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

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You asserted that the reason government determined rights was via force, i.e. if you can't resist the government's compelling you, you don't have the right.

The 'i.e' is incorrect. You don't have the right unless the government sanctions it. Plenty of 'rights' aren't compelling rights, but empowering rights.

one considers a people asserting a right successfully that the government has contradicted with law but is powerless to enforce.

Then it isn't a right. The people cannot assert a right without government backing... sorry.

Primitive tribes with no form of government or legal code still had acknowledged rights of their peoples, because their society said so.

'Because their society said so' indicates a governmental structure or legal code. Who decided these 'rights'? A council? Isn't that a governmental structure?

And this is simply a twisting of the definition of the word "right" to mean what is legal, which is not the true definition.

Rights are only legal creatures. They do not exist outside the law.

This is just devolving into a "uh-huh, nun-huh" argument, as usual, because you're standing by a false definition of the word.

The 'false definition' is to believe that rights exist without government sanction. There is no right to free speech unless the government says you have it. There is no right to life unless the government grants it to you. If the government can take away what you consider your 'rights' then it isn't really a right at all, is it?

we're talking about a majority of society.

And if they don't have power over the government, then they can't assert rights. The only way they can assert rights is if they get the government to change its tune.

The government is only a tool for the people (read: "groups asserting they have a 'right' to X) to define rights for people.

Ah, so you admit that government defines rights. GOOD, you are on the correct part .

Rights are inherently derived from the opinion of the people

Only those people in charge... ie, the government. And there is NO inherent rights. They are simply legal creations. No one is born with inherant rights.. they only get them because of what their government has given them. For example, a child in the US has more rights than a child in China.

Holy parsing, Batman. Imran is become Berserker.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sorry... I'll behave.

[GePap]

Excessive parsing is for the weak!

[Arrian]

[DinoDoc]

Whining about debate methods is for the witless.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Whining about debate methods is for the witless.

Don't talk badly about yourself DD..

You need some more self-confidence there..

Maybe if you ran a better coffee shop...

[Elok]

Huh...Boris, are you arguing for moral principles in accordance with the mob mentality?

[Aeson]

Ah, so you admit that government defines rights. GOOD, you are on the correct part .

Your reading comprehension is very poor, or you are trolling. I said that people define rights and can use government as a tool to do so. This does not mean they have to use government to do so. It certainly does not mean that the government defines the rights.

Your interpretation of that statement is akin to equating "The hammer builds a house" to "The builder applies the hammer to build a house" to "The hammer designed the house". They are not the same statements. I hope you can see why.

Only those people in charge...

Yes, which I mentioned before. Those with the ability to enforce their opinion of what should be rights define rights in a legal sense. They still do not define rights on a personal level or to take it a step further, the natural level. As such they do not define rights altogether.

Defining rights on a personal level is an inherent right to consciousness, to define your own opinion. If that opinion differs from the 'accepted' then they may or may not have the ability to act upon that opinion. If they can act on that opinion, have they become the government? Because they are defining their rights in that moment.

And there is NO inherent rights.

Show me the government mandate that allows you to breath. Show me a government mandate that allows people to break the law. You can't deny that people break the law, so they are asserting an inherent right of their capacity to act against what they don't agree with when doing so. It's obviously a contested right, and usually one that will be punished, but still a right.

You are arguing that natural rights don't exist, but then assuming a natural right (which doesn't exist) for government that gives them (as an entity not dependant on people) the right to define all rights. Can you see how convoluted the logic is? You are applying 'God' logic to government. At least in theology they give God the ability to transcend time and space.

Governments are not eternal entities with these Godlike capabilities. As such they were created at some point. If only government can define rights, then who or whatever formed the government could have no right to do so. The government didn't exist to give the right for it's own creation, yet it still was created? That means there must be some other form of right which is not dependant on government definition of rights.

They are simply legal creations. No one is born with inherant rights.. they only get them because of what their government has given them. For example, a child in the US has more rights than a child in China.

You are using "rights" as in "legal rights" which is not the definition of "rights". One is a term limited in scope, the other is not qualified at all. I understand what you are saying, you just aren't phrasing it correctly. Use the proper terms and I'll agree with you. (it still won't make your arguments applicable to my statements though)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


no, rights are called natural rights, because they arnt artificial, they exist for everyone.

elijah, please come here and give LoA a nice lecture about moral relativism...

[Imran Siddiqui]

This does not mean they have to use government to do so.

Of course they do. Without government or a legitimate legal authority, as GePap so eloquently put it, there exists no rights. You don't have rights outside of government granting.

Can you name a single right that you have which the government has not given you?

Defining rights on a personal level is an inherent right to consciousness, to define your own opinion. If that opinion differs from the 'accepted' then they may or may not have the ability to act upon that opinion. If they can act on that opinion, have they become the government? Because they are defining their rights in that moment.

They can only act on the opinion of what the 'rights' are if government has given them that power to do so. An invidual claiming he has a 'right' to something absent government sanction does not have a right to what he is claiming. He may believe that he SHOULD have a right to X, but without the government saying he does, it is simply a value judgment and X isn't a right at all.

Show me the government mandate that allows you to breath. Show me a government mandate that allows people to break the law. You can't deny that people break the law, so they are asserting an inherent right of their capacity to act against what they don't agree with when doing so. It's obviously a contested right, and usually one that will be punished, but still a right.

Well there is no inherant 'right' to breathe... ie, right to life. The government can take it away if it pleases. There is no 'right' to break the law. You get punished if you do so. If you had a right to do it, you wouldn't be punished.

a natural right (which doesn't exist) for government that gives them (as an entity not dependant on people) the right to define all rights.

