12-03-2004 14:31									#61
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

good point mindseye

	12-03-2004 19:28									#62
	Remove this text

Hmm. Government is an artificial construct, yes, but then so is the society that "rights" might proceed from. Why do they *absolutely* exist as something more than an abstraction, like etiquette or dietary habits?

	12-03-2004 20:15									#63
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

omg, it's the libertarian "rights exist because I say so" argument all over again. Be strong, Imran.

	12-03-2004 20:30									#64
	Suffering from ads?

You're all missing the point. The real issue of this thread isn't if gay marriage is correct or not. The issue is if you believe that a person who controls the machinery of governement has the right to engage in civil disobedience. I don't.

	12-03-2004 20:32									#65
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Government has absolutely no power without the backing of people. In fact it doesn't even exist with no people to back it. As such it can't define rights, only people can. If they define these rights through government, then so be it, but government isn't the driving force. Government isn't the only way to define rights.

Each individual defines their own set of rights that they wish for themselves and are willing to allow others. Then those with the strength (either internal or through orgainization with others) to enforce those rights dictate what is acceptable behavior and what will be punished. Even then each individual still has the right to ignore those boundaries and face the consequences (or overturn the system). Yes, this definition and policing tends to be done through government in most cases, but it still doesn't change the underlying nature of government.

Government is there to serve the will of people. Not the majority numerically, but the majority from a power/influence/will standpoint.

	12-03-2004 20:44									#66
	Suffering from ads?

quote: The issue is if you believe that a person who controls the machinery of governement has the right to engage in civil disobedience. I don't.

I do. Any citizen can engage in civil disobedience unless their oath of office forbids it. NOW, as far as mayors marrying gay couples- if they are doing it becuase they interpret the law one way-that is fine up and until a court finds against them-once the courts have ruled their interpretation of the law is wrong, they can not continue to act, given that their oaths of office forbid them from breaking the law.

Back to GM:

The only reason I hear for gays to be treated fundamentally different is that by definition a gay couple can not procreate, and thus, without a third party is unable to biologically initiate a family:

There are 4 main objections for me to this:

1. The ones Ming always bring up about those who are infertile marrying

2.Once a marriage has gone beyond having children, what is the point of it then?

3. Why do only biological families count? gays can adopt and raise children unwated by others or orphaned

4. Polygamous and Polyandrous marriages are just fine for procreation and beginning new families-what is the arguement vs them?

	12-03-2004 20:54									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by GePap quote: The issue is if you believe that a person who controls the machinery of governement has the right to engage in civil disobedience. I don't. I do. Any citizen can engage in civil disobedience unless their oath of office forbids it. NOW, as far as mayors marrying gay couples- if they are doing it becuase they interpret the law one way-that is fine up and until a court finds against them-once the courts have ruled their interpretation of the law is wrong, they can not continue to act, given that their oaths of office forbid them from breaking the law.

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui A precedent may be set that if certain localities don't agree with a law they can try to ignore it and wait for it to be vindicated by the courts. The nullification argument, which we though was struck down by Andy Jackson and the Civil War seems to be back... and it could be a very scary thing (imagine a city that decides the assault weapons ban is violating the 2nd amendment, etc).

	12-03-2004 21:01									#68
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Ignoring a law and interpreting a law differently are, well, distinct.

IF the state constituion fails to say ; "marriage is only between one man and one woman", or if it has clauses saying "the state shall treat all citizens equally", then a locality can always argue:

Given that the state does not explicitly prohibit homosexual marriages AND it calls for equal treatment for all individual under the law, then why can;t we issue same sex marriages as the civil authority?

	12-03-2004 21:42									#69
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Azazel omg, it's the libertarian "rights exist because I say so" argument all over again. Be strong, Imran.

That's not my argument, my argument is that Imran is being silly by saying rights derive from the government. They don't, they derive from the people.

A perfect example of where Imran's "logic" breaks down is that he asserts that the people have no right that the government can forcibly deny them. But what about then the government is toothless and can't enforce the laws? If the people have the power to assert a right and the government is powerless to stop them, even though the said right is technically "illegal," then the notion that government determines rights falls flat on its face.

We have copious examples from history of the people asserting rights against government fiat, and the people winning out. Ergo, the "might makes right" argument flips to the people having the might, not the government. And that means government itself does not determine rights. It merely embodies them, when the government happens to converge with the societal concepts of rights.

