about a repressive gov.

Explain how a DNA record gives the government increased power.

The reason is quite clear. Sooner or later all that unchecked power is going to be used by someone like Ashcroft to carry out their agendy by force.
-You should note that I would not oppose your idea if you could demonstrate that the gov. (or its employees) could not use it for things it is not susposed to be used for (e.g., put it into the TIA database for future data mining).

Slippery slope fallacy, and you didn't even bother trying to hide it. You're getting quite sloppy, Nova.

[Glocksman]

They feel that their privacy rights are more important than getting a child rapist/murderer off the street.

To be blunt about it, the 4th amendment is more important than getting a child murderer off the streets.
The rationalization that this is needed to get a child murderer off the streets differs from the rationalizations for the USA PATRIOT act only in scale.

The 'right to privacy' was used by SCOTUS to justify legalizing abortions. This is much more of a privacy issue than the right to an abortion ever was.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If they *ask* me to give a sample I'll be glad to help.

If they *tell* me that I have to, then they'd better go get a warrant from a judge.

[Alyrium Denryle]

This example highlights the moral dilemma between societal morality and individual rights-based morality.

Every scheme of society-based morality (utilitarianism, Kant's duty ethics, Aristotelian virtue ethics) all vote for giving out the DNA samples, for the simple reason that IT WILL HELP GET A FUCKING CHILD RAPIST/MURDERER OFF THE STREET. But those who worship individual rights above all with no checks and balances on that system of morality invariably decide that their personal privacy and these ethereal rights are worth more than the silly expedient of removing a scumbag from our midst.

Which is why I opt for option number 3. while I personaly find it distastful that the police are treating me as a suspect, I recognize the necessity, and will submit to the test... on the sole condition that they destroy the sample and any informtion gleaned from it, and any record that the sample was collected, after I have been eliminated.

I will make sure they honor this aggreement by making them sign a contract that makes them legally obligated to do so, and will insist on seeing the records destroyed, and being present fot the testing and analysis.

[Nova Andromeda]

--Darth Wong, Ashcroft is currently using your very argument to justify all sorts of unchecked power grabs.

Guilt by association is a fallacious way to debate, and it won't help you here. There is no power associated with having a record of someone's DNA. No one is being forcibly confined, no one is being harmed in any OBJECTIVE WAY.

-This is not quilt by association. One of the major things stopping him from monitoring our every action (which can easily be justified using your reasoning since it would prevent nearly every crime excepting the gov.) is privacy protections. The burden of proof is on you to show that there is no power associated with having everyone's DNA record on file forever or that such power cannot be used to subvert the gov. given current legal protections. You can of course propose new legal protections (which is what I recommend).

Until you find a way to protect the individual (and by extension society at large) from abuses of all this power you wish to give to the government you will only suceed in bring about a repressive gov.

Explain how a DNA record gives the government increased power.

--Knowledge is power, but even so the burden of proof is not on me since you are the one proposing a change. You must demonstrate that change will not hurt society. At any rate, if I was a southern politician and I had access to everyone's DNA I might leak certain information about my political opponents bias toward homosexuality (or take your pick of genetic predispositions). In fact, it allows the gov. to analyze our DNA such that the people in power can make laws biased against their opponents genetic predispositions. Perhaps funding for dyslexic research will be cut since I bet dyslexic people are biased toward athiesm (dylexics being on avg. more intelligent).

The reason is quite clear. Sooner or later all that unchecked power is going to be used by someone like Ashcroft to carry out their agendy by force.
-You should note that I would not oppose your idea if you could demonstrate that the gov. (or its employees) could not use it for things it is not susposed to be used for (e.g., put it into the TIA database for future data mining).

Slippery slope fallacy, and you didn't even bother trying to hide it. You're getting quite sloppy, Nova.

--I'm getting quite sloppy? I thought it was your unabashed opinion I was an idiot at best? Anyhow, this is not a slippery slope fallacy since I'm not saying a bunch of unlikely events will occur one after the other very soon. Instead, i'm saying an "unlikely" event will occur sooner or later if the dice are roled on a regular basis. That "unlikely" event is someone using unchecked gov. power (for the sake of arguement it exists since the existance of that power is a separate arguement relating to the DNA discussion) to enforce their agenda.

[Nova Andromeda]

This example highlights the moral dilemma between societal morality and individual rights-based morality.

