The US Constitution DOES NOT GRANT ANY RIGHTS.

[Truth_Seeker]

originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Truth Seeker
It seems that you are unfamiliar with the literature in this area.

Care to make an argument rather than an appeal to authority?

Sorry, not a chance. I’m not going to teach you Swahili, either. The philosophy of moral rights and justice has a vast and nuanced literature stretching back to before Locke. As you at least seem capable of abstract thought, I’ll be happy to provide you with references to a few papers and books if you wish to learn a bit about the the subject rather than rest in the cozy certainty of your ignorance.

**But as a matter of objective reality, they don’t exist apart from man’s desire for freedom, his ability to reason, and his willingness to fight.

**
And what makes you think that any more than this is necessary as a basis for innate rights?

**The history of the past half-century has been nothing if not the history of the oppressed throwing off their chains – from Polish Solidarity to the fall of the Berlin Wall to the collapse of communism. They didn’t need mystical claims of inherency to find their freedom – they just knew it was something they wanted, and were willing to fight for it.

**
Oh, dear. Ignorant of philosophy and history! It is commonly recognized that the URL=http://www.osce.org/docs/english/1990-1999/summits/helfa75e.htm]Helsinki Accords – which expressely recognized the concept of innate human rights – played a pretty big role in the collapse of communism and the end of the cold war. Gerald Ford has called the Helsinki Accords a time bomb for communism.

**Rights don’t exist absent a corresponding remedy.

**
No doubt you are thinking of the common legal rubric, “ubi remediam ibi ius.” This may be legally true in common law countries The problem however, is that the converse is logically true. If you have no right, you aren’t entitled to any remedy, nor should anyone bother to try and fashion one. On the other hand, if you do have an innate right to, say, not be enslaved, then it is morally acceptable for others to attempt to fashion a remedy on your behalf. Indeed, it may even be a moral duty to do so.

I note that you still haven’t answered my question. Do you really, honestly, believe that there was nothing inherently wrong with what Hitler or Pol Pot did? Do you actually hold that the holocaust was not intrinsically evil but merely bad social policy with which you personally disagree?

originally posted by Waverly
**Give the founding fathers credit where credit is due. The rights that you are taking to be innate and universal are their idea. Are they a good idea? You bet. Are they innate and universal? Of coarse not. Grow up, and don’t assume that anything you happen to find that appears in written text is a valid cite.

**
Waverly, if you are a day over fourteen, the educational system has a lot to answer for. The people who wrote the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Constitution did not invent the concept of innate human rights. Rather, they drew on a long intellectual tradition grounded in the concept of natural law.

While it may come as a surprise to you, there are entire branches of philosophy that do not involve Star Wars action figures. I know that since you are completely ignorant of it, it is, therefore, worthless. Nonetheless, some of us less-enlightened folks find it a sufficient challenge for our stunted intellectual powers. One day, when you’re bored and there’s nothing good on TV, you might want to do a bit of research into this human rights thing, just so you can mock all those silly people, like Rawls, Nozick, Hart and Dworkin who have spent so much time thinking about what is to you so obvious.
Oh, and, by the way, rights being innate and rights being inalienable are two very different concepts.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by Truth Seeker *
Sorry, not a chance. I’m not going to teach you Swahili, either. The philosophy of moral rights and justice has a vast and nuanced literature stretching back to before Locke. As you at least seem capable of abstract thought, I’ll be happy to provide you with references to a few papers and books if you wish to learn a bit about the the subject rather than rest in the cozy certainty of your ignorance.

I’m sorry, but this is a crock. Imagine if you will standing at the lecturn at a debating society and simply saying of your opponent “Mr. X is unfamiliar with the literature in this area” as your sole argument. You’d be laughed offstage.

When I’m engaging the Olentzeros of the world on this board, I don’t just say “you are clearly unfamiliar with the works of Adam Smith and his successors.” Instead, I actually construct an argument. That argument may be based on Smith, and it may reference Smith, but ultimately it stands on its own. And that is the difference between making an argument and just punting to authority.

But as a matter of objective reality, they don’t exist apart from man’s desire for freedom, his ability to reason, and his willingness to fight.

And what makes you think that any more than this is necessary as a basis for innate rights?