Rights are not just legal concepts, as any dictionary will tell you, as they also embody more ephemeral concepts of justice and morality. Government does not determine right and wrong in a societal sense, it simply does its best (in cases of popularly-mandated governments) to embody what society already believes into a civil code. A good example of this is lying. But it's only illegal in very strict circumstances, such as perjury or fraud. Someone going around telling white lies isn't breaking any laws. Yet it is immoral to lie in our society, (almost) anyone will tell you that. So wherein does the morality derive, if not from the government? Society, simple as that.

	12-03-2004 21:46									#70
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Of course righst stem from the government, or better said, the legal system we built. "The People" did not extend civil rights, the government did. "The people" can be selfish, biggoted, racist, a hunrded other things- rights are not based on the passing opinions of passing individuals, but form the general system created to uphold and perpetuate the system.

	12-03-2004 22:23									#71
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: rights are called natural rights, because they arnt artificial, they exist for everyone.

Really? Who gave these 'natural rights'?

quote: A perfect example of where Imran's "logic" breaks down is that he asserts that the people have no right that the government can forcibly deny them. But what about then the government is toothless and can't enforce the laws? If the people have the power to assert a right and the government is powerless to stop them, even though the said right is technically "illegal," then the notion that government determines rights falls flat on its face.

Even if the government cannot stop certain people from doing things, which they say are their 'right', it doesn't mean that the people have actually asserted a right. As GePap said, the govenment/legal system we have created is the ONLY way rights can come into being. Anything else (groups asserting they have a 'right' to X) is simply the opinion of certain people.

quote: We have copious examples from history of the people asserting rights against government fiat, and the people winning out.

And the 'right' did not exist until the people won out... until the government acknowledged and granted said right. Before then, the people wanted the government to grant the right... if the government crushed the mob, then would that right have been said to exist? Probably not.

quote: rights are not based on the passing opinions of passing individuals, but form the general system created to uphold and perpetuate the system.

Indeed

A few individuals clamoring that they have a 'right' to X doesn't make it a right. When the government/legal system enshrines it, THEN, and only then does it become a right.

	12-03-2004 22:50									#72
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Even if the government cannot stop certain people from doing things, which they say are their 'right', it doesn't mean that the people have actually asserted a right.

This contradicts what you said earlier. You asserted that the reason government determined rights was via force, i.e. if you can't resist the government's compelling you, you don't have the right.

Again, this argument fails when one considers a people asserting a right successfully that the government has contradicted with law but is powerless to enforce. If you believe that government determines rights via force, you have to be consistent and say the people have the same power. When you acknowledge that, it's clear rights don't therefore derive from the government.

quote: As GePap said, the govenment/legal system we have created is the ONLY way rights can come into being. Anything else (groups asserting they have a 'right' to X) is simply the opinion of certain people.

And this is wrong, as government is just ONE method which societies have established a protection of rights THEY ALREADY BELIEVED EXISTED. Primitive tribes with no form of government or legal code still had acknowledged rights of their peoples, because their society said so.

quote: And the 'right' did not exist until the people won out... until the government acknowledged and granted said right. Before then, the people wanted the government to grant the right... if the government crushed the mob, then would that right have been said to exist? Probably not.

And this is simply a twisting of the definition of the word "right" to mean what is legal, which is not the true definition. It is not solely confined to what is legal, it also encompasses what is traditional, moral and just, and these are social values, not governmental.

This is just devolving into a "uh-huh, nun-huh" argument, as usual, because you're standing by a false definition of the word.

quote: A few individuals clamoring that they have a 'right' to X doesn't make it a right. When the government/legal system enshrines it, THEN, and only then does it become a right.

We're not talking about a few individuals, we're talking about a majority of society. This is just a strawman.

	12-03-2004 22:53									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: As GePap said, the govenment/legal system we have created is the ONLY way rights can come into being. Anything else (groups asserting they have a 'right' to X) is simply the opinion of certain people.

And the government determined rights are different how? The government is only a tool for the people (read: "groups asserting they have a 'right' to X) to define rights for people.

Easiest way to understand the concept is to imagine a hypothetical government with no people, derived from no input by the people, and see how many rights it dictates to the people. Rights are inherently derived from the opinion of the people, regardless of the system they develop to protect and enforce those rights.

	12-03-2004 23:03									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: You asserted that the reason government determined rights was via force, i.e. if you can't resist the government's compelling you, you don't have the right.

The 'i.e' is incorrect. You don't have the right unless the government sanctions it. Plenty of 'rights' aren't compelling rights, but empowering rights.

quote: one considers a people asserting a right successfully that the government has contradicted with law but is powerless to enforce.

Then it isn't a right. The people cannot assert a right without government backing... sorry.

quote: Primitive tribes with no form of government or legal code still had acknowledged rights of their peoples, because their society said so.

