French Report Calls for Ban on Veil

[grumbler]

So you claim that there are rights which cannot be waived.

What if those rights have no remedy?

Did you just Slargos yourself?

[grumbler]

Did you just grumbler yourself? 

Nope.  You have pretty clearly Slargosed yourself with this misreading of my intent, though.

Broke FYP, btw.

FYP, btw.

[Slargos]

So you claim that there are rights which cannot be waived.

What if those rights have no remedy?

Did you just Slargos yourself?

I'm curious.

If a right without a remedy is no right, and there are rights which are inalienable but have no remedies, where does that place us?

[Slargos]

Did you just grumbler yourself? 

Nope.  You have pretty clearly Slargosed yourself with this misreading of my intent, though.

Broke FYP, btw.

FYP, btw.

I'm going to need a source for your claim that fire hydrants have no rights.

[The Minsky Moment]

So you claim that there are rights which cannot be waived.

What if those rights have no remedy?

I am not sure we are on the same page.

One can speak about rights in two senses - natural right and positive rights.  Natural rights are the kind of rights that Jefferson was talking about in ulmont's quotation -- they are rights that are assumed to exist to adhere to people by virtue of their being people.  Artificial entities like states and corporations, being non-natural, cannot be said to enjoy natural rights.  Natural rights are not necessarily rights in the sense I have been talking about because they can be theoretical and without remedy. 

Only where a remedy exists can one talk about positive rights.  The category of positive rights in turn breaks down into conditional rights and non-conditional or constitutional rights.  The former are rights that exist because the government choses to provide a remedy - such as the "right" to receive a public pension; they are conditional because if the government choses to revoke those entitlements, the individual citizen has to recourse other than petition and political advocacy.  Non-conditional or constitutional rights that the government cannot revoke and which carry remedies that the government is bound to obey.  It is these rights that the Declaration presumably means by inalienable - they are inalienable in the sense that the government cannot simply evade them through an act of ordinarily legislation or decree.

Either kind of positive right can be waivable or not, depending on the nature of the right and the circumstances. 

[grumbler]

I'm going to need a source for your claim that fire hydrants have no rights.

Then get used to the feeling of "need" - it is gonna last a long, long time. 

[grumbler]

I'm curious.

If a right without a remedy is no right, and there are rights which are inalienable but have no remedies, where does that place us?

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

...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.

[The Brain]

Discussing what a "right" is is just masturbation. Which is fine, I masturbate myself sometimes. But not on Languish.

[Slargos]

I'm going to need a source for your claim that fire hydrants have no rights.

Then get used to the feeling of "need" - it is gonna last a long, long time. 

Don't worry, I knew beforehand that you wouldn't be able to back up your claim. 

[Slargos]

So you claim that there are rights which cannot be waived.

What if those rights have no remedy?

I am not sure we are on the same page.

One can speak about rights in two senses - natural right and positive rights.  Natural rights are the kind of rights that Jefferson was talking about in ulmont's quotation -- they are rights that are assumed to exist to adhere to people by virtue of their being people.  Artificial entities like states and corporations, being non-natural, cannot be said to enjoy natural rights.  Natural rights are not necessarily rights in the sense I have been talking about because they can be theoretical and without remedy. 

Only where a remedy exists can one talk about positive rights.  The category of positive rights in turn breaks down into conditional rights and non-conditional or constitutional rights.  The former are rights that exist because the government choses to provide a remedy - such as the "right" to receive a public pension; they are conditional because if the government choses to revoke those entitlements, the individual citizen has to recourse other than petition and political advocacy.  Non-conditional or constitutional rights that the government cannot revoke and which carry remedies that the government is bound to obey.  It is these rights that the Declaration presumably means by inalienable - they are inalienable in the sense that the government cannot simply evade them through an act of ordinarily legislation or decree.

Either kind of positive right can be waivable or not, depending on the nature of the right and the circumstances.

If we're going to clarify the definition of "rights" then this discussion becomes much simpler, but I've mostly seen blanket statements so far.

Of course, I find your assertion about what a government can and cannot do to be completely ridiculous, but I guess that also depends on the definition of "can", doesn't it?

[Slargos]

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?

[grumbler]

Don't worry, I knew beforehand that you wouldn't be able to back up your claim. 

Since I wasn't making that claim, I knew it would need no backing up. 

[Slargos]

Don't worry, I knew beforehand that you wouldn't be able to back up your claim. 

Since I wasn't making that claim, I knew it would need no backing up. 

Of course you didn't, grumbler. It's convenient to always expect people to read your post in the literal fashion, but appeal to what you intended at your convenience. 

[grumbler]

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.

This is called argument by assertion.  Can you support this assertion with evidence, or are you just gonna leave it a naked personal opinion?

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

The government cannot "revoke" unalienable rights.  That is why they are called that.  Governments don't create them, either.  The rights exist independent of government.

Now, such rights are not unlimited, as we well know.  One can lose the protection of one's right to life by committing a crime for which just law imposes a death penalty, for instance, and one's freedom of speech does not protect falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.  These limits occur when one infringes upon another person's rights, though, not because one has violated some right of governments or states or whatever.

[grumbler]

Of course you didn't, grumbler.

Glad we cleared that up, then.  Be sure to let me know my writing exceeds your reading comprehension in the future, and I will be glad to again help you understand, Slargos