Every scheme of society-based morality (utilitarianism, Kant's duty ethics, Aristotelian virtue ethics) all vote for giving out the DNA samples, for the simple reason that IT WILL HELP GET A FUCKING CHILD RAPIST/MURDERER OFF THE STREET. But those who worship individual rights above all with no checks and balances on that system of morality invariably decide that their personal privacy and these ethereal rights are worth more than the silly expedient of removing a scumbag from our midst.

Which is why I opt for option number 3. while I personaly find it distastful that the police are treating me as a suspect, I recognize the necessity, and will submit to the test... on the sole condition that they destroy the sample and any informtion gleaned from it, and any record that the sample was collected, after I have been eliminated.

I will make sure they honor this aggreement by making them sign a contract that makes them legally obligated to do so, and will insist on seeing the records destroyed, and being present fot the testing and analysis.

--I guess a legally binding agreement is good enough for me too so long as the gov. doesn't have a "get out of contract for free" option. However, I don't trust the current U.S. gov. hold its end of the bargain.

[Darth Wong]

To be blunt about it, the 4th amendment is more important than getting a child murderer off the streets.

State why.

The rationalization that this is needed to get a child murderer off the streets differs from the rationalizations for the USA PATRIOT act only in scale.

Incorrect. Ashcroft's attacks on certain privacy guarantees are not the major sticking point; it is his assault on the right to due process which is most contentious.

The 'right to privacy' was used by SCOTUS to justify legalizing abortions. This is much more of a privacy issue than the right to an abortion ever was.

That is an utterly idiotic justification for legalizing abortions, particularly when much stronger justifications exist. It also has nothing to do with this situation.

If they *ask* me to give a sample I'll be glad to help.

If they *tell* me that I have to, then they'd better go get a warrant from a judge.

Perhaps you should read the opening post before commenting then, since you have apparently allowed Nova's strawman distortions to colour your argument.

[Darth Wong]

Guilt by association is a fallacious way to debate, and it won't help you here. There is no power associated with having a record of someone's DNA. No one is being forcibly confined, no one is being harmed in any OBJECTIVE WAY.

-This is not quilt by association. One of the major things stopping him from monitoring our every action (which can easily be justified using your reasoning since it would prevent nearly every crime excepting the gov.) is privacy protections.

They can already monitor your every action, dumb-ass. If they put you under surveillance, they will know where you go and when. They will know who you hang out with, whether you're cheating on your girlfriend, everything. The wiretap provisions in the Patriot act are a tempest in a teapot. It is Ashcroft's disregard for due process which has people up in arms; nobody is particularly excited about the wiretap changes because they don't mean shit and barely change anything.

The burden of proof is on you to show that there is no power associated with having everyone's DNA record on file forever or that such power cannot be used to subvert the gov. given current legal protections.

Bullshit. You are proposing that there is some immense power associated with having a sample of someone's DNA; the burden of proof is on YOU. You have not even explained precisely what this power IS, yet you think the burden of proof is on me to disprove it? What particular type of crack have you been smoking?

Explain how a DNA record gives the government increased power.

--Knowledge is power

Pithy one-line bullshit does not constitute a valid argument. Explain how the DNA record gives the government increased power. What kind of harmful new powers will it have?

but even so the burden of proof is not on me since you are the one proposing a change.

I am not proposing a change, dumb-ass. Read the opening post. I am talking about an ethical dilemma, and you have engaged in obvious and transparent strawman distortions in order to throw me off the trail. Won't work.

You must demonstrate that change will not hurt society.

Since there is no change, I'm afraid you're full of shit. Try again, this time with a functioning brain. Perhaps the fact that they already did this within the framework of existing laws might have been a clue to a more intelligent organism that no change was necessary.

At any rate, if I was a southern politician and I had access to everyone's DNA I might leak certain information about my political opponents bias toward homosexuality (or take your pick of genetic predispositions).

That is the most pathetic argument I've ever heard. Not only could a private investigator discover someone's homosexuality much more easily, but there is no confirmed "gay gene" anyway.

In fact, it allows the gov. to analyze our DNA such that the people in power can make laws biased against their opponents genetic predispositions. Perhaps funding for dyslexic research will be cut since I bet dyslexic people are biased toward athiesm (dylexics being on avg. more intelligent).