'Because their society said so' indicates a governmental structure or legal code. Who decided these 'rights'? A council? Isn't that a governmental structure?

quote: And this is simply a twisting of the definition of the word "right" to mean what is legal, which is not the true definition.

Rights are only legal creatures. They do not exist outside the law.

quote: This is just devolving into a "uh-huh, nun-huh" argument, as usual, because you're standing by a false definition of the word.

The 'false definition' is to believe that rights exist without government sanction. There is no right to free speech unless the government says you have it. There is no right to life unless the government grants it to you. If the government can take away what you consider your 'rights' then it isn't really a right at all, is it?

quote: we're talking about a majority of society.

And if they don't have power over the government, then they can't assert rights. The only way they can assert rights is if they get the government to change its tune.

quote: The government is only a tool for the people (read: "groups asserting they have a 'right' to X) to define rights for people.

Ah, so you admit that government defines rights. GOOD, you are on the correct part .

quote: Rights are inherently derived from the opinion of the people

Only those people in charge... ie, the government. And there is NO inherent rights. They are simply legal creations. No one is born with inherant rights.. they only get them because of what their government has given them. For example, a child in the US has more rights than a child in China.

	12-03-2004 23:20									#75
	Put an end to popups!

The "right" not to be enslaved was not given by the people but by one government-and what was the legitimacy of that action? The legitimacy was granted by the pre-existing system
If people have a problem with the word government, the fact is then that The Legitimate Legal Authority, be ithighly structured or not, is what gives rights. Without a Legitimate Legal Authority, there are no rights. Put three starngers together-you know what, until they get together, created a Legitimate Legal Authority amng themselves, there are no rights there.

	12-03-2004 23:30									#76
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: You asserted that the reason government determined rights was via force, i.e. if you can't resist the government's compelling you, you don't have the right. The 'i.e' is incorrect. You don't have the right unless the government sanctions it. Plenty of 'rights' aren't compelling rights, but empowering rights. quote: one considers a people asserting a right successfully that the government has contradicted with law but is powerless to enforce. Then it isn't a right. The people cannot assert a right without government backing... sorry. quote: Primitive tribes with no form of government or legal code still had acknowledged rights of their peoples, because their society said so. 'Because their society said so' indicates a governmental structure or legal code. Who decided these 'rights'? A council? Isn't that a governmental structure? quote: And this is simply a twisting of the definition of the word "right" to mean what is legal, which is not the true definition. Rights are only legal creatures. They do not exist outside the law. quote: This is just devolving into a "uh-huh, nun-huh" argument, as usual, because you're standing by a false definition of the word. The 'false definition' is to believe that rights exist without government sanction. There is no right to free speech unless the government says you have it. There is no right to life unless the government grants it to you. If the government can take away what you consider your 'rights' then it isn't really a right at all, is it? quote: we're talking about a majority of society. And if they don't have power over the government, then they can't assert rights. The only way they can assert rights is if they get the government to change its tune. quote: The government is only a tool for the people (read: "groups asserting they have a 'right' to X) to define rights for people. Ah, so you admit that government defines rights. GOOD, you are on the correct part . quote: Rights are inherently derived from the opinion of the people Only those people in charge... ie, the government. And there is NO inherent rights. They are simply legal creations. No one is born with inherant rights.. they only get them because of what their government has given them. For example, a child in the US has more rights than a child in China.

Holy parsing, Batman. Imran is become Berserker.

-Arrian

	12-03-2004 23:31									#77
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Sorry... I'll behave.

	12-03-2004 23:33									#78
	Inflate your Upload Space

Excessive parsing is for the weak!

	12-03-2004 23:55									#80
	Got spare money?

Whining about debate methods is for the witless.

	12-03-2004 23:57									#81
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Whining about debate methods is for the witless.

Don't talk badly about yourself DD..

You need some more self-confidence there..

Maybe if you ran a better coffee shop...

	13-03-2004 01:00									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Huh...Boris, are you arguing for moral principles in accordance with the mob mentality?

	13-03-2004 01:38									#83
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Ah, so you admit that government defines rights. GOOD, you are on the correct part .

Your reading comprehension is very poor, or you are trolling. I said that people define rights and can use government as a tool to do so. This does not mean they have to use government to do so. It certainly does not mean that the government defines the rights.

Your interpretation of that statement is akin to equating "The hammer builds a house" to "The builder applies the hammer to build a house" to "The hammer designed the house". They are not the same statements. I hope you can see why.

quote: Only those people in charge...

