French Report Calls for Ban on Veil

[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?

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.

A fascinating theory. If I were grumbler, I would demand that you put into evidence this outrageous claim, but I am not and I will not.

I wonder, however, if these rights still exist in a society that has no concept of them?

[Slargos]

"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.

This leaves me with more questions than it answered.

Since you don't specify, I presume your statement is valid for all rights, no matter how obscure.

Is it enough to be able to describe a right for it to become intransigent?

Could there be rights of which we are not fully aware?

Is the UN shock full of blubbering idiots since they speak of the rights of states all the time? Nevermind. Don't answer that one.

I'm going to assume that since you used very powerful analogies to the effect, you think your position on this subject is truth, and that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

Do you make no differentiation between legal and natural rights? I presume not, since you made it pretty clear that "natural rights" and "rights" are the same thing.

[grumbler]

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?

You seem to be having trouble coming up with the evidence for your argument that will show me how to evidence mine.

Please lead by example, and provide the kind of evidnce for your contention that you insist that i do for mine.  Then I will know what you are looking for.

Merely whining about the shortfalls you perceive in my evidence while refusing to provide any of your own is not argumentation, it is evasion.

Btw, you don't understand what a circular argument is, if you think an argument that appeals to a document is circular.  But educating yourself can await your provision of the example evidence.

[Neil]

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.

And that's why Locke's philosophy is fundamentally flawed.

[The Minsky Moment]

Is the UN shock full of blubbering idiots since they speak of the rights of states all the time? Nevermind. Don't answer that one.

I think you do understand the point after all.

[The Minsky Moment]

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

No I don't agree; in most cases these rights are so ingrained in the insitutional culture that they are respected and enforced as a matter of routine. 

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.

But legal action can only have impact if the executive respects what the courts say.  The fact that generally speaking such respect is given again indicates that recognition for individual rights is so deeply ingrained that those who govern feel compelled to restrain themselves.

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

But that itself is a existing and recognized limitation on rights (or perhaps more precisely, an exception on a limitaiton to executive power).

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.

We can presume it b/c the track record is there.  Of course there are exceptional situations where backsliding occurs (korematsu, HUAC) but historically the system always corrects itself and the incident comes to be remembered as a cautionary anomaly, not the rule.

[Slargos]

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?

You seem to be having trouble coming up with the evidence for your argument that will show me how to evidence mine.

Please lead by example, and provide the kind of evidnce for your contention that you insist that i do for mine.  Then I will know what you are looking for.

Merely whining about the shortfalls you perceive in my evidence while refusing to provide any of your own is not argumentation, it is evasion.

Btw, you don't understand what a circular argument is, if you think an argument that appeals to a document is circular.  But educating yourself can await your provision of the example evidence.

Now you're boring me, grumbler, though I suspect that this was your goal all along. I concede defeat. You win.

Your evidence is CLEARLY compelling, and your flawless argumentation has swayed me to change my opinion.

[Slargos]

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

No I don't agree; in most cases these rights are so ingrained in the insitutional culture that they are respected and enforced as a matter of routine. 

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.

But legal action can only have impact if the executive respects what the courts say.  The fact that generally speaking such respect is given again indicates that recognition for individual rights is so deeply ingrained that those who govern feel compelled to restrain themselves.

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

But that itself is a existing and recognized limitation on rights (or perhaps more precisely, an exception on a limitaiton to executive power).

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.

We can presume it b/c the track record is there.  Of course there are exceptional situations where backsliding occurs (korematsu, HUAC) but historically the system always corrects itself and the incident comes to be remembered as a cautionary anomaly, not the rule.

I certainly don't disagree with you. The US government appears to have a pretty solid record on these matters, and I don't doubt that your various government agents by and large act in accordance with the restrictions put on them.

I'm merely disagreeing with the assertion that it CANNOT happen.

This is a side track, however. The main point I am attempting to make is still the fact that rights are granted by social interaction. They are made, not discovered.

[grumbler]

Now you're boring me, grumbler, though I suspect that this was your goal all along. I concede defeat. You win.

