French Report Calls for Ban on Veil

[ulmont]

You are right.  Enlighten me.  According to Jefferson, from whence comes the rights of states, and where are those rights enumerated (insofar as they are enumerated)?

As to Jefferson, the rights of states were "natural rights," the same as the rights of persons.  There is no enumeration in the source I was looking at.

Ditto for tyhe Treaty of montevideo, where it differs from Jefferson.

The Treaty of Montevideo states that the rights arise from

the simple fact of [the state's] existence as a person under international law.

The enumeration is

the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

I have no problem having different standards for the rights of persons and non-persons.  Do you have a problem with that?  Or do you think that whatever agency you imagine grants rights to humans could as easily grant those same rights to fire hydrants?

I have difficulty imagining what agency could grant rights to humans but not to fire hydrants, yes.

[MadImmortalMan]

Edit:

Never mind. I don't have the patience today.

[Slargos]

What kind of statements are you looking for?

To begin with, the kind that at least attempts to define what they mean rights are. Grumbler asserts that states do not (and later cannot) have rights, but later admits that they do have rights but that said rights are not rights at all. That's a very interesting set of assertions.

I am puzzled by this response; there are very practical limitations on what governments cannot do in consitutional democracies.  For example, if an official of the state seizes me without charge for a certain time, I am entitled to get a writ (a command) from a judge and the official is bound to obey it.  This is not mere theory - such events happen all the time, even when the government of the time is very much against it.  The fact that the last US administration -- which had very definitive ideas of their own power - honored a court writ issued on behalf of suspected terrorist and enemy of the state where the administration firmly believed the writ lacked any proper basis - illustrates that assertions about what governments can and can't do are far from idle talk..

They are only theoretical limitations insofar as they need to be tested each and every time an infraction occurs.

Any government which has a (near-)monopoly on the use of force can through its agents do just about anything, though of course there will always be consequences, be they legal action or insurgency.

Under the right circumstances, ordinary judicial process can in addition be suspended, such as for instance during war.

Note that the operative term here is "can". Rights are only valuable as long as they are being protected. We can presume and expect that the US government will generally act according to the constitution, but we can't know that it will.

[grumbler]

Very much so. That is not the subject at hand, however. You were asked to bring evidence for the existence of natural rights, and you have thus far only been able to quote someone else also making an assertion. 

You asked for evidence, you got it.  Let us see your evidence, now. 

You do have some, do you not?

I am rubber you are glue? 

How original!   

[Slargos]

You asked for evidence, you got it.  Let us see your evidence, now. 

Calling it evidence doesn't automagically make it evidence.

Unless of course you think that since I didn't specify "compelling evidence" you could just throw in whatever.

But I guess if you continue this back and forth long enough I will tire of it, and you can declare yourself winner.

How original!   

It wasn't supposed to be. I was illustrating the level to which you've sunk, yet by the looks of the shovel in your hands, you are intent on excavation? 

[Slargos]

I'm going out on a limb here, but are you saying that since the concept of natural rights exists, therefore natural rights exist (regardless of what one wishes to define them as)?

I guess I can go so far as to agree on that point, though that kind of nit picking would possibly be the worst kind of obtusity I've seen on this board since I can remember.

[ulmont]

Any government which has a (near-)monopoly on the use of force can through its agents do just about anything, though of course there will always be consequences, be they legal action or insurgency.

That's a "monopoly on the *legitimate* use of force inside its borders."  You might say the state has the sole right to legitimately use force inside its borders...

[Slargos]

Any government which has a (near-)monopoly on the use of force can through its agents do just about anything, though of course there will always be consequences, be they legal action or insurgency.

That's a "monopoly on the *legitimate* use of force inside its borders."  You might say the state has the sole right to legitimately use force inside its borders...

A fair contention given the level of precision evidently necessary to discuss even the most mundane of subjects with certain individuals.

[grumbler]

The Treaty of Montevideo states that the rights arise from

the simple fact of [the state's] existence as a person under international law.

The enumeration is

the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

I have no problem having different standards for the rights of persons and non-persons.  Do you have a problem with that?  Or do you think that whatever agency you imagine grants rights to humans could as easily grant those same rights to fire hydrants?

I have difficulty imagining what agency could grant rights to humans but not to fire hydrants, yes.

Ah, you mean the Montevideo Convention!  I was wondering where you were getting this stuff from!  The "Treaty of Montevideo" search takes one to the 1980s free trade zone treaty.