Slippery slope fallacy; it has nothing to do with police asking for DNA samples. They could just as easily pass such a law regardless of whether police ask neighbourhood residents for voluntary DNA samples in a criminal investigation.

--I'm getting quite sloppy? I thought it was your unabashed opinion I was an idiot at best?

Not always, but lately you've been getting much worse. This latest argument of yours is nothing more than you irrationally waving a scary bogeyman around and screaming.

Anyhow, this is not a slippery slope fallacy since I'm not saying a bunch of unlikely events will occur one after the other very soon.

You are saying that a series of unlikely events will follow if police ask for voluntary DNA samples, and you make no attempt to show how one is caused by the other. The timeframe is irrelevant to the definition of a slippery slope fallacy.

Instead, i'm saying an "unlikely" event will occur sooner or later if the dice are roled on a regular basis.

Pathetic attempt to evade the fact that you claimed A would lead to B, C, and many other things without showing causality. Here's a hint: the use of an analogy which assumes an unestablished causality is no stronger than a bald statement of the same unestablished causality.

That "unlikely" event is someone using unchecked gov. power (for the sake of arguement it exists since the existance of that power is a separate arguement relating to the DNA discussion) to enforce their agenda.

Your only attempt to provide an example of the government doing something harmful with DNA records (assuming they lied and kept the records rather than destroying them as they said they would) is your ridiculous bullshit about the government enacting discriminatory laws based on DNA. As if they couldn't already enact discriminatory laws based on visibly obvious characteristics if they wanted to. What kind of idiot thinks that the only way to identify a dyslexic or homosexual is DNA analysis?

[CelesKnight]

I wouldn't mind using it to narrow the list once there is a list. The problem I have is that in the cases I've heard of, the police ask hundreds or thousands of people to come in and give samples. The evidence to suspect them? Simply because they live in an area where a murder/rape/whatever was committed. I despise that on a very fundamental level.

I think in this case (I've said it before but it deserves emphasis), that if you as a citizen can help solve a brutal murder and bring the killer to justice before he strikes again, you have a moral duty to help the police by letting them sample your DNA. Not a legal obligation, but a moral one. But that's ALL you're obligated to do--you have every moral and legal right to demand that once you've been eliminated as a suspect, your DNA sample and all information gained from it is destroyed, with the right to legal recourse if this is not done in a thorough and timely manner.

[sarcasm]And the gov't has every right to ignore you.[/sarcasm]

In the past, have the police actually destroyed the samples when they're done? I don't know of anything in general, so maybe they do. However, I just heard last week of a case where a boy refused to give the sample, was forced to with a warrant, the DNA cleared him, and the police have since refused to destroy the sample even though he's suing.

The moral obligation isn't the actual issue here. The issue is that people with no connection whatsoever to the crime in question are being treated as suspects,

No. Only if you REFUSE the DNA test are you treated as a suspect.

No, by the very nature of asking for it, they've implied that you are a suspect. If you refuse, you just become more of a suspect. While if you agree, they clear you. Moreover, they've implied that you're a criminal simply for being one of 10,000 {insert your democraphic. group here} in the area. They don't have any real cause to suspect you, but they've decided to treat you as a criminal until -you- prove otherwise.

[Durandal]

This example highlights the moral dilemma between societal morality and individual rights-based morality.

Every scheme of society-based morality (utilitarianism, Kant's duty ethics, Aristotelian virtue ethics) all vote for giving out the DNA samples, for the simple reason that IT WILL HELP GET A FUCKING CHILD RAPIST/MURDERER OFF THE STREET. But those who worship individual rights above all with no checks and balances on that system of morality invariably decide that their personal privacy and these ethereal rights are worth more than the silly expedient of removing a scumbag from our midst.

Did they just run around, see who was willing to submit a sample and then check those people off the list of "Suspected Child Rapists"? If so, doesn't that bother you even a little? The question is why are you on that list in the first place? Because you happen to live in the community where it happened? Those are extremely poor grounds for 1) putting you on a list of suspects in a child molestation case and 2) threatening to use your exercise of your right to privacy against you.

Now, did they actually test every sample of DNA they got? If so, then it's not as bad. They can rule people out based on the fact that their DNA didn't match up. However, treating people as suspects because they value their privacy is simply asinine. That's the whole point of due process, in America anyway. If the state cannot build a case without violating due process or civil rights, then it doesn't have one.

