Bleeding Head Ken

We know that Law (e.g. the Lex Mercatoria) can exist absent a state and since the Law can recognize or grant rights without being subject to state, then your theory that states are the only possible grantors or recognizers of rights is simply wrong.

Khayembii Communique

If the right to life isn't derived from the government, then from where is it derived? If the government protects the right, then why is it possible for the government to deny such rights, and since it is possible for the government to deny such rights, isn't this a proof of the origin of rights in government? You're only clouding the issue further. "Right" has yet to be defined in any substantial way.

The Lex Mercatoria didn't exist absent a state; it existed with the consent of the state, effectively making it state law and thereby co opting the merchant courts as bodies of the state.

Law cannot exist above or outside a means of enforcing it; the very existence of law depends on a body with which to enforce them. Because of this, law and state are inseparable.

Moreover, "law" cannot recognize or grant anything; government grants laws which you claim "recognize or grant rights".

Stinger

You know if you have to ask then I have to ask, are you a US citizen? If so did you not study US History or US Civics?

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.



No.

See above and read the Federalist Papers, you do know what they are don't you?


See above. And then search Lincoln quotes.


OK, so what?

Government enforces the laws we the people authorize it to enforce.

__________________
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Marcus Aurelius
Proud member of the Gang of Five, the gang that is always right!
No Personal Attacks, if you can't debate the issue go elsewhere.

Khayembii Communique

Claiming a right to be "self-evident" is just that; a claim. Now, define what you mean when you say "right". Go ahead and do it.

Great argument.

If "the people" are truly in charge of government. But that's certainly not true.

Stinger

Are you a US citizen and if so did you not study US History and US Civics?


Me>> No

It wasn't an argument it was a statement of fact.

My Quote:
Government enforces the laws we the people authorize it to enforce.
It's your "if" not mine. Ever heard of "of the people, by the people, for the people,"?

Our laws are not created by decree but by our representative process.

Khayembii Communique

Yes I study US history and know plenty about it.

No it wasn't it was you saying "no". There was no fact there.

Because if they say it then it must be true.

Stinger

But ignorant of the basic principle established by our founding document.



Yes it was me giving you a factual answer to your question, not a debate.



Established. It is established. What our founding fathers did was establish those principles into our charter of government. It is the basis of the government, the government is not the basis of those rights and principles. So YES that is true that is what our government is based on and it was reiterated by one of our greatest Presidents and it holds true today. Those are the right WE the PEOPLE do ordain and the government WE the PEOPLE establish cannot trample nor abridge them and answer to US the PEOPLE.

Khayembii Communique

You've gotta be either incredibly ignorant of how the American electoral process works, incredibly blinded by propaganda or incredibly stupid. My guess is all three.

Stinger

I think you have proven to be incredibly incapable of having a civil discourse nor demonstrating you have an idea of what you are talking about. Oh well.

mikhail

Havent your learnt by now Khayembii is an expert on every subject and if you disagree with him your stupid.Im surprised we havent just made him emperor of the world.

__________________
The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.