Yes, which I mentioned before. Those with the ability to enforce their opinion of what should be rights define rights in a legal sense. They still do not define rights on a personal level or to take it a step further, the natural level. As such they do not define rights altogether.

Defining rights on a personal level is an inherent right to consciousness, to define your own opinion. If that opinion differs from the 'accepted' then they may or may not have the ability to act upon that opinion. If they can act on that opinion, have they become the government? Because they are defining their rights in that moment.

quote: And there is NO inherent rights.

Show me the government mandate that allows you to breath. Show me a government mandate that allows people to break the law. You can't deny that people break the law, so they are asserting an inherent right of their capacity to act against what they don't agree with when doing so. It's obviously a contested right, and usually one that will be punished, but still a right.

You are arguing that natural rights don't exist, but then assuming a natural right (which doesn't exist) for government that gives them (as an entity not dependant on people) the right to define all rights. Can you see how convoluted the logic is? You are applying 'God' logic to government. At least in theology they give God the ability to transcend time and space.

Governments are not eternal entities with these Godlike capabilities. As such they were created at some point. If only government can define rights, then who or whatever formed the government could have no right to do so. The government didn't exist to give the right for it's own creation, yet it still was created? That means there must be some other form of right which is not dependant on government definition of rights.

quote: They are simply legal creations. No one is born with inherant rights.. they only get them because of what their government has given them. For example, a child in the US has more rights than a child in China.

You are using "rights" as in "legal rights" which is not the definition of "rights". One is a term limited in scope, the other is not qualified at all. I understand what you are saying, you just aren't phrasing it correctly. Use the proper terms and I'll agree with you. (it still won't make your arguments applicable to my statements though)

	13-03-2004 01:43									#84
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia no, rights are called natural rights, because they arnt artificial, they exist for everyone.

elijah, please come here and give LoA a nice lecture about moral relativism...

	13-03-2004 02:01									#85
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: This does not mean they have to use government to do so.

Of course they do. Without government or a legitimate legal authority, as GePap so eloquently put it, there exists no rights. You don't have rights outside of government granting.

Can you name a single right that you have which the government has not given you?

quote: Defining rights on a personal level is an inherent right to consciousness, to define your own opinion. If that opinion differs from the 'accepted' then they may or may not have the ability to act upon that opinion. If they can act on that opinion, have they become the government? Because they are defining their rights in that moment.

They can only act on the opinion of what the 'rights' are if government has given them that power to do so. An invidual claiming he has a 'right' to something absent government sanction does not have a right to what he is claiming. He may believe that he SHOULD have a right to X, but without the government saying he does, it is simply a value judgment and X isn't a right at all.

quote: Show me the government mandate that allows you to breath. Show me a government mandate that allows people to break the law. You can't deny that people break the law, so they are asserting an inherent right of their capacity to act against what they don't agree with when doing so. It's obviously a contested right, and usually one that will be punished, but still a right.

Well there is no inherant 'right' to breathe... ie, right to life. The government can take it away if it pleases. There is no 'right' to break the law. You get punished if you do so. If you had a right to do it, you wouldn't be punished.

quote: a natural right (which doesn't exist) for government that gives them (as an entity not dependant on people) the right to define all rights.

It is no natural right for the government to give rights, it is simply how society works. Government has the power and thus can tell you what rights exist and do not exist. All rights are legal powers. Without some government legal powers do not exist.

quote: If only government can define rights, then who or whatever formed the government could have no right to do so.

Not until the government was created. Being that rights can only flow from law, something has to be in effect to create law. Government is that entity. Individuals cannot creat law by themselves.

And there is no 'right' needed to create government. I have never heard of this 'right to create government'. Is it like the right of free speech and right to property? Rights are legal powers given to individuals by the power broker in society. Creating a government requires no rights because the creation isn't a legal power. In fact, before creation of government, legal powers cannot exist. People came together to create governmental structures in order for rights and duties to be formed. Before government, no rights.

quote: You are using "rights" as in "legal rights" which is not the definition of "rights".

Of course it is. Rights don't exist outside of law or some lawmaking authority. That IS the proper terminology.

	13-03-2004 02:13									#86
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by GePap If people have a problem with the word government, the fact is then that The Legitimate Legal Authority, be ithighly structured or not, is what gives rights. Without a Legitimate Legal Authority, there are no rights.

I disagree that there are no rights until they are defined in a legal sense. I'd argue the opposite, that defining rights legally is actually defining restrictions on rights and/or giving precidence to one right over another. The rights necessarily exist before the definition of these legal rights as the legal process evaluates the rights before setting up the right hierarchy. You can't sort, order, allow, and disallow things which don't exist.

