And if you look at history, this has been exactly the case. Rights have been defined almost entirely by the rich and powerful. Whether you like that or not doesn't change the facts. You seem to want to take your personal wishes and translate them into claims about reality and it doesn't work that way.Originally Posted by Ikari
The government, as an extension of the people, yes.As government holds monopoly of force these days, that makes them decider of rights.
So long as the people allow that to happen, yes. However, we do have founding documents that do grant certain rights to the citizenry that the government cannot simply eliminate by fiat. Those rights were established by the founding fathers and were validated by the citizens at the time when they voted to accept the Constitution. The idea that they were just writing down rights that already existed, no matter what they might have thought, is absurd.And thus if they declare a right non-existent, the right no longer exists.
There you go again, you're just asserting that these rights exist without actually demonstrating it. I keep asking you to demonstrate how you've come to these conclusions and you have entirely failed to do so. First, you'd need to produce an objective reason to think that these ethereal "rights" exist at all in any form, then you'd need to demonstrate why this particular set of rights, presumably "American rights" are the one and only set of rights that are actually real. To date, you've done neither, you've just repeated that it's the case. Stop claiming, start proving.The People absolutely have these certain rights, the government is made in part to protect and proliferate the exercise of these rights.
Whether or not they are absolute remains to be seen. At best, we can say we haven't found a situation so far where the thermodynamic laws aren't true, but we once thought the same thing about Newtonian physics and that didn't last forever. Science is provisional, it reflects only what we know today. As we learn more tomorrow, our current ideas are open for revision.But they are an absolute, they cannot be broken.
And when will you get around to presenting any of it?But there is plenty of qualitative evidence to suggest the existence and absolute nature or rights.
I, on the other hand, can back up everything I've said with history, sociology, cultural anthropology, etc.
Let me know when you find any objective support for your claim.
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
Ergo, you should have used the word speech nakedly, without the adjective.