What is to prevent any 'abused' group from following the Gay marriage example?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GePap
Both are a legal consensus, in so far as the tribal elders or parents are seen by all as having some higher status than others, and thus the legitimacy to make decisions other may not. And within a family, one certainly does NOT have an assumed right to privacy-not a child vis a vi his parents.

No power hierarchy is needed, as it can be as basic as an unspoken rule between friends. If you're going to go as far down and say that's government, I'd say you're stretching definitions a bit too much. And certain families behave differently, so saying one doesn't have such an assumed right in ANY family is not true. Most? Probably, but that's beside the point.

Sadly, "wholesale society" in no way yet accept homosexual marriage.

Nor do I say it is, but rather that wholesale society DOES tacitly recognize a right to get married to the person whom one chooses, and by showing mainstream America that two gay people who choose to be together can get so much happiness and love from marriage, it's a step towards bring about the change in social attitudes.

As for your second assetion, while people may begin to think they had a right, you yourself state the only reason they could even think that was the collapse of governmental power and the lack of an effective legal authority-which as an arguement only leds further credance to what imran is saying. As for government coming to reflect societies new value-well, of course, since people make up government, and new people sharing this new run-away societal value will invariably enter the government, either through pre-existing legal ways, or thorugh violent and revolutionary replacement of the old structure.

Don't you see how this precisely proves the point that the power and rights come from the people, and not the government? That the government will come to reflect the values of society proves that SOCIETY is where the true authority lies! Quod erat demonstratum, thank you.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GePap
Anyone who claims a law is unjust invariable claims to adhere to a "higher law" or "higher morality". No one claims a law is unjust without basing the arguement on that law conflicting with another legitimate principal of higher status.

Absolutely, and what is that higher morality? Societal values. Again, this is supporting my point that government does not dictate what is moral or right, but soleley what is legal or illegal. Morality does not come from government. Rights don't come from government either, only the legal protection of them does.

[Boris Godunov]

To put it very simply, you can have a society without government, but you can't have a government without a society, so clearly society is superior in the heirarchial chain. Ergo rights come from society, not government, as government is a function of society.

[OzzyKP]

And within a family, one certainly does NOT have an assumed right to privacy-not a child vis a vi his parents.

In some cases yes, in other cases no. Though when the right to privacy isn't recognized, it is an insult to the idea of privacy rights in the first place.

But there are many instances where a young person does have a right to privacy vis a vi her parents.

[Elok]

Aeson: Both arguments seem to be dead right now, but I was responding to LoA, not you. He said something along the lines of, "rights don't clearly come from people....don't clearly come from government...they must exist on their own!" Maybe you're arguing that too, idunno. I can't even tell what you mean by "rights."

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Aeson

They were born a certain way. Some people have the right to walk, other's don't... naturally. Nature doesn't protect these rights against other natural rights. Government tries to do that. Nature probably doesn't care, and probably didn't mean to give us these rights, we just evolved that way.

You're confusing ability or capability with 'right'. One might be able to read or write, and yet find oneself unable to do either. That does not mean one has lost the right to read or inscribe, but one has lost the ability to do so. Similarly, a prisoner may be capable of reading and writing, but under the terms of their imprisonment have lost their right to do so.

Nature (by which you mean bodily functions of a 'normal' healthy person) may find us with the abilities to walk, to talk (on learning speech) to see, run and so forth- none of these are rights, natural or otherwise.

Rights are by their very essence a human construction, not something which exist in nature. Look for them on the Serengeti, you will not find them; in the aridity of the Takla Makan, or the frozen Siberia tundra, or the red heart of Australia, you will not discover rights in nature.

The idea of 'natural rights' or 'natural law' replaced the notion that we are endowed with rights by the gods, as long ago as the Hellenistic Pre-Socratic philosophers who had grown tired with the manifest absurdities of the Greek polytheistic pantheon, whose gods frequently were indistinguishable from spoilt children.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GREECE/PRESOC.HTM

[GePap]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
To put it very simply, you can have a society without government, but you can't have a government without a society, so clearly society is superior in the heirarchial chain. Ergo rights come from society, not government, as government is a function of society.

You may have a society without government, but in such a society, no single piece has the authority and legitimacy to make anything a right. IN short, to make rights, some group must be deputized and given the power to make decisions, such as what rights members have-this invariable is the government, no matter how uncomplicated this government may be.

Absolutely, and what is that higher morality? Societal values. Again, this is supporting my point that government does not dictate what is moral or right, but soleley what is legal or illegal. Morality does not come from government. Rights don't come from government either, only the legal protection of them does.