Because those things aren’t innate. They exist only because of man’s thought and action. They do not exist indepent of those things.**

Oh, dear. Ignorant of philosophy and history! It is commonly recognized that the Helsinki Accords – which expressely recognized the concept of innate human rights – played a pretty big role in the collapse of communism and the end of the cold war. Gerald Ford has called the Helsinki Accords a time bomb for communism.**

:rolleyes:

The Helsinki Accords were important in the fall of communism not because of their recognition of rights as “innate,” but because they forced the Soviets to recognize human rights, period. They would have been just as important without any “innateness” rhetoric.

(PS, you’re welcome for fixing your coding )**

The problem however, is that the converse is logically true. If you have no right, you aren’t entitled to any remedy, nor should anyone bother to try and fashion one.**
(Underlining mine)

Says who? If you don’t have the freedom of speech, but you want it, then fashion a remedy. Pass the first amendment. Or revolt.**

I note that you still haven’t answered my question. Do you really, honestly, believe that there was nothing inherently wrong with what Hitler or Pol Pot did? Do you actually hold that the holocaust was not intrinsically evil but merely bad social policy with which you personally disagree?**

Nice Godwin.

I fail utterly to see why an understanding that philosophical constructs such as “rights” do not exist outside of man’s capacity for reason precludes moral judgment on any given scenario. Particularly this scenario.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

Oh, and your response to Waverly was, to put it mildly, unnecessarily snotty. You wouldn’t happen to be a college sophomore, would you? Because that’s exactly the kind of shit I would have said at that age to make myself feel smart and superior. Then I grew up and realized it just made me look like an asshole.

[Hamlet]

*Originally posted by Waverly *
** I have the innate right to get a blowjob from my hairdresser.
**

Ah, the little know 69th Amendment.

[Truth_Seeker]

**I’m sorry, but this is a crock. Imagine if you will standing at the lecturn at a debating society and simply saying of your opponent “Mr. X is unfamiliar with the literature in this area” as your sole argument. You’d be laughed offstage.

**
Imagine you stood up at the lectern and said “Moral philosophy is a complete crock. No thinking person could possibly argue that there is such a thing!” If I were to attempt to lay out the basics of moral philosophy to you to demonstrate there is, in fact, such an intellectual discipline, the audience would pelt us both with rotten fruit. To put it another way, this is like insisting that there is no such thing as mathematics and demanding that I prove that there is. You’re the one making the assertion so you ought to come up with a cite. Lest you have forgotten the context of my remark, here it is:

**
quote: originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow

The ultimate reason inevitably given for treating any right as “innate” is “because I said so.”

Originally posted by Truth Seeker
It seems that you are unfamiliar with the literature in this area.

**
The point here is that, while you may disagree with specific arguments, if you had even a passing familiarity with what has been written in this area, you would know that the ultimate reason for treating any right as innate is not, “because I said so.” In other words, it is your airy rejection of any entire branch of philosophy that is a crock, not my refusal to teach you your ABCs.

**They would have been just as important without any “innateness” rhetoric.

**
You’re really selling the power of an idea short. First, had not the U.S. and others believed in innate human rights, it is unlikely they would have pushed the Soviets to recognize them. Second, the admission that there are innate human rights, opens up a discussion as to what they are.

From the Helsinki Accords

They will promote and encourage the effective exercise of civil, political, economic, social, cultural and other rights and freedoms all of which derive from the inherent dignity of the human person and are essential for his free and full development.

Do you think the Helsinki Accords would have had they same impact on society if they had espoused your philosophy?

They will promote and encourage the effective exercise of whatever civil, political, economic, social, cultural and other rights and freedoms they see fit to grant or that are forcibly extracted by their populations.

Doesn’t have the same ring, does it? In fact, these “mystical claims of inherency” that you deride were enormously inspirational to dissidents throughout eastern europe and the Soviet Union. What is more, they provided a practical tool, the thin end of the wedge, as it were, for these dissidents in the court of world opinion and in their own countries.

**Says who? If you don’t have the freedom of speech, but you want it, then fashion a remedy. Pass the first amendment. Or revolt.

**
As I believe is clear from the entire quote, I’m referring to whether third parties have any interest in assisting you by attempting to fashion a remedy.

**Nice Godwin.

I fail utterly to see why an understanding that philosophical constructs such as “rights” do not exist outside of man’s capacity for reason precludes moral judgment on any given scenario. Particularly this scenario.

