French Report Calls for Ban on Veil

[ulmont]

I have evidence that Jefferson made the same claim that you do, I don't have evidence to support your claim.

Unless of course Jefferson has been deified in your ontology, which I grant is fully within the realm of the possible.

Jefferson was only deified to the extent that he supported rights of persons.  To the extent he supported rights of states, his quotes are irrelevant.

[Slargos]

I have evidence that Jefferson made the same claim that you do, I don't have evidence to support your claim.

Unless of course Jefferson has been deified in your ontology, which I grant is fully within the realm of the possible.

Jefferson was only deified to the extent that he supported rights of persons.  To the extent he supported rights of states, his quotes are irrelevant.

I am beginning to grok. 

[Siege]

Why is Jaron still using that offensive and racist avatar.

[The Brain]

How is something offensive AND racist?

[Razgovory]

Why is Jaron still using that offensive and racist avatar.

Cause he's a troll.

[MadImmortalMan]

Some people just can't seem to clear the blurred line between rights and powers.

[Razgovory]

Some people just can't seem to clear the blurred line between rights and powers.

Kings and princes for one.

[grumbler]

I haven't argued that everything has rights. I have protested your notion that states cannot (and do not) have rights.

If states can have rights, anything can have rights.  States are in no way a unique phenomenon.  Whatever possesses the power to grant states their rights can be presumed to possess the power to grant rights to anything.

As for evidence on declarations of rights pertaining to societal structures rather than individuals, here is the UN declaration on the rights of "peoples"

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html

and on the rights of states

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r092.htm

C.  Rights and benefits
     5.   Every State has an equal right to conduct activities in the field of
international direct television broadcasting by satellite and to authorize
such activities by persons and entities under its jurisdiction.  All States
and peoples are entitled to and should enjoy the benefits from such
activities.  Access to the technology in this field should be available to all

States without discrimination on terms mutually agreed by all concerned.

Yes, these are "rights" like the http://www.jetblue.com/about/ourcompany/promise/index.html Jet Blue Customer Rights, which aren't rights at all, in that they can be withdrawn by the same authority that grants them.  We have all agreed that those kinds of "rights" exist - states have them, animals have them, customers have them... maybe even fire hydrants!

[grumbler]

You glossed over the writings of Thomas Jefferson several hundred years later, and the Treaty of Montevideo over a hundred years after that.

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)?

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

You're also applying a different standard with respect to the rights of humans (you asserted they come from their creator; to which I reply "show me that creator") and states.

Yes, precisely.  Unless you believe that the rights of states come from their creator?

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?

[grumbler]

I have evidence that Jefferson made the same claim that you do, I don't have evidence to support your claim.

Are you saying that you disagree with Jefferson?  What is your point here?

Unless of course Jefferson has been deified in your ontology, which I grant is fully within the realm of the possible.

Not in mine.  How about yours (because I grant you that such is entirely possible)?

[Slargos]

If states can have rights, anything can have rights.  States are in no way a unique phenomenon.  Whatever possesses the power to grant states their rights can be presumed to possess the power to grant rights to anything.

CAN have. Not must have. Nice strawman, though.

Are you seriously arguing that a ruler cannot bestow rights on whatever object or person he desires?

Law is a suggestion, gravity is not. This is the difference between "natural" rights and natural law.

Yes, these are "rights" like the http://www.jetblue.com/about/ourcompany/promise/index.html Jet Blue Customer Rights, which aren't rights at all, in that they can be withdrawn by the same authority that grants them.  We have all agreed that those kinds of "rights" exist - states have them, animals have them, customers have them... maybe even fire hydrants!

We are in agreement then, states can have rights, and indeed do have rights. I don't see why you continue arguing the subject. 

[Slargos]

Are you saying that you disagree with Jefferson?  What is your point here?

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.

Not in mine.  How about yours (because I grant you that such is entirely possible)?

I am rubber you are glue? 

[MadImmortalMan]

The assertion of natural rights is the foundation of modern law and the moral justification for representative democracy.

[Slargos]

The assertion of natural rights is the foundation of modern law and the moral justification for representative democracy.

I don't see where that is relevant to the discussion at hand, which is actually turning into two salient questions:

1. Can states have rights?

2. What makes natural rights natural?

"People have worn clothes for ages" has no relevance when questioning why they wear clothes in the first place.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

What kind of statements are you looking for?

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? 

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..