When the declaration of the Rights of Man sates, "The security of the rights of man and of the citizens requires public and military forces. These forces are therefore established for the good of all and not for the personal advantages of those to whom they shall be entrusted," does this mean that the conservation of mans natural rights and liberties can only be protected if there is a military or police force to enforce this? And that this force is soley to protect mans rights and liberties, not to better the person that is in charge of the force? If so, who will ensure that the person that is in charge of the force won't use the force for his own benefit, because afterall he has the power over the force?
-Meredith
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
When the Declaration of the Rights of Man state, " Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing maybe prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law." Does this mean that anything can happen as long as it does not hurt society, and nobody can be forced to do something if it is not written in the laws? If so, who decides what is okay for society and what is considered to be harmful for society?
- Antoine
When the National Assembly of France say: "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injuries no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the others members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law." does he mean that the liberty gives you the freedom to do whatever you want with the condition it wont hurt someone else or the privation of someone else's liberty and that these conditions are determined by the law, if so, If people live in different countries and the laws are different, do people have different freedom? -SUNG
IQ- NATE BACHAR
When the national assembly states "Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundations. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupation, according to their abilities, and without distention except that of their rights and talents." Does he mean General will is a term used to express law. Every person has the right to contribute, or contribute through a messenger in its foundations. If someone makes a mistake the consequences most be the same whether it protects or punishes. All the people that follow the law are adequate for any dignities and to all public and private occupations, according to their endowments, and without distention apart from their talents and rights.
If so Will the natural right be protected and preserved even though man has to follow the laws?
When the National Assembly states, "Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative in it's foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes,"does it mean that law is the utterance of the common desire, and that everyone can contribute to it's base individually or through someone permitted so speak on their behalf? Also does it mean that this desire must a common one amongst all, no matter its consequences? If so, aren't the natural rights preserved through the people which are entitled to participate in it because of the right given to them through their general will?
When the National Assembly states, "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the others members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law." Does it mean that people can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt other people according to law? If so, who is making the laws?
-Edward
When the National Assembly states, "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law." Does this mean that a person can do anything he or she wants unless it doesn't harm another person therefore human beings have free rights only if they’re equal? Also, does this mean that these restrictions can only be decided by law? If so, who makes these laws if everyone is supposed to be equal and who determines whether something hurts another person or his or her own property?
- Yujin
When the National Assembly writes, "[...]Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else, hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights," do they mean that mans Liberty is composed of right to act in a way that does not harm anyone else, therefore the application of life, liberty, and property has no boundary except the ones that guarantee the other members of the community the praxis of the same rights? If so, who or how are the limits of what is harmful and what is O.K. set?
•Juan
When the National Assembly writes,"Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative in it's foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes," does he mean that this law is the representation of the general will, meaning the concern of the people as a whole, that anyone could belong to and deal with the discipline or the security. If so, will the natural rights be followed even if the consequences are good or bad?
When the National Assembly states, "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law", does he mean that liberty dwells in the fact that a person can do anything as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else; and that the rights that every individual has, given by nature or god, have no limits, except those rights that guarantee to the other people of the society the enjoyment of the same rights? If so, do humans only have free rights if they are all equal?
when the Narional Assembly os Franch state ,"Law is the expression of the general will. every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through he reprsentative, in this foundation." does he mean that all the people think in the same way and each law that have been created represents all the citizens and their thoughts in the country? if so, why does he say that each citizen has the right to participate personally if anyways the law is the want of everyone? where is the personally thinking of each person?
When the National Assembly states,(Article 17)"Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof expect where public necessity,legally determined,shall clearly demand it...", do they mean that because property is unable to be transgressed by people other than the rightful owner, no one will have it taken from them unless the public necessity, or general needs/will of the people, which is decided by, and in, the court, demands it? If so, does this not mean that, firstly, the law is, in this case, determining the general will/needs, when the general will/needs,logically, has to be determined by the general public? Secondly, this violates a number of natural rights of man:
1) The right to property, because the person/people who is/are having his/her/their property taken from them whilst they boast the exact same rights of all the other members of the general public, and the decision to take the property is not even being determined by the general public, thus it cannot be considered general will.
2) The right to security, considering that no man's property is ever secure because it CAN be violated (again a contradiction of the article) by the general will that is determined by court?
3) Resistance to oppression, because if the person/people who is/are having his/her/their property violated resists the ruling to confiscate the property, which can be considered oppression because oppresion is the act of using power to empower and/or privilege someone at the expense of disempowering and/or depriving another, he/she/they can be prosecuted for going against the "general will".
Confusing enough?
The National Assembly states, "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of eachman has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights.These limits can only be determined by law."Does this mean men can do anything except not to disturb others people's natural rights? Also, who will decide the laws and the limits? If so,how can we make sure that those limits going to respect the unalienable rights of every individual?
when the declaration of man says "law is the expression of the general will. every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation." does he mean that law is the desire of man. every man may take part of it either directly or indirectly in the establishment of the law. if so arent natural rights preserved since it is man himself that creates the law, already knowing his rights
Roberto Correa
When the national assembly states. "Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents." does he mean that the law is equal for everyone? If so, when the rich and the poor hold a court, the rich can engage the famous lawyer but the poor can't. so rich will win in court. In this case, is the law equal for everyone?
Post a Comment