In 1865, deep racism was an ingrained societal value, and there was no large societal value opposed to slavery-only a fervent MINORITY opposed the institution as was. Yet government at the time decided to end that institution for a variety of reasons. It had the legitimacy to do so-and hence it happened. Rights come from whatever is legitimate. Society must come together and agree on a method of creating legitimacy-and ususally an authority to enforce it. But without that legitimacy, these can be no rights.

Don't you see how this precisely proves the point that the power and rights come from the people, and not the government? That the government will come to reflect the values of society proves that SOCIETY is where the true authority lies! Quod erat demonstratum, thank you.

Power comes form the people only in so far as the people create a system that grant some body or actor legitimacy (and for this to work, authority). That government will come to reflect the values of the whole proves nothing other than, government being made of people, it will inevitably relfect the values of the pool of human beings it can be drawn from.

Nor do I say it is, but rather that wholesale society DOES tacitly recognize a right to get married to the person whom one chooses, and by showing mainstream America that two gay people who choose to be together can get so much happiness and love from marriage, it's a step towards bring about the change in social attitudes.

Well, yes, partly. I have said it already-anyone who accept sthe romantic love notion of marriage opens the way for same-sex marriage.

No power hierarchy is needed, as it can be as basic as an unspoken rule between friends. If you're going to go as far down and say that's government, I'd say you're stretching definitions a bit too much. And certain families behave differently, so saying one doesn't have such an assumed right in ANY family is not true. Most? Probably, but that's beside the point.

Unbroken rules between friends carry no authority, and people are free to break them, as long as they accept the fact that breaking them will also bring to an end their voluntary association.Certainly there can be families, or gorups that define themselves as such that may buck trends, but for this discussion, outliers arejust that. A child has the rights granted to them by their parents only, and if the family is part of a larger societal structure, those granted by the larger gorup.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Only if you believe in god can you believe in such a thing as a natural right-though certainly no religion enumerates the notion of men having rights vis a vi their creator.

Actually, EVEN if you believe in God you can't believe in such a thing - you ALWAYS have to presume some ought-statement, such as "I ought to do what God says."

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
so what gives them that power?

Lots of guns.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
To put it very simply, you can have a society without government, but you can't have a government without a society, so clearly society is superior in the heirarchial chain. Ergo rights come from society, not government, as government is a function of society.

You can have bacteria without people, but you can't have people without bacteria, so it's actually bacteria that went to the moon, etc. because they're "higher on the hierarchial chain".

[Imran Siddiqui]

Dammit, Kucinich . That was going to be my argument. Boris, that argument is reductio ad absurtum (however you spell it). You can have society without individuals, you can't have individuals without a heart, you can't have a heart without cells, you can't have cells without atoms, ergo rights come from atoms (or we can go further).

Of course an impass has been reached between those who believe rights come from nature, society, or government. I doubt we will ever persuade each other.

Though I think GePap, in his last post has argued incredibly persuasively for our side, especially with the slavery argument. Society was not anti-slavery (especially not the South). No one said that human nature meant that everyone must be free (Hell, the Bible even had passages saying slaves should obey their masters). It was because a small, vocal minority held government and the workings of it that that right was granted. There must be something legitimate to grant the right, or else all you have are opinions on rights, but not actual rights themselves..

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GePap
You may have a society without government, but in such a society, no single piece has the authority and legitimacy to make anything a right. IN short, to make rights, some group must be deputized and given the power to make decisions, such as what rights members have-this invariable is the government, no matter how uncomplicated this government may be.

This, this is the dispute. You and Imran keep saying this to be the case, and I'm saying it isn't. Merely repeating variations on "Yes it is!" isn't an argument.

Simple question, yes or no: Can there be unjust laws?

In 1865, deep racism was an ingrained societal value, and there was no large societal value opposed to slavery-only a fervent MINORITY opposed the institution as was. Yet government at the time decided to end that institution for a variety of reasons. It had the legitimacy to do so-and hence it happened. Rights come from whatever is legitimate. Society must come together and agree on a method of creating legitimacy-and ususally an authority to enforce it. But without that legitimacy, these can be no rights.

This is factually incorrect on many levels, enough to render this an invalid argument. First, by 1865, public opinion nationwide was dramatically opposed to slavery. Even in 1861, most Northerners found slavery to be immoral, although only a vocal few were "radical abolitionists." Regardless, public sentiment had changed dramatically by the time the 13th Ammendment was made law. Hell, even in the South, a good number of people before the war believed slavery to be immoral, but a "necessary evil" to maintain a way of life.