Your evidence is CLEARLY compelling, and your flawless argumentation has swayed me to change my opinion.

My goal was to get you to provide even a shred of support for your arguments, and in that I failed.  I knew when you started on the personal attacks that you had no evidence, and that the harder and louder pressure you were exerting to get me to "improve" my evidence was a desperate attempt to deflect attention from the fact that you had provided none at all of your own (which was why i insisted on reciprocity).

Concession on your part is wise. Just don't try to twist this into me "declaring myself the winner." 

[grumbler]

This is a side track, however. The main point I am attempting to make is still the fact that rights are granted by social interaction. They are made, not discovered.

Do you have any evidence in support of this assertion?  Everyone would agree that some rights are so generated (e.g. the right to vote), but no one I know of but you would assert this for all rights.

[MadImmortalMan]

This leaves me with more questions than it answered.

Since you don't specify, I presume your statement is valid for all rights, no matter how obscure.

Is it enough to be able to describe a right for it to become intransigent?

Could there be rights of which we are not fully aware?

Is the UN shock full of blubbering idiots since they speak of the rights of states all the time? Nevermind. Don't answer that one.

I'm going to assume that since you used very powerful analogies to the effect, you think your position on this subject is truth, and that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

Do you make no differentiation between legal and natural rights? I presume not, since you made it pretty clear that "natural rights" and "rights" are the same thing.

Hmm.. Lessee--First, all of that must be considered IMO. I don't consider myself the final arbiter of all truth. 

I do make a distinction between legal rights and "natural" rights, yes. A person could have a "right" to something because it is contractually obligated to him. Though I would call it a power, technically, the word is used for that. Presumably there could be rights of which we are not aware, because IMO they spring into being as a result of different types of human interaction. So changes in technology that affect how people interact or whatever could bring "new" rights to the surface.

All of this is just my opinion, and I do "refine" it from time to time. I have put some thought into it.

[grumbler]

Hmm.. Lessee--First, all of that must be considered IMO. I don't consider myself the final arbiter of all truth. 

Glad  to see that Slargos gets to that "since you didn't explicitly state that your opinions are opinions, I assume you think you have the monopoly on truth" stage with your dissenting opinions as he does when the dissenting opinion is mine! 

[Slargos]

Now you're boring me, grumbler, though I suspect that this was your goal all along. I concede defeat. You win.

Your evidence is CLEARLY compelling, and your flawless argumentation has swayed me to change my opinion.

My goal was to get you to provide even a shred of support for your arguments, and in that I failed.  I knew when you started on the personal attacks that you had no evidence, and that the harder and louder pressure you were exerting to get me to "improve" my evidence was a desperate attempt to deflect attention from the fact that you had provided none at all of your own (which was why i insisted on reciprocity).

Concession on your part is wise. Just don't try to twist this into me "declaring myself the winner." 

:worship:

Your evidence is sparkling, and your argumentation is sublime. 

[Slargos]

Hmm.. Lessee--First, all of that must be considered IMO. I don't consider myself the final arbiter of all truth. 

I do make a distinction between legal rights and "natural" rights, yes.

Then why do you state that it's not necessary to call them natural rights, but merely rights?

A person could have a "right" to something because it is contractually obligated to him. Though I would call it a power, technically, the word is used for that. Presumably there could be rights of which we are not aware, because IMO they spring into being as a result of different types of human interaction. So changes in technology that affect how people interact or whatever could bring "new" rights to the surface.

So rights are "birthed" rather than discovered or made. Spectacular concept.

All of this is just my opinion, and I do "refine" it from time to time. I have put some thought into it.

Fair enough. 

[Slargos]

Hmm.. Lessee--First, all of that must be considered IMO. I don't consider myself the final arbiter of all truth. 

Glad  to see that Slargos gets to that "since you didn't explicitly state that your opinions are opinions, I assume you think you have the monopoly on truth" stage with your dissenting opinions as he does when the dissenting opinion is mine! 

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.

By this statement MIM makes it clear that he doesn't consider it an opinion, but rather Truth.

Don't let such a trifling thing as actual evidence get in your way of grand standing however.