I would argue the same thing against my statements about people defining rights too... but it seems a bit too far off topic. (causal/probability/freewill stuff)

quote: Put three starngers together-you know what, until they get together, created a Legitimate Legal Authority amng themselves, there are no rights there.

If A, B, and C are in a room, they each have the right to act within their ability until an "agreement" is reached to limit their actions. How could they ever reach an agreement if they didn't have the right to speak their minds, accept or disagree with each other, or even physically exist and function?

You could say that A, B, and C all have personal authority (right to attempt to act and think, and temporarily exist), nature has physical authority (by themselves or together A, B, and C can't define the right for a person to defy gravity), and any agreement between A, B, and C has social or legal authority. Nature is the one which isn't dependant though. Personal authority relies on natural authority allowing it to exist and social authority relies on some combination of A, B, and C to exist, thus is indirectly dependant upon nature as well.

Without the natural rights the derived rights could not exist on a personal or social level. if life never formed, we wouldn't have any rights except the right to not exist.

Without A, B, and C, the social rights could not exist. There would be no one to form the society.

	13-03-2004 02:17									#87
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: they each have the right to act within their ability until an "agreement" is reached to limit their actions. How could they ever reach an agreement if they didn't have the right to speak their minds, accept or disagree with each other, or even physically exist and function?

They don't have these rights actually. B could decide he's stronger than A and C and enslave or kill them both. A & C had no rights, especially not to speak their minds, because B could shut them up if he wanted to. Only when A, B, & C agreed that they had a 'right' to speak their minds did they get that right. Before that, it was an anything goes situation where anyone else could easily prevent free speech (a 2x4 to the head is effective to stop that).

	13-03-2004 02:19									#88
	Got spare money?

quote: If A, B, and C are in a room, they each have the right to act within their ability until an "agreement" is reached to limit their actions. How could they ever reach an agreement if they didn't have the right to speak their minds, accept or disagree with each other, or even physically exist and function?

Like all people who argue for natural rights, you use the wrong terminology.

What right to speak heir minds? RIGHTS exist only within a legal framework. You do have the ABILITY to do things. Do you have a right to eat? Silly question. You have the ability to eat, and insofar as society states that you can not be killed except by the authorities under some given circumstance or someone as self-defense, no one but the state could purposely starve you. BUt again, they can not starve you becuase the system gives you a right to live, not becuase you have an innate right to eat. You do have the ability to eat-but ability and right are not the same thing.

IN this example, each person has the ability to speak, the ability to listen, the ability to reason, and the ability to agree or disagree. Until all three agree on a framework, none of them have a right to anything whatsoever, becuase without a framework of rules, there is nothing that can be called a legitimate legal authority, and hence no possibility of rights.

	13-03-2004 02:26									#89
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Of course it is. Rights don't exist outside of law or some lawmaking authority. That IS the proper terminology.

quote: right n. 1. That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting. 2. a. The direction or position on the right side. b. The right side. c. The right hand. d. A turn in the direction of the right hand or side. 3. often Right a.The people and groups who advocate the adoption of conservative or reactionary measures, especially in government and politics. Also called right wing. b. The opinion of those advocating such measures. 4. Sports. A blow delivered by a boxer's right hand. 5. Baseball. Right field. 6. a. Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature. b. Something, especially humane treatment, claimed to be due to animals by moral principle. 7. A just or legal claim or title. 8. a. A stockholder's privilege of buying additional stock in a corporation at a special price, usually at par or at a price below the current market value. b. The negotiable certificate on which this privilege is indicated. c. A privilege of subscribing for a particular stock or bond. Often used in the plural.

6a and possibly 7 are what pertains to this discussion. Notice more than just "by law". This is why I say you are using the term incorrectly, because you are not properly qualifying the term to denote your usage as only "by law".

	13-03-2004 02:30									#90
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: 6a and possibly 7 are what pertains to this discussion. Notice more than just "by law". This is why I say you are using the term incorrectly, because you are not properly qualifying the term to denote your usage as only "by law".

And look at the dictionary defintion of 'socialism'. The dictionary is not where to find the answer in philosophical, political, and ideological discussions.

The correct terminology is that rights are granted only by governments or legitimate law making power. 'Tradition' can be explained by custom, which is also a form of law (at least in the countries that use it). 'Nature' is the silly one. Where do those laws come from?

The question is this, is there any 'right' which you have that the government will not give you? There is no 'right' for gay marriage because the government has not given it. How can you have a right if you cannot do the thing you think you have a right to?