Government didn't decide to end the institution and then teach the people what's what. The people, albeit in quite a fractious manner, decided over a tumultuous period what was right and wrong, and that belief was subsequently enshrined in the Constitution, based on the society's newly acquired perspective. There's a reason abolition was only able to happen in 1865 and not 1861 or 1832 or whatever, which is because society had steadily been changing opinion against it. The government had legitimacy to end slavery 1789. Why didn't it do so then?

This also must be balanced against the reality that American society at the time did not exist in a vacuum, and was at the time an offshoot of European society, wherein slavery was vastly abhorred and considered a great evil. So that must also be considered as part of the societal point of view that laid pressure on American government to change.

Power comes form the people only in so far as the people create a system that grant some body or actor legitimacy (and for this to work, authority). That government will come to reflect the values of the whole proves nothing other than, government being made of people, it will inevitably relfect the values of the pool of human beings it can be drawn from.

"Yes it is! Yes it is!"

Power coming from society is the entire point, and it's the crux of any system of government! Even totalitarian regimes are based on a societal notion that dictator knows best. To deny that this is the basis of rights is nonsensical, as the government's basis is on society.

Skywalker's "bacteria" argument, while cute, is comparing apples and oranges, because we aren't talking about biological entities, we're talking human-made constructs that no one here denies have an integrated relationship with one another.

I'll ask it again: Can there by unjust laws? If you follow your logic, the answer is no, as any law is just, because the government is creating the sense of what is just. I posit this to be an absurd position, as it is society which creates the sense of what is just and unjust, and society created government as a means of enforcing what it believes to be just and unjust. Governments don't make societies, societies make governments. I don't think any sociologist would assert otherwise.

Unbroken rules between friends carry no authority, and people are free to break them, as long as they accept the fact that breaking them will also bring to an end their voluntary association.

People are free to break any law so long as they accept the consequences. If you violate the unspoken trust of friendship, you'll be punished, most likely by ostracism. If you violate the law, you'll be punished by fines/prison/etc. This in no way proves an argument that the ability to bring consequences means an entity is the bestower of rights. It only means that one is the enforcer of them.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Of course an impass has been reached between those who believe rights come from nature, society, or government. I doubt we will ever persuade each other.

I doubt it, but that won't stop me from scratching my head at the legalistic absurdity of your position.

Though I think GePap, in his last post has argued incredibly persuasively for our side, especially with the slavery argument. Society was not anti-slavery (especially not the South). No one said that human nature meant that everyone must be free (Hell, the Bible even had passages saying slaves should obey their masters). It was because a small, vocal minority held government and the workings of it that that right was granted. There must be something legitimate to grant the right, or else all you have are opinions on rights, but not actual rights themselves..

Of course you'd think he argued persuasively, because you didn't need persuading. But I found it completely unpersuasive, because it was inaccurate.

Once again, by the time the LAW was changed wrt slavery, society was already morally opposed to it, although to varying degrees. Law followed society once again in this situation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

the time the LAW was changed wrt slavery, society was already morally opposed to it, although to varying degrees. Law followed society once again in this situation.

No, not really. The South was not opposed to slavery at all. And plenty in the North were not either. A small minority of people, however, were, and they controlled the government (mostly because everyone else left) and they pushed it through.

Of course if the majority of society believed a right should be declared and hadn't yet, then it wouldn't be a right until the government declared it so. Civil Rights did not exist until the law was signed (of course in that example, law predated society as well... Hell, look at race riots in places like Boston, if you thought it was just Southern opposition).

Let's take another example, abortion. When the Supreme Court ruled in Roe, public opinon was VERY much against abortion (like 60% against). Government created a right which society did not agree with. Eventually they did however.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, not really. The South was not opposed to slavery at all.

There were many in the South opposed to it, but that wasn't what I said anyway--I said many found it immoral, but didn't oppose it because it was seen as a "necessary evil." That's an important distinction.

And plenty in the North were not either. A small minority of people, however, were, and they controlled the government (mostly because everyone else left) and they pushed it through.

Only a small minority were radical abolishionists, but a large majority of the North's population found slavery immoral. They did not, however, necessarily want extreme measures to see slavery end. Regardless, when the 13th Ammendment was passed, most Americans opposed slavery, and certainly societal opinion of the West as a whole was anti-slavery. Again, we didn't exist in a vacuum.

Let's take another example, abortion. When the Supreme Court ruled in Roe, public opinon was VERY much against abortion (like 60% against). Government created a right which society did not agree with. Eventually they did however.

Um, public opinion on abortion is still very mixed. In fact, I'd say that it's about as divided as ever. So there has yet to be a societal consensus on the right to an abortion, at least in any circumstance. But you yourself have argued that Roe v. Wade was a horrible decision, so why would you use it now as an example of law making?