Regulation does not "give" rights it curtails them.
Regulation does not "give" rights it curtails them.
I know it sounds weird, but let me explain.
I know it sounds inappropriate, but it is much more powerful.
In a democracy, we assume that citizens or individuals have unrestricted rights. So, imagine a set of rights and freedoms. By virtue of our creativity and enterprise, more rights become evident, and they come directly to the citizens. No one has to bestow them. If a new right is identified, then citizens already have it.
However, if all rights are available to everyone, there may be conflicts when two individuals decide to exercise their rights. In my exercise of rights, I may injure someone else's rights. For example, I may stand right in the middle of the road, waiting for the bus. Or I may want to showcase my swordsmanship in the middle of a thoroughfare.
To avoid such conflicts and ensure harmonious conduct law puts limits on the rights. Thus, law has to explicitly restrict our rights.
The correct way to design regulation
When the lawmakers do not explicitly curtail any right, we must assume that right exists.
When restricting any particular right of a citizen, elaborate justification must be given. We must note that it is not the right of the parliament or such equivalent democratic institution to curtail the rights of citizens. Rights can be constrained only as a matter of last resort.
When parliament constrains the rights of individuals, it must build at least two types of mechanisms in lieu of the impairment it has thus caused. First, it represents the mechanism for limiting the restrictions imposed on our rights. The second represents some benefit given to allay the impairment caused.
If you like reading RightVIEWS, don’t forget to share this with your friends. RightVIEWS will always be free. Please become a subscriber. If you want to support me, send your donations to: rahuldeodhar@upi OR paypal.me/rahuldeodhar