**
And yet, somehow, you still neglected to actually answer the question. You are the one denying objective moral standards, not I. Morever, I’m not sure what you mean about not existing “outside of man’s capacity for reason.” Lots of things do not exist outside man’s capacity for reason and are nonetheless real for all that. Or don’t you believe in mathematics, either?

**Oh, and your response to Waverly was, to put it mildly, unnecessarily snotty. You wouldn’t happen to be a college sophomore, would you? Because that’s exactly the kind of shit I would have said at that age to make myself feel smart and superior. Then I grew up and realized it just made me look like an asshole.

**
Grow up, you fucking ignoramus. Where’s the book, tablet, scroll, instruction manual, or whatnot that says that the “ultimate” reason given for any innate right is because “I said so?” – and don’t assume that anything you happen to find that appears in written text is a valid cite.

Do you really think I was unnecessarily snotty? I’m afraid I must respectfully disagree.

P.S. Thanks for fixing the coding. I wish a mod (hint, hint) would be as helpful.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by Truth Seeker *
**In other words, it is your airy rejection of any entire branch of philosophy that is a crock, not my refusal to teach you your ABCs. **

Oh lah-tee-dah. Innateness cannot be proven. It cannot be observed. It cannot be demonstrated. It can only be asserted. Strip away all the surrounding arguments and ultimately you are left with an assertion that must be accepted wholly on faith. Indeed, “proving” innateness is not unlike proving the existence of God – there is exactly as much real-world evidence for either proposition.

And as for “teaching” me: spare me. If you can’t lay out the rough outline of your argument, then you clearly do not really understand the authors you purport to cite. Consider some of the GD threads I’ve participated in where issues of corporate law arise: I think my posts in those threads adequately answer the issues posed, even though there is considerable nuance in the field. True enough, if I was dealing with another corporate practitioner, there would be considerably more nuance to my discussion. But I can boil those issued down to their bare essence when dealing with laymen because I understand them. **

First, had not the U.S. and others believed in innate human rights, it is unlikely they would have pushed the Soviets to recognize them. Second, the admission that there are innate human rights, opens up a discussion as to what they are.**

1. Rights need not be innate to be considered important. We pushed the Soviets because we deemed those rights important, not because they are or are not innnate.

2. A discussion of human rights opens up a discussion of what those rights are regardless of one’s view of innateness. Indeed, see my above comments regarding the UN document: is vacation pay a “right”?**

Do you think the Helsinki Accords would have had they same impact on society if they had espoused your philosophy?**

Yes, yes I do.**

Doesn’t have the same ring, does it? In fact, these “mystical claims of inherency” that you deride were enormously inspirational to dissidents throughout eastern europe and the Soviet Union.**

And Linus finds his blanket to be enormously inspirational in getting through the day. I don’t think that means we should ascribe Linus’ blanket with unsual “innate” powers. **

As I believe is clear from the entire quote, I’m referring to whether third parties have any interest in assisting you by attempting to fashion a remedy. **

And why do rights need to be “innate” for your neighbors to help out? How’s this for a rationale: We have free speech. We like free speech. We think others would like free speech. It would be really nice of us to help others obtain free speech. So let’s help spread free speech in places where the people don’t have it.

See? No need for fanciful notions of innateness.**

And yet, somehow, you still neglected to actually answer the question. You are the one denying objective moral standards, not I. Morever, I’m not sure what you mean about not existing “outside of man’s capacity for reason.” Lots of things do not exist outside man’s capacity for reason and are nonetheless real for all that. Or don’t you believe in mathematics, either?**

Mathematics is not a “thing” that exists that one can possess. Mathematics is a language used to describe certain relationships. One does not “have” mathematics in the same way you are suggesting people have rights. You are comparing apples to oranges.**

Grow up, you fucking ignoramus.**

As if to prove my point… **

Where’s the book, tablet, scroll, instruction manual, or whatnot that says that the “ultimate” reason given for any innate right is because “I said so?” – and don’t assume that anything you happen to find that appears in written text is a valid cite.**

I don’t know of any book, tablet, scroll, manual, or the like that says that. I don’t need one, either. That’s my own conclusion, drawn from the arguments for innateness stripped of all pretension.