[Darth Wong]

Did they just run around, see who was willing to submit a sample and then check those people off the list of "Suspected Child Rapists"?

They presumably performed actual DNA tests on the samples, but that is not confirmed.

If so, doesn't that bother you even a little?

Yes. However, it bothers me less than letting the fucking shitstain who raped, murdered, and dismembered a 12 year old girl to get away scot free.

The question is why are you on that list in the first place? Because you happen to live in the community where it happened?

Yes. Why is that so unreasonable? The person who committed the crime was most likely in the neighbourhood.

Those are extremely poor grounds for 1) putting you on a list of suspects in a child molestation case and 2) threatening to use your exercise of your right to privacy against you.

If you get put on the suspect list for refusing to give out a DNA sample, you still have nothing to worry about unless you're doing something wrong. If police start following you around and looking into your background, what are they going to discover?

Now, did they actually test every sample of DNA they got? If so, then it's not as bad. They can rule people out based on the fact that their DNA didn't match up.

They said they would, but there's no way to tell. Obviously, they would not tell anyone if they weren't bothering to test the samples!

However, treating people as suspects because they value their privacy is simply asinine. That's the whole point of due process, in America anyway. If the state cannot build a case without violating due process or civil rights, then it doesn't have one.

That's why they couldn't lay charges until they had something more. But considering someone a suspect is much different than laying charges.

Do you seriously think the police require due process in order to consider someone a suspect and put him under closer surveillance? They can do it on a fucking hunch, as long as they don't do things like breaking into his apartment.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

A scheme of morality based solely on individual rights is imbalanced; I have always felt this to be true

What your ignoring is the fact that Rights are the only protection that man has against soceity and government. Without Rights man is subject to the every whim and demand of these entities.

Glocksman wrote:
To be blunt about it, the 4th amendment is more important than getting a child murderer off the streets.

Darth Wong wrote:
State why.

The Fourth Amendment is designed to federal tyranny in check by defending property rights of Individuals through government visibility and accountability.

Article [IV.]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Incorrect. Ashcroft's attacks on certain privacy guarantees are not the major sticking point; it is his assault on the right to due process which is most contentious.

Do you actually have any evidence to support this position? Last I checked, the "sneak and peek" provisions of the US Patriot act are just as aggrevating to the US populace as the blatent violations to due process. At least thats what I've absorved from listening to the radio these past few days.

[Darth Wong]

A scheme of morality based solely on individual rights is imbalanced; I have always felt this to be true

What your ignoring is the fact that Rights are the only protection that man has against soceity and government. Without Rights man is subject to the every whim and demand of these entities.

Strawman distortion. At no point did I say that rights should be eliminated. I said that a scheme of morality which recognizes nothing but individual rights is imbalanced. Next time, please try to address my actual argument rather than some twisted distortion thereof.

State why.

The Fourth Amendment is designed to federal tyranny in check by defending property rights of Individuals through government visibility and accountability.

And how does it remove government visibility or accountability for the police to ask for DNA samples? How is it "unreasonable" to make this request, or to use it as a technique for narrowing down the suspect list?

Incorrect. Ashcroft's attacks on certain privacy guarantees are not the major sticking point; it is his assault on the right to due process which is most contentious.

Do you actually have any evidence to support this position?

The fact that most of the public criticism relates to the attacks on due process, not to mention the fact that in debates, people always refer to the attacks on due process as their strongest argument.

Last I checked, the "sneak and peek" provisions of the US Patriot act are just as aggrevating to the US populace as the blatent violations to due process. At least thats what I've absorved from listening to the radio these past few days.

Talk radio is worthless. Print media is a much better indicator of the opinions of people who can actually write and spell. Talk radio is nothing more than a bitch-fest for people who are stuck in traffic and have cell-phones.

[CorSec]

(simply culling it down to single men living alone is the first obvious step)

They couldn't do this without DNA sampling?

[Darth Wong]

(simply culling it down to single men living alone is the first obvious step)

They couldn't do this without DNA sampling?

What part about first step did you not understand? You do realize that the DNA request was the second step, right?

[Glocksman]

To be blunt about it, the 4th amendment is more important than getting a child murderer off the streets.

State why.

