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

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
They can only act on the opinion of what the 'rights' are if government has given them that power to do so.

I can say the reverse that the government can only act on their 'opinion' (which is a conglomerate of our opinions in a democracy) if people have given them that power to do so.

If you apply the same logic in reverse as intellectual integrity would require, you've just said government cannot define legal rights.

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.

He (or any group) has the same right as the government. They have the right to try to enforce their view. Usually the government is going to be stronger than the individual or group, but not always. Revolutions happen. Quite a few of them actually.

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.

So if an ability can be taken away you have no right to it? That would mean that the government (any of them) has no right to use their abilities, as I'm quite sure at some point their power will be taken away. (if only at the pick one:heat death/collapse of the universe)

It is no natural right for the government to give rights, it is simply how society works.

Obviously not directly. That right is inherited from people (who inherited that right from nature). You imply it is directly a natural right though.

Government has the power and thus can tell you what rights exist and do not exist.

Power = rights. That is what a natural rights is. You just gave government the natural right to define rights.

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.

I can create laws as far as I can enforce them. This limits my laws (still in effect) to things along the lines of the phone cord must be twisted just right... At some point these laws may fall to a more powerful authority (or a drug which cures my OCD tendancies), but that is no different than any other law. They all can fall. Mine just a bit more easily than the U.S.A's

[Elok]

Yeah, you seem to be defending yourself with a circular argument, saying that if we can't identify the source it must just appear, like some kind of stage magician. "As you can see, there is nothing in my left hand....nothing in my right....ABRACADABRA! Natural rights!"

[Aeson]

For exmaple, if you travel to China, you have no right of free speech, becuase Chinese law does not grant you that right there.

I know you are arguing that there are rights above those the law gives. I think you are wrong. No such things as natural rights.

I have the right to free speech anywhere I go as long as I am still capable of speech. I may be imprisoned, have my tongue cut out, or killed for excersizing that right, but I still have it at this point.

I do not have a legal right to free speech, but I have a natural one endowed on me by evolution or God or whatever designed me to be capable of speech and non-conformity.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Add another layer... rights cannot exist without government.

and what gives the government power to give rights?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok
Oh no, I'm agreeing with GePap. Somebody mention God so we can settle into our accustomed pattern of bickering.

GOD SUCKS!

Happy?

and what gives the government power to give rights?

A monopoly in the legitimate use of violence.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Elok
Yeah, you seem to be defending yourself with a circular argument, saying that if we can't identify the source it must just appear, like some kind of stage magician. "As you can see, there is nothing in my left hand....nothing in my right....ABRACADABRA! Natural rights!"

Not at all.

I say that natural rights are derived from the laws of nature. I am born with vocal cords and a brain that allows me the right to speak what I will. At some point those things may be lost, but until they are I have that right. Agree with me about whether that qualifies as a right or not, it's not circular.

The circular logic in this thread is the argument that rights can only be defined legally, which is used to to prove that rights can only be defined legally.

Yah, that makes sense. What gives law the right to define rights? I say people, but Imran can't agree with this otherwise his argument is shot to hell, because those people wouldn't have had a government to give them the right to form that government until after they formed the government.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That would mean that the government (any of them) has no right to use their abilities

Government actions aren't based on 'rights'. Governments grant rights, they don't operate on the basis of them. Rights are given to people through law. Not all law gives rights, but rights cannot come about without law.

That right is inherited from people (who inherited that right from nature).

How did these people inherit any rights from nature? What, did the trees give people rights? If the people feel their 'rights' are being violated can they run to the ocean so they are protected?

I can create laws as far as I can enforce them.

Of course you can't. Laws can only be created in a governmental structure. Individuals are unable to create law.

I have the right to free speech anywhere I go as long as I am still capable of speech. I may be imprisoned, have my tongue cut out, or killed for excersizing that right, but I still have it at this point.

I do not have a legal right to free speech, but I have a natural one endowed on me by evolution or God or whatever designed me to be capable of speech and non-conformity.

If the government can imprision you or punish you for your action X, then you don't have a right to that action X. Simple as that.

Natural rights don't exist. If it can't be enforced, it ain't a right.

what gives the government power to give rights?

Governments have legal power over people. Rights come from laws. Those that hold lawmaking power hold rightmaking power. Sometimes it is on the basis of the 'people' (in democracies), but sometimes it is on the basis of power and fear (in dictatorships). It doesn't change the fact that the government is the only legitimate law making body.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Aeson
I do not have a legal right to free speech, but I have a natural one endowed on me by evolution or God or whatever designed me to be capable of speech and non-conformity.

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. Nature and evolution most certainly give you no rights whatsoever in any capacity.

Being capable of speech mean nothing-literaly. It is a meaningless attribute. Any meaning you give it it man-made. If a lion eats you, the Lion has not violated your rights-you have no rights when it comes to your relation with a lion out in the savanah.

[Imran Siddiqui]

those people wouldn't have had a government to give them the right to form that government

There is NO RIGHT NEEDED to form government!! I eat my food, there no right needed for me to eat my food. I simply do it and do not claim that I have exercised my right to eating! Rights simply exist in a legal framework. Saying it is circular is like saying that laws come from government is circular.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Aeson
I say that natural rights are derived from the laws of nature. I am born with vocal cords and a brain that allows me the right to speak what I will. At some point those things may be lost, but until they are I have that right. Agree with me about whether that qualifies as a right or not, it's not circular.

To repreat myself: that you are capable of speaking in no way means you have the right to speak. You just do. That is like you saying you have a right to defecate, or a right to sweat, or a right to process sucrose in your mitochondria, but that you lack the right to process celulose.

[GePap]

Well Imran, this is a new wall to drive up against-slightly different than the usual berz or DF wall.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Governments have legal power over people

so what gives them that power?

[Aeson]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
None of these 'rights' exist. You don't have a 'right' to revolution. You can revolt, of course, but you don't have right to (you could be put down).

You don't have a right to your own thoughts, you could be killed.

But I'm not dead, so right now I do have that right. We all die, so I guess you are saying even though the government tries to define the right for us to have "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that it isn't actually a right. No one has the right to life even by law according to you.

Everything changes eventually, that doesn't dictate that what we are and what we can do right now isn't what we are what we can do.

You don't have a right to die, you could be kept on machines living who knows how long.

Are you saying we have achieved clinical immortality?

Please, show us all where we can obtain this service. Freezing doesn't count cause you are technically dead, with just the hope of revival if the magic technology is developed due to less decomposition. Anyways, I define myself by my conscious (and subconscious) capacity. It's my right. When that's gone, do what you will with my body, but I'm not there.

None are rights. Simply because you can do something does not make it a right. Ability does not translate into right. As GePap said, you don't have a right to eat. You don't have a right to pee. You have the ability to do so, doesn't make it a right.

If ability doesn't translate into right, then why does inability translate into no right?

Individuals do not have the power of rightmaking authority. Legal rights are not seperate from 'rights'. They are one and the same. Natural rights do not exist. They are simply a fiction created by people disastifed by their government and wanting people to replace it one the writer likes better.

Ok, where is the power of rightmaking authority derived from then, if not from individuals?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


so what gives them that power?

A monopoly in the legitimate use of violence.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well Imran, this is a new wall to drive up against-slightly different than the usual berz or DF wall.

Yeah... just a bit different, but I wouldn't say all that much so .

so what gives them that power?

Well the creator of the government gave them a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, so that the legal structure could define rights and duties of individuals in within that legal structure. The creator himself could not do so, but the government structure could.