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

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No he doesn't. B has the ability to kill A and C, but not the right to. No authority has given him the right to do so. In a situation with no authority, there exist no rights - no one can claim any right against another.

His strength is the authority and is derived from nature (or maybe from a gym). You keep using this same logic over and over to give the government authority! But when presented with a simple analogy you then refute the same idea.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But I'm not dead, so right now I do have that right.

No you have the ability to think, not the right to do so.

No one has the right to life even by law according to you.

All the 'right to life' means is that the government or others cannot take away your life without some due process.

Anyways, I define myself by my conscious (and subconscious) capacity. It's my right.

No it isn't .

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

Inability doesn't automatically translate into no right. It would be quite obvious that if you don't have the ability to do X, then you couldn't possibly have the right to do it.

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

From the government itself. The creation of a legal structure over individuals gives the structure (ie, government) the rightmaking (& lawmaking) authority. Individuals cannot do so by themselves, but only if they create a superstructure which is endowed with these powers. Basically, it is the creation of a entity which has more power than the sum of whole.

[Imran Siddiqui]

His strength is the authority and is derived from nature (or maybe from a gym). You keep using this same logic over and over to give the government authority! But when presented with a simple analogy you then refute the same idea.

The government's authority doesn't come from nature. It comes from the very basis of government. It is a superstructure that has more power than the sum of those who created it. Because of its far reaching power, it can do things above and beyond what every individual working together can do. It can create laws and rights, even though every individual taken together cannot.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Aeson
His strength is the authority and is derived from nature (or maybe from a gym). You keep using this same logic over and over to give the government authority! But when presented with a simple analogy you then refute the same idea.

Becuase your analogy is faulty.

The problem here is a simple one- you refuse to recognize the definition of right, and use this value-laden word to describe things that are valueless, or better yet, without value.

As long as you continue to use this word incorrectly, no real debate is possible.

[GePap]

"Government"-what si government? Last time I looked, I have never seen some inanimate object called "government" walking around-or maybe some bad spirit?

I am part of Government-so is AS. Government is people, government is a group of people. The "people" dichotomy is incorrect, since people make up government. The dichodomy is government vs. subject or citizen-both of which are roles people can play, as well as government.

[Aeson]

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

You know my definition of natural rights. You noticed by natural rights I am talking about abilities we have, and you're correct. I feel abilities are rights of their own. You don't agree with it, fine. But don't try to twist my words to mean something we both know I'm not saying.

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.

But I do have rights when it comes to my relation with a lion out in the savanah. They may not be effective in saving my life, but I still can use them. I don't have to sit there and let the lion eat me, he has his right to try to eat me, I have my right to try to stop him.

Why do you think rights must be effective and indestructible to be rights?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Aeson

Why do you think rights must be effective and indestructible to be rights?

I have already said, further debate with you is useless, sicne your definition of right, "I can do it so I have a right to it" is completely circular, and incorrect to boot.

As long as you missuse the word, real discussion is impossible.

[Boris Godunov]

First, let me make clear I am not arguing about "natural rights," which I don't believe exist. My argument is that rights are socially determined, not legally. Often what is legal coincides with what is considered a right, but even one example of something being considered a right that isn't legal by society is enough to contradict the notion that rights solely come from legal fiat. The only response I've seen to this is "No it doesn't!" sans any philosophical justification.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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.

This is just gainsaying without justification.

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

Gainsaying without justification.

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

No structure or legal code is necessary in primitive tribes of small population. It comes from popular consensus of belief, that's it. This is the core of where rights come from, which social attitudes towards certain behaviors. Governments are just complex machinery to enshrine those attitudes into law, but the laws do not dictate the attitudes.

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

Gainsaying without justification

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?

And if the government can't take it away, even though it is deemed illegal to do so, then what is your answer to that? I've not seen a coherent response. The only justification you've given for government making rights is that they have the ability to enforce the laws, but you've yet to explain why the reverse situation is somehow magically inoperable (when the social structure can disregard the law and can't be controlled by force).

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.

No, Imran, you're being dense. A powerful group can assert its rights without the government "changing its tune" if the government is impotent in terms of forcing its fiats. The laws still exist, but the government can't enforce them--so where are the rights now? In the hands of those with power, which in this case would be the people, not the government.

This is very much a discussion now

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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.

So government has no right to grant rights. They why do you refute the right of anyone to grant rights? Think of yourself as a government if you have to, grant rights to your shoe to go on your foot, then beat it mercilessly if it doesn't.

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?

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.

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

What about a one person government?

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.

I don't have a legal right of course.

Why is it so hard for you to see that the term right can be used in other ways? I showed the definition. I qualified my statement by saying I don't have a legal right. You can disagree there are other such rights, but I have defined natural right, the way I am using it, and you are not refuting that I have a "right" when using that definition of the term.