To put it simply, the murder of a child, no matter how heinous a crime it may be, does not justify violating the bill of rights. The text of the 4th amendment is very plain. Forcing someone without probable cause to provide a DNA sample to police is a violation of the 4th.

Now if the cops have a warrant, of course they can get the sample.

Incorrect. Ashcroft's attacks on certain privacy guarantees are not the major sticking point; it is his assault on the right to due process which is most contentious

It's both.

The privacy invasions are what get mentioned the most in local editorials opposing the USA PATRIOT act. The ACLU is fighting both aspects of the act. I haven't heard one person favor the privacy invasions while opposing the due process violations.

That is an utterly idiotic justification for legalizing abortions, particularly when much stronger justifications exist. It also has nothing to do with this situation.

It is an idiotic justification. It's also the law until SCOTUS revises it.
Roe has often been called the most poorly reasoned Supreme Court decision ever, even by those who support abortion rights.
However, if you're discussing privacy rights in the US, Roe is relevant because it's the case in which the SCOTUS created a 'right to privacy' that isn't mentioned specifically in the Constitution.

Of course, privacy rights are irrelevant if you oppose it strictly on 4th amendment grounds. The right to privacy is just one more reason why people could oppose it.

Perhaps you should read the opening post before commenting then, since you have apparently allowed Nova's strawman distortions to colour your argument.

Guilty.

I read the opening post, but didn't refer back to it by the time I reached the end.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Strawman distortion. At no point did I say that rights should be eliminated. I said that a scheme of morality which recognizes nothing but individual rights is imbalanced. Next time, please try to address my actual argument rather than some twisted distortion thereof.

Then at what point do the rights of Individuals outweigh the rights of soceity? You obviously quite willing to suscribe to the idea that soceity should have the ability to take what it wants from Individuals, so I have to ask you at what point does it end? And why bother calling these principles "Rights" if they can be violated by soceity if a henious enough crime is committed?

And how does it remove government visibility or accountability for the police to ask for DNA samples? How is it "unreasonable" to make this request, or to use it as a technique for narrowing down the suspect list?

Nothing.... provided it is voluntary. However, you did ask for a statement to "state why" the "the 4th amendment is more important than getting a child murderer off the streets."

Talk radio is worthless. Print media is a much better indicator of the opinions of people who can actually write and spell. Talk radio is nothing more than a bitch-fest for people who are stuck in traffic and have cell-phones.

It was the hosts who brought this up, and I might add they emphased the "sneak and peak" ahead of the violations of due process. Not that it really matters, both are unconstitutional.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

forgot to add the quotations around the rights in the rights of soceity, could a mod please fix it? It should read "rights" of soceity

[Darth Wong]

Then at what point do the rights of Individuals outweigh the rights of soceity? You obviously quite willing to suscribe to the idea that soceity should have the ability to take what it wants from Individuals, so I have to ask you at what point does it end?

Slippery slope fallacy; you are arguing that one side should be reduced to zero because otherwise, it will inevitably slide all the way to the other end.

And why bother calling these principles "Rights" if they can be violated by soceity if a henious enough crime is committed?

That's already the case! Do you think your right to liberty is inviolate? They take it away if you commit a crime, do they not? Human society is not some anti-human monstrosity that lurches around hurting people; it is the sum total of what a large group of individuals want out of life. Those who pit "society" against individuals as some faceless humanity-sucking vampire are merely playing rhetorical games.

When we say that the needs of society are weighed against the needs of individuals, we are not taking rights away from people and giving them to some inhuman construct; we are saying that the needs of the many must be balanced against the needs of the few. And yes, it is a balance; anyone who argues that it should be shoved all the way to one side needs a helluva lot better justification than a slippery slope fallacy.

Nothing.... provided it is voluntary. However, you did ask for a statement to "state why" the "the 4th amendment is more important than getting a child murderer off the streets."

Or more specifically, this particular application of the 4th amendment, which has not even been shown to be a clear violation thereof.

It was the hosts who brought this up, and I might add they emphased the "sneak and peak" ahead of the violations of due process. Not that it really matters, both are unconstitutional.

Talk-show hosts are morons too. Talk-radio is the device through which I guarantee that any aliens observing our society would conclude that we are not worthy of survival.

[Howedar]

You're oversimplifying and strawmanning the individual rights side quite a bit, Mike. I agree with you on this case, but you're painting a somewhat one-sided picture of the other side.

