[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Mr Sharma on individual rights

Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
--- "Dr. Subroto Roy" <drsubrotoroy@id.eth.net> wrote:
> Mr Sharma says:
> >
> >Individual rights are gauranteed for any individual
> as
> >inalienable rights - this means
> that the person can
> >invoke those rights if he/she feels that they have
> >been violated.
> -- nope; that is not what "inalienable" means;
Maybe we need your definition of "inalienable" here.
Does "inalienable" mean that rights "will" not be
violated? or does it mean that a person has rights
which cannot be taken away from him. I think it is the
second case. Essentially "inalienable" rights cannot
be taken away from an individual - specifically by
govts. They can be violated - but the violation is a
criminal act.

> It does not mean that nobody will
> >violate your rights.
> -- it seems to me that individual rights are most
> important to be
> protected

May I ask by whom and in what fashion?
If (as you say below)the state can engage in
violations then what is the means of defense of any
I think it is in the constitution and judiciary that
such a conflict can be addressed.

> when you have some kind of mass body -- whether a
> State authority or a
> mob
> of any kind -- ganged up against an individual;
> such a definition,
> there
> has been a lot of violation of individual rights in
> the United States
> in
> history, perhaps as much as elsewhere, perhaps less.

I do not deny that there have been human right
violations - mostly by the govt (since they have the
power of passing unjust laws). My point is that US has
constitutional gaurantees for them and any citizen can
invoke his rights. The judicial system of jury allows
the jury to proclaim "not guilty" even if an unjust
law is broken.
Like Larry Flint fighting for his right to publish
pornography against state laws.
Like the Roe V Wade case which basically made
anti-abortion laws meaningless.

> >The good about America is that the constitution
> >gaurantees these rights to all - and who so ever
> >wishes to invoke them is free to do that.
> >But it also means that you should "invoke them if
> they
> >are violated" - other wise any right is
> meaningless.
> -- "So sue me !"  seems to me the result of such a
> position.

Sure, what is wrong with that? IMHO the court is a
place to resolve disputes in a civilized society.
Besides the jury system "rocks", and cases are
resolved reasonably fast.

> >Looking at civil rights history one would realise
> that
> >the blacks got an amazing amount of freedom once
> they
> >realised they could invoke their rights and went
> after
> >protecting their rights.
> >So this is the good in American constitution. So
> what
> >was the bad again? Some guys not invoking their
> >rights?
> -- ah! so there may be need for an NRI Martin Luther
> King Jr and
> perhaps an
> NRI Malcom X;  I should have seen that myself.
> Quite so.  I trust
> the
> NRI/POI community is able to produce such leaders
> over time.  And also
> the
> music to go with it.

Even if there have been incidents of discrimination
against Indians - NRIs as a bunch have worked hard
under freedom in the US and have prospered beyond
their wildest dreams. So comparing incidents of
discrimination with the subjugation of blacks is
comparing apples and oranges.
Does that mean that NRIs should take it standing down?
No! Each affected individual has to fight for his/her
right (there exist enough grass roots organizations
which fight for protection of rights in the US, these
will surely help).
I dont think the situation will get so bad that we
will have to form an organization - but if it comes to
that, so be it.


This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/