There are three liberal rights required for civilization:
1. Freedom of Religion - That is to practice any religion or faith that you so choose with other willing practitioners.
2. The right to bear arms - That is to possess capability to defend yourself from tyranny or to organize against tyranny.
3. The right to information - The undeniable right to have any information available without edit whatsoever in your possession or within the public domain. That is, no censorship of any material for any purpose.
Three that don't:
1. A free press: A market press is an industry. In terms of supplying news, if the third right is followed then the free press becomes redundant, unnecessary.
2. Right to privacy: First of all, the right to privacy is progressive. It is positive. However, with the enforcement of the above three rights (assuming they would be maintainable) would render this right essentially obsolete. The idea of privacy is limiting to economic progress and is only limiting to social progress when it intends to threaten the liberal rights that do matter.
3. The right to peacefully assemble: Otherwise known as protesting the government. This is useless. This is different than a strike or a defensive action in maintenance of rights. This is the tool of busy bodies and it causes sensationalism.
Understandably the more rights that are granted or assumed by a people are for the best as they add layers in front of submission to a potential slaver. I wouldn't suggest the removal of any rights in this climate or in many others, but I think ultimately the latter three rights -protected properly- will be all that is necessary in the future global commune.
"Despair is typical of those who do not understand the causes of evil, see no way out, and are incapable of struggle."
-Lenin
Rights necessary for civilization:
The pursuit of happiness
Rights that don't matter for civilization:
Everything else
I suppose that you don't support:
1. Right to Private Property - There shall be no infringements or coercion from individuals or collectives on yourself or your property in any circumstance, except when you have yourself violated someone's right.
Do ya?
EDIT: Better yet, right to self ownership and the fruits of your labor. Does this fit into your agenda?
So basically, you change a few things in the first amendment, you keep the second, and right to privacy isn't in the constitution really.
Maoist Corporation:It is positive.
All rights ouside of ones own might are positive. What is or isn't "meaningful to civilization" has absolutely no coherent meaning what so ever unless you define your terms.
Junk.
Stephen: Rights necessary for civilization: The pursuit of happiness.
Rights necessary for civilization: The pursuit of happiness.
Unless what makes them happy is killing people. Then we take away that "right".
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Life, Liberty, Property is all you need.
"1. Right to Private Property - There shall be no infringements or coercion from individuals or collectives on yourself or your property in any circumstance, except when you have yourself violated someone's right."
Bingo.
I don't consider rights to exist in the way which most people seem to consider that they do but the enforcing of this single principle is certain to grant both prosperity, and all of the other freedoms which one could want.
Also, out of all of those up there I consider the right to bear arms the most important if I had to pick a single one.
The Maoists now. Unbelievable! What's next, the Libertarian National Socialist Greens?
"scineram: The Maoists now. Unbelievable! What's next, the Libertarian National Socialist Greens?"
Rule 34.5: Whatever the theoretical political organization and/or position, p0rn of it exists.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
@OP: More interesting to me than your conclusions about what are the best rules for a free society is your basis or method for arriving at these rules. Are they ad hoc? If so, why should anyone agree to those rules over, say, the rules of Karl Marx, who is widely respected by many people, intelligent people from many cultures*.
Methodology isn't everything. But without showing how your method of reasoning about the way society ought to be organized is superior to, say, Marx's methods, you can't expect to be very persuasive. I know who Marx is. I have no idea who you are.
Clayton -
*But not by me, just to be clear ;-)