Having looked through this treaty, I would agree that its "rights" are on the same level as those of humans (ie they are unlimited except where they run up against other states' rights) but it is also clear to me why this is not accepted in general international law.

However, I would also argue that these rights are merely powers, called rights.  I know it says that this is untrue, and that states have rights because they are people under the law, but I am not persuaded.

So, I will maintain that sttates do not have rights (especially given that the convention that grants them rights is signed by only 20 of the 160-some states of the world), but concede that you have grounds to believe otherwise.  Just as you have grounds to believe that US Actions against Germany and Japan in WW2 were illegal, since that is also declared by this same document ("The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily").

That is quite a pill to swallow.

[grumbler]

Calling it evidence doesn't automagically make it evidence.

Okay, Show me by example.

Unless of course you think that since I didn't specify "compelling evidence" you could just throw in whatever.

Okay, then make your example compelling (more compelling than the Declaration of Independence.... )

But I guess if you continue this back and forth long enough I will tire of it, and you can declare yourself winner.

If you provide the compelling evidence as an example, I will be duly inspired by your genius and follow suit.

So for you have not presented even non-compelling evidence.

It wasn't supposed to be. I was illustrating the level to which you've sunk, yet by the looks of the shovel in your hands, you are intent on excavation? 

  I dunno what this means, but when you start in on the personal attacks we are seldom far from the end, so... whatever.

[Slargos]

Calling it evidence doesn't automagically make it evidence.

Okay, Show me by example.

Unless of course you think that since I didn't specify "compelling evidence" you could just throw in whatever.

Okay, then make your example compelling (more compelling than the Declaration of Independence.... )

But I guess if you continue this back and forth long enough I will tire of it, and you can declare yourself winner.

If you provide the compelling evidence as an example, I will be duly inspired by your genius and follow suit.

So for you have not presented even non-compelling evidence.

It wasn't supposed to be. I was illustrating the level to which you've sunk, yet by the looks of the shovel in your hands, you are intent on excavation? 

  I dunno what this means, but when you start in on the personal attacks we are seldom far from the end, so... whatever.

Again, and I'm working under the assumption that you're not just having a laugh:

You claim the existence of natural rights. Your evidence to support this claim is a document that claims the existence of natural rights. Circle argument much?

[MadImmortalMan]

"Natural" is just a term commonly used to describe it. Call it what you want, but the impossibility of being granted is one of the defining properties of a right. Therefore the question of who grants rights is inoperative. It has no factual answer because it is dependent on a non-factual premise. You may as well ask why the sun revolves around the earth or why mammals lay eggs.

Rights are not a thing. They are a consequence of the existence of free will and human interaction. They are a description of the state of a relationship between an individual and his peers wherein the individual always maintains the power of refusal. Rights cannot be given because the power of refusal can be exercised at any time. Regardless of the threat or consequences, any being who has the ability to withhold compliance maintains rights. They aren't "natural" because they don't exist if the individual has no peers to whom he can lend his compliance. They only exist in a social context.

States can't have rights because rights cannot be given and a state has no will of its own. A state owes its existence to a large number of individuals lending their compliance to each other. This gives the state powers. But the individuals cannot divest themselves of their power to withhold compliance, even if they wanted to. Therefore the actual rights are never transferred.

[ulmont]

A state owes its existence to a large number of individuals lending their compliance to each other. This gives the state powers. But the individuals cannot divest themselves of their power to withhold compliance, even if they wanted to.

The Late Unpleasantness tends to disprove this theory.

[MadImmortalMan]

A state owes its existence to a large number of individuals lending their compliance to each other. This gives the state powers. But the individuals cannot divest themselves of their power to withhold compliance, even if they wanted to.

The Late Unpleasantness tends to disprove this theory.

Do not question the Mad Immortal Theory of the Rights of Man. You can take it to the bank and put it in your safe deposit box--right next to the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory. 

[jimmy olsen]

I am not sure what you mean by "without remedy."

I think I'm making myself pretty clear. A right revoked by the government is gone. The remedies in place to guarantee it are gone. There is no moral continuum where rights exist in a limbo of precious morality.

...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...

There is your remedy.

And when a government revokes rights, and the people fail to alter or abolish it, what happens to those rights?

Governments cannot grant rights, nor take them away.That's not how the Lockean liberal philosophy of the Founders works. Even if the government infringes upon a right, that does not mean the right does not continue to exist. If there was a coup and an Orwelian communist police state imposed, the human rights to life, liberty and property still continue to exist no matter how many people are being shot or thrown in the gulag.