 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Social consensus and government entity invariable end up as the same thing... if not sooner than later. |
Only when governments are based on social consensus. Dictatorships are not based thus, and saying they will invariably come to that consensus is simply false.
quote:
I doubt that 'rights' existed in non-governmental societies. After all, who would enforce these 'rights'? The whole idea of rights requires an enforcement mechanism. |
They did, ask any anthropologist. I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about here. 
Enforcement of rights was handled collectively. For instance, in Germanic tribes, you had the blood feud as a particularly violent way of "enforcing" rights. The threat of initiating a blood feud was a potent way of keeping one respectful of the rights of others. It frequently failed, mind you, but it was still an example of the recognition of such rights.
quote:
To say the government was formed to protect the rights accepted by society is to misunderstand what rights are. 'Rights' which cannot be enforced aren't rights at all. |
I think you are the one under the misunderstanding of what a "right" is, not me. Rights supercede government recognition of them. You're confusing "right" with "legality," and they aren't the same.
quote:
And yet, you don't have the right to do something unless the government allows it. Social values in San Francisco could be one thing, but if the government says no, then you have no right to it. |
Again, you're confusing "right" and "legality." We as a society determine what is right and wrong, not the government. The government is solely a mechanism of enforcing laws, it determines nothing in terms of what is or isn't right. People do that. The Founding Fathers, when creating the Constitution, were not magically creating rights out of thin air. They were codifying what their society already believed were rights and had for which they had fought against English law several years beforehand.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Dictatorships are not based thus |
That is true... and in a dictorship, social consensus of rights are irrelevent. They won't be realized and the 'right' isn't given.
quote:
Enforcement of rights was handled collectively. For instance, in Germanic tribes, you had the blood feud as a particularly violent way of "enforcing" rights. The threat of initiating a blood feud was a potent way of keeping one respectful of the rights of others. |
So there was a governmental entity, ie, tribal laws. Tribes have governmental structures too you know? I think we may be confusing terms. I consider tribal councils, and any attempt at societal law making to be governing and thus run by a government. Perhaps in this case it is a direct democracy tribal form of government, but still government.
quote:
Rights supercede government recognition of them. You're confusing "right" with "legality," and they aren't the same. |
Rights are granted by government and thus are underthem. All 'Rights' must be legal. If something ain't legal, it ain't a right.
quote:
We as a society determine what is right and wrong, not the government. |
Actually the government decides what is right and wrong. In a democratic regime, society is the determiner (because it runs the government). In a dictatorship, the dictator determines what is right and wrong and society follow. If it doesn't like it, society can overthrow government and make up its own newer rights.
quote:
The Founding Fathers, when creating the Constitution, were not magically creating rights out of thin air. They were codifying what their society already believed were rights and had for which they had fought against English law several years beforehand. |
The Founding Fathers were taking the rights people already had under the England and also creating new rights from the writings and posings of others. After all, how many in the society believed a freedom of religion was a 'right'? Seeing has how many states had established Churches in 1789, I'd say not many.
quote:
the state is an artificial entity, as is nationality. |
As are rights.
Last edited by Imran Siddiqui on 12-03-2004 at 09:02
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-03-2004 07:57
.
|