this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2025
313 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
73939 readers
3381 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Mhm. Show me where in the US constitution it says that people have a right to rebellion.
And then please show me how this right to rebellion was applied when an actual rebellion occured.
And please also take into consideration any laws regarding treason or domestic terrorism.
I said constitutional law, not the US constitution alone. Including declaration of independence and the surrounding history of discussion and all. Also not "says that people have", but recognizes it as an inherent right. Naturally if such a right exists, either no law can retract it or it would be meaningless.
I don't see how this is relevant. If you think it is, please explain how, explicitly and not implicitly.
(Also one would guess that slaveholders' right to rebellion is in significant doubt.)
Can't override constitutional and inherent rights. Also if you don't recognize the latter, it's too bad but your country's founding documents do as a basis. Basically the US constitution is toilet paper compared to unstated but mentioned in d.o.i. inherent rights, and any normal law is toilet paper compared to the US constitution.
And people who made that system were very well educated, also very practical, and explained very thoroughly why should any system of formal rules be possible to discard by force and why inherent rights not prone to degeneracy of any formal system driven by power should exist in philosophy. They were not XX and XXI centuries' idealists with overvalued ideas, or idiots dreaming of totalitarianism with those like them on top.
A law that doesn't apply is worthless.
Thinking that this somehow makes you or your anachronistic shithole of a country somewhat better is just plain delusional.
First, my anachronistic shithole of a country would be Russia.
Second, I said right, not law. Rights are more transcendent.
Rights don't exist. They are social conventions based in law. If you don't have a law or the law isn't enforced then you don't have a right.
Contrary to the name, there are no basic, inalienable human rights.
If your right is not supported by law, it does not exist.
That's your opinion which was a minority one in most of the world for most of history. Including such counterintuitive parts of it as China.
Says who and based on what?
And from which hairy arse would a law gain justification to determine someone's rights?
You are likely from one of the countries with English-derived legal system, where the precedent mechanism literally means that there are non-codified rights outside of the law, which the interpretation of the law has to approximate.
Ok, lets put it in a way you might understand.
Let's say there's a basic human right to life, liberty and security (Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). That's quite basic.
You say you live in Russia. What good does that right do if your holy leader decides that he doesn't like what you posted online and sends you to the front in Ukraine or into a Gulag? Are you going to tell the military police that they can't touch you because you got rights?
Or lets make it more extreme: Say you live in Gaza. Are you going to tell the IDF that you got rights and thus their bombs and starvation just won't touch you?
Nope, I don't live in a country with English-derived legal system. A law is a law and judges interpret laws and not judges.
But even in a precedent-based system: Precedent means jack squat if the country's leadership doesn't care, as seen by the US.
I say it once again: Rights, laws, constitutions, all that are fine and dandy, and they are somewhat useful as long as the rule of law is mostly upheld. But:
Look up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. All 193 member countries of the UN ratified these. And yet there are articles in there that every single of these member countries violate. And having these "rights" means absolutely nothing in real-life terms if there's no mechanism to enforce them or get any benefit from it.
As a russian, how much do you e.g. enjoy the "right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association" (Article 20.1) and the "right to freedom of opinion and expression" (Article 19)? How much does "having these rights" help you if you go on the street and protest the war?