5 votes

The Right To Be Wrong: Your First and Foundational Right

The Right To Be Wrong: Your First and Foundational Right

In studying the Constitution, the prevailing wisdom is that the document serves to protect various enumerated rights, all of which are given to the citizenry not from the government, but from God, god, the gods, random chance, whomever or whatever one chooses to identify as their 'creator'.

Further study of the Bill of Rights reveals that some of the rights outlined in the amendments are based on other rights already established. For example, in the first Amendment we read "shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Clearly if freedom of speech is a right then it must follow that the freedom to write down your beliefs should not be abridged. It goes on "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble" which would naturally follow freedom of press to spread these written words (this being before the internet age).

As 'freedom to petition the Government for a redress of grievances' and 'freedom to use the internet' naturally follow a right to free speech, so must that right, the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects", and all others have a single foundational right. I propose that this right is the fundamental, God-given right to be wrong.

The constitution prevents the government from interfering in your right to be wrong: in your speech, in your written word, in your religion, in your private activities, in your right to defend yourself in a murder trial even if you happen to be guilty. If that isn't wrong I don't know what is.

(part 1)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

paging octobox...

???

Don't feed the pandas. Ever.

Thank you

It sums up why I am not afraid to be wrong beautifully.

Thinking about this subject again lately...

which means I think my brain may be trying to tell me something...

Don't feed the pandas. Ever.

How about Part 2?

There is nothing wrong with being wrong if you learned something that helped you become right. IOWs there's something right in being wrong. FEAR and HATE, IGNORance, masked as passive agressive, peer pressure, AUTHORITY are our clues that something is wrong. So seek to eliminate it.. it's human to err. So be human, forgive yourself as you would have others forgive you, and strive to be happy.

There is no freedom

without the freedom to say "no".

And when that "right" is acknowledged and accepted by everyone, then we can say that we are truly free.

By what right do men exercise power over each other?
~ Auberon Herbert, voluntaryist, individualist, and libertarian vigilante.

"The problem is not those in power, the problem is right between your ears." ~Larken Rose

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5FNDRgPOLs&list=FL4wdZ0dK3HG...

That man only is free...

...who can turn down an invitation to dinner without giving an excuse...

Don't feed the pandas. Ever.

Uh....nope

We hold that a man has the right to make a legal defence even if he has murdered but the legal process is the process by which we determine his guilt or innocence.

The wrong was the murder. The murderer had no right to do this wrong. Now whether to do is to be or to be is to is a matter lest left to Sarte and Kafka and do-be-do-be-do is best left to Sinatra.

The simple fact is that we look upon freedom as having constraints. My right to punch you stops at your nose. Or "do as you please as long as you do no harm", the old libertarian maxim. If your words do harm, you have a burden under this law. Shouting fire in a crowded theatre when there is in fact no fire is held to be THE example of this law or "limitation of free speech". It's held as wrong and we hold no RIGHT of yours to be wrong in this case.

Keep the litmus test of HARM clearly in mind, and the doctrine means material, physical harm to a person or property. And there's historically a mens-rhea component at work there, that "wilfully and knowingly" aspect...just to muddy things up a bit...

There is nothing strange about having a bar of soap in your right pocket, it's just what's happening.

Was going to address that in part 2

...of course all rights, including the right to be wrong, end where 'the other person's nose begins'.

My example of a murder trial shouldn't imply that a person has a right to murder if they can get away with it by winning a trial.

Rather, the right to be wrong would be the right, guaranteed by the sixth amendment, to defend oneself from an accusation. The defending oneself from punishment for something one did is what I think would be the 'wrong action'. The accused would differ with that opinion I'm sure but they have a right to be wrong there, too.

Defending oneself from heinous crimes aside, a right to be wrong can certainly be read into the first, second, most of the amendments.
..

Don't feed the pandas. Ever.

Bump for that guy righting wrongs...

It's okay.

Don't feed the pandas. Ever.