It just doesn't work that way.
Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.
It's retarded to place such floppy definitions to rights as the use and evocation of rights are essential to understanding the basis of Republic. The People are in charge, why? Cause the government is our property, we own it, it derives all power from us, and if it does not work the way we like we have the right to get rid of it. But the "those with the guns" arguments wouldn't say that. Tyrannical government is fine because the tyrannical government is in the right (being the institute which can define and enforce such things). We can't get rid of it, it's not our right. It may be that rights were discovered phenomenologically, but it doesn't take away from their absolute nature.
Tell me, do you "believe" in the laws of thermodynamics? Can you show me where they are derived from?
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
As I've explain, rights are the limits on what the populace allows it's government to do.
Also, far too many people presume to confuse an entitlement with a right, such as education and healthcare.
In the real world, no one has a right to life, they're born with a death sentence. Their right to freedom of expression is nothing more than a curb on the power of government to shut them up.
Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 11-05-09 at 12:37 PM.
In the movie "Big Jake", John Wayne was perfectly content to stand off and watch the cattlemen hang the sheep herder...until one of them kicked the shepherd's boy. Then he went to interfere.
Standard human nature.