I say a natural right is something endowed on us by the manner we were born that allows us the right to perform certain actions. Regardless of what the consequences may be. Do you refute that I have the natural ability to speak my mind? You haven't tried to, you just keep trying to twist the word rights away from the meaning I am explicitly giving to it to mean something else, then refuting that.

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

And that's a natural right of those with power.

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.

People have legal power over governments as well. Legal rights come from laws.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It comes from popular consensus of belief, that's it. This is the core of where rights come from, which social attitudes towards certain behaviors. Governments are just complex machinery to enshrine those attitudes into law

The 'popular consensus of belief' is usually some legal structure. Tribes getting together in a coucil is a government. Without a legal structure (ie, a discontent group flaunting the law), rights don't enter the equation.

A powerful group can assert its rights without the government "changing its tune" if the government is impotent in terms of forcing its fiats. The laws still exist, but the government can't enforce them--so where are the rights now? In the hands of those with power, which in this case would be the people, not the government.

They don't have rights, because those aren't rights. They are extralegal power. Just because the mafia can kill someone, and the government can't do anything about it, doesn't mean the mafia has the right to. Do you think the mafia had the 'right' to kill people because the government couldn't touch them? That's just silly. If the US government says there is a right to life (ie, no right to kill people) and people do so and get away with it doesn't mean those people are excersizing their 'right to kill' which is contrary to what the government has granted.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So government has no right to grant rights.

Indeed. It doesn't need a right to grant rights. And I can't consider myself as government. It is something entirely different.

They were born a certain way. Some people have the right to walk

There is no right to walk, that is simply an ability.

Why is it so hard for you to see that the term right can be used in other ways?

Because it is wrong. Just as defining France as socialist is wrong.

Do you refute that I have the natural ability to speak my mind?

No, that's what I'm asserting. You have that ability, not the right.

People have legal power over governments as well.

Only when the government allows (soveriegn immunity and all that)

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The 'popular consensus of belief' is usually some legal structure. Tribes getting together in a coucil is a government. Without a legal structure (ie, a discontent group flaunting the law), rights don't enter the equation.

Usually, but not always, eh? Tribes having a consensus isn't any more of a "legal structure" than a family having an unspoken rule that nobody talks about the family business outside of the family. Within that family, one has an assumed "right to privacy," without any law needing to be issued.

They don't have rights, because those aren't rights. They are extralegal power. Just because the mafia can kill someone, and the government can't do anything about it, doesn't mean the mafia has the right to. Do you think the mafia had the 'right' to kill people because the government couldn't touch them? That's just silly. If the US government says there is a right to life (ie, no right to kill people) and people do so and get away with it doesn't mean those people are excersizing their 'right to kill' which is contrary to what the government has granted.

We're not talking about a minority such as the mafia getting away with murder even though the vast majority of society believes it to be wrong. We're not talking about individuals getting away with crimes. We're talking wholesale societal conflict with established law. If the society came to believe they had a right to kill, that notion gained near-universal acceptance and they were able to exercise it with impunity despite the government's legal prohibition, than you can rest assured there will be considered a "right to kill," whatever the law may dictate. It's likely that government will eventually come to reflect society's new value in this regard, but that's just proof that society dictates rights, not the government.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Usually, but not always, eh? Tribes having a consensus isn't any more of a "legal structure" than a family having an unspoken rule that nobody talks about the family business outside of the family. Within that family, one has an assumed "right to privacy," without any law needing to be issued.

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.

We're not talking about a minority such as the mafia getting away with murder even though the vast majority of society believes it to be wrong. We're not talking about individuals getting away with crimes. We're talking wholesale societal conflict with established law. If the society came to believe they had a right to kill, that notion gained near-universal acceptance and they were able to exercise it with impunity despite the government's legal prohibition, than you can rest assured there will be considered a "right to kill," whatever the law may dictate. It's likely that government will eventually come to reflect society's new value in this regard, but that's just proof that society dictates rights, not the government.

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

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GePap
That is the first definition: and what does it mention? The law, twice (legal, just), and based on morality (morally good, proper), and morality is defined by a society itself. For example, in Tenochtitlan, human sacrifice was "just, morally good, legal and proper". NOT in Madrid at the same time.

Just != legal. Justice and law are two different concepts, as the concept of what is "just" transcends legal definitions. Law is a means of achieving what is just, but they are not interchangeable. Otherwise, you'd have to believe there is no such thing as an unjust law.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Just != legal. Justice and law are two different concepts, as the concept of what is "just" transcends legal definitions. Law is a means of achieving what is just, but they are not interchangeable. Otherwise, you'd have to believe there is no such thing as an unjust law.

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.