It is no natural right for the government to give rights, it is simply how society works. Government has the power and thus can tell you what rights exist and do not exist. All rights are legal powers. Without some government legal powers do not exist.

If only government can define rights, then who or whatever formed the government could have no right to do so.

Not until the government was created. Being that rights can only flow from law, something has to be in effect to create law. Government is that entity. Individuals cannot creat law by themselves.

And there is no 'right' needed to create government. I have never heard of this 'right to create government'. Is it like the right of free speech and right to property? Rights are legal powers given to individuals by the power broker in society. Creating a government requires no rights because the creation isn't a legal power. In fact, before creation of government, legal powers cannot exist. People came together to create governmental structures in order for rights and duties to be formed. Before government, no rights.

You are using "rights" as in "legal rights" which is not the definition of "rights".

Of course it is. Rights don't exist outside of law or some lawmaking authority. That IS the proper terminology.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by GePap
If people have a problem with the word government, the fact is then that The Legitimate Legal Authority, be ithighly structured or not, is what gives rights. Without a Legitimate Legal Authority, there are no rights.

I disagree that there are no rights until they are defined in a legal sense. I'd argue the opposite, that defining rights legally is actually defining restrictions on rights and/or giving precidence to one right over another. The rights necessarily exist before the definition of these legal rights as the legal process evaluates the rights before setting up the right hierarchy. You can't sort, order, allow, and disallow things which don't exist.

I would argue the same thing against my statements about people defining rights too... but it seems a bit too far off topic. (causal/probability/freewill stuff)

Put three starngers together-you know what, until they get together, created a Legitimate Legal Authority amng themselves, there are no rights there.

If A, B, and C are in a room, they each have the right to act within their ability until an "agreement" is reached to limit their actions. How could they ever reach an agreement if they didn't have the right to speak their minds, accept or disagree with each other, or even physically exist and function?

You could say that A, B, and C all have personal authority (right to attempt to act and think, and temporarily exist), nature has physical authority (by themselves or together A, B, and C can't define the right for a person to defy gravity), and any agreement between A, B, and C has social or legal authority. Nature is the one which isn't dependant though. Personal authority relies on natural authority allowing it to exist and social authority relies on some combination of A, B, and C to exist, thus is indirectly dependant upon nature as well.

Without the natural rights the derived rights could not exist on a personal or social level. if life never formed, we wouldn't have any rights except the right to not exist.

Without A, B, and C, the social rights could not exist. There would be no one to form the society.

[Imran Siddiqui]

they each have the right to act within their ability until an "agreement" is reached to limit their actions. How could they ever reach an agreement if they didn't have the right to speak their minds, accept or disagree with each other, or even physically exist and function?

They don't have these rights actually. B could decide he's stronger than A and C and enslave or kill them both. A & C had no rights, especially not to speak their minds, because B could shut them up if he wanted to. Only when A, B, & C agreed that they had a 'right' to speak their minds did they get that right. Before that, it was an anything goes situation where anyone else could easily prevent free speech (a 2x4 to the head is effective to stop that).

[GePap]

If A, B, and C are in a room, they each have the right to act within their ability until an "agreement" is reached to limit their actions. How could they ever reach an agreement if they didn't have the right to speak their minds, accept or disagree with each other, or even physically exist and function?

Like all people who argue for natural rights, you use the wrong terminology.

What right to speak heir minds? RIGHTS exist only within a legal framework. You do have the ABILITY to do things. Do you have a right to eat? Silly question. You have the ability to eat, and insofar as society states that you can not be killed except by the authorities under some given circumstance or someone as self-defense, no one but the state could purposely starve you. BUt again, they can not starve you becuase the system gives you a right to live, not becuase you have an innate right to eat. You do have the ability to eat-but ability and right are not the same thing.

IN this example, each person has the ability to speak, the ability to listen, the ability to reason, and the ability to agree or disagree. Until all three agree on a framework, none of them have a right to anything whatsoever, becuase without a framework of rules, there is nothing that can be called a legitimate legal authority, and hence no possibility of rights.

[Aeson]

Of course it is. Rights don't exist outside of law or some lawmaking authority. That IS the proper terminology.

right
n.
1. That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.
2.
a. The direction or position on the right side.
b. The right side.
c. The right hand.
d. A turn in the direction of the right hand or side.
3. often Right
a.The people and groups who advocate the adoption of conservative or reactionary measures, especially in government and politics. Also called right wing.
b. The opinion of those advocating such measures.
4. Sports. A blow delivered by a boxer's right hand.
5. Baseball. Right field.
6.
a. Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.
b. Something, especially humane treatment, claimed to be due to animals by moral principle.
7. A just or legal claim or title.
8.
a. A stockholder's privilege of buying additional stock in a corporation at a special price, usually at par or at a price below the current market value.
b. The negotiable certificate on which this privilege is indicated.
c. A privilege of subscribing for a particular stock or bond. Often used in the plural.

6a and possibly 7 are what pertains to this discussion. Notice more than just "by law". This is why I say you are using the term incorrectly, because you are not properly qualifying the term to denote your usage as only "by law".

[Imran Siddiqui]

6a and possibly 7 are what pertains to this discussion. Notice more than just "by law". This is why I say you are using the term incorrectly, because you are not properly qualifying the term to denote your usage as only "by law".

And look at the dictionary defintion of 'socialism'. The dictionary is not where to find the answer in philosophical, political, and ideological discussions.

The correct terminology is that rights are granted only by governments or legitimate law making power. 'Tradition' can be explained by custom, which is also a form of law (at least in the countries that use it). 'Nature' is the silly one. Where do those laws come from?

The question is this, is there any 'right' which you have that the government will not give you? There is no 'right' for gay marriage because the government has not given it. How can you have a right if you cannot do the thing you think you have a right to?