How? They feel that their privacy rights are more important than getting a child rapist/murderer off the street. I don't see how that's "strawmanning" of their position. A scheme of morality based solely on individual rights is imbalanced; I have always felt this to be true, and this example simply highlights that fact as far as I'm concerned.

If nothing else, you're taking statements to the effect of "I don't like the idea and I wouldn't give them my DNA" and warping that into rhetoric about how the right to privacy is more important than getting a rapist off the streets.

Bear in mind that the DNA procedure was not necessarily critical in getting said offender in jail, nor were the individual-rights proponents saying that others should not have the right to give up their DNA.

[Darth Wong]

If nothing else, you're taking statements to the effect of "I don't like the idea and I wouldn't give them my DNA" and warping that into rhetoric about how the right to privacy is more important than getting a rapist off the streets.

Since several people have clearly stated as much, I fail to see how this is a strawman, unless you are selectively looking at particular posts which did not say this (an asinine approach, since one cannot fashion a rebuttal to simultaneously address every single post from numerous different people coming at it from different angles and with different positions).

Bear in mind that the DNA procedure was not necessarily critical in getting said offender in jail, nor were the individual-rights proponents saying that others should not have the right to give up their DNA.

Actually, Durandal was arguing that merely asking for voluntary DNA samples was a serious problem. And the DNA procedure was critical in their investigation; do you know how difficult it is to solve these kinds of killings where the murderer has no relation to the victim?

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
Then at what point do the rights of Individuals outweigh the rights of soceity? You obviously quite willing to suscribe to the idea that soceity should have the ability to take what it wants from Individuals, so I have to ask you at what point does it end?

Darth Wong wrote:
Slippery slope fallacy; you are arguing that one side should be reduced to zero because otherwise, it will inevitably slide all the way to the other end.

Im making no argument with these particular question; I'm asking you to take your position to its conclusion. What rights do Individuals have that are "unalienable", when can an Individual rightly stand up to soceity and say "No, you cannot violate these rights."?

BlkbrrytheGreat wrote: And why bother calling these principles "Rights" if they can be violated by soceity if a henious enough crime is committed?

Darth Wong wrote:
That's already the case! Do you think your right to liberty is inviolate? They take it away if you commit a crime, do they not?

My statement was meant to interpreted with an implict "committed by someone else". Also, one couuld reword the statement to read "by Government" soceity in and of itself is impotent, it is only government which has the legal ability to use force to compel others.

When we say that the needs of society are weighed against the needs of individuals, we are not taking rights away from people and giving them to some inhuman construct; we are saying that the needs of the many must be balanced against the needs of the few. And yes, it is a balance; anyone who argues that it should be shoved all the way to one side needs a helluva lot better justification than a slippery slope fallacy.

So, are you agreeing that should a crime be committed by someone then soceity/government could and should violate the rights of innocent Individuals to solve/resolve it? [/quote]

[Darth Wong]

Im making no argument with these particular question; I'm asking you to take your position to its conclusion.

A nice way of rewording your slippery slope fallacy, but a restatement of fallacy nonetheless. The "where does it end" argument is simply a popular rhetorical packaging of that fallacy; it is a BALANCE. There is no set point; it changes depending on societal conditions.

What rights do Individuals have that are "unalienable", when can an Individual rightly stand up to soceity and say "No, you cannot violate these rights."?

Nowhere. Even the right to life can be taken away by society if it is necessary; this is why the death penalty exists for murder and high treason.

My statement was meant to interpreted with an implict "committed by someone else". Also, one couuld reword the statement to read "by Government" soceity in and of itself is impotent, it is only government which has the legal ability to use force to compel others.

Whatever; some form of government is a necessary construct of society.

So, are you agreeing that should a crime be committed by someone then soceity/government could and should violate the rights of innocent Individuals to solve/resolve it?

Depends on the magnitude of the intrusion. Again, you are painting this in simple-minded black and white terms. We all expect things like a certain right to privacy, but even normal police surveillance routinely goes beyond what we consider acceptable, and that is within existing laws. How would you feel about police monitoring you as you go about your daily life, keeping a record of where you go and where you are at all times? Yet they can do this if they suspect you, and they have the power to do so because it is deemed necessary for society.

How the fuck would crimes get solved in your ideal society?