I read plenty, but I don’t let others do my thinking for me.

[Truth_Seeker]

**quote:

Grow up, you fucking ignoramus.

As if to prove my point…
quote:

Where’s the book, tablet, scroll, instruction manual, or whatnot that says that the “ultimate” reason given for any innate right is because “I said so?” – and don’t assume that anything you happen to find that appears in written text is a valid cite.

I don’t know of any book, tablet, scroll, manual, or the like that says that. I don’t need one, either. That’s my own conclusion, drawn from the arguments for innateness stripped of all pretension.

I read plenty, but I don’t let others do my thinking for me.

**
She shoots. She scores!

Whoosh!

[Hellestal]

My apologies for bringing back Libertopia, but I was reading through the thread, and this demands another response.

The question was (paraphrasing): How far should Libertopia go to secure the property of a citizen who has contracted with it? What if I (someone who has not contracted for Libertopia’s protection) damage the property of a citizen of Libertopia, then retreat to the property of a citizen who has not contracted with Libertopia (let’s say I break into this person’s house while they’re away on vacation)?

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
To answer directly your last question (which is remarkably similar to the one Buck asked just above your post), the Libertarian government not only may, but must use whatever force is necessary to secure your rights (property) — whether that’s breaking down a door or fighting a war against a nation-state.

This seems to be a contradiction of the principles Libertarian has previously put forth.

I damaged the property of Fred, who has contracted with Libertopia New York. I flee to the property of Sally. Libertopia New York, according to Libertarian, is now obligated to damage the property of Sally to get to me. But Sally, being fond of libertarian ideals herself, has contracted with Libertopia Los Angeles to protect her property.

So now Libertopia Los Angeles is obligated to go back to Libertopia New York and claim damages, by whatever means necessary. But Libertopia New York says, no way! They were simply doing what they were contracted to do. Their responsibility was Fred’s property, not Sally’s property. But Libertopia L.A. says, well, our responsibility is Sally’s property, and now we’re going to what we’re contracted to do.

And so the two Libertopias go to war, because it’s okay in Libertopia to right a previous wrong with another wrong.

Ridiculous.

[Waverly]

Truthseeker, perhaps you could explain what your last post [including what appear to be misquotes] is attempting to demonstrate before recommencing your embarrassing self-congratulatory display.

Truthseeker: The people who wrote the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Constitution did not invent the concept of innate human rights. Rather, they drew on a long intellectual tradition grounded in the concept of natural law.

You are correct on count one, and if you are suggesting that I stated works such as the bill of rights were fabricated instantaneously from whole cloth, you are either tilting at strawmen or need a course in reading comprehension. What they did not do is determine which rights are inborn and document them for us. They combined ideas of others with their own and formed a new set of rights. I can’t make it any more clear; not that I think your ignorance is worth my time and effort.

Truthseeker: While it may come as a surprise to you, there are entire branches of philosophy that do not involve Star Wars action figures. I know that since you are completely ignorant of it, it is, therefore, worthless. Nonetheless, some of us less-enlightened folks find it a sufficient challenge for our stunted intellectual powers. One day, when you’re bored and there’s nothing good on TV, you might want to do a bit of research into this human rights thing, just so you can mock all those silly people, like Rawls, Nozick, Hart and Dworkin who have spent so much time thinking about what is to you so obvious.

I’m not entirely clear what you are trying to say here. First off, it’s irrelevant to the discussion. No matter who you name drop or google up for us, their works and opinions don’t prove rights aren’t a human construct. Secondly, you don’t get it:

Rawls recognized that humans are social creatures, in possession of a drive for a cultural identity and with a capability for self regulation through that same cultural framework. Sounds like a formula for rights through law and government (as opposed to gifts from sky pixies) to me. Rawls used the term ‘political constructivism’ to refer to this process. Note the constructivism. Construct. Not gift.

Nozick advanced ‘ethical subjectivism’ in which will is the engine by which moral values are driven. It could be human will or divine will, but it does not rule out ‘ethical relativism’ whereby the will is human and rule is by legislation. You may have been thinking of ‘ethical objectivism’ which assumes rights to be intrinsic ala the dread Ayn Rand.

Dworkin does indeed spout objectivism, but I would ask you [again] the same thing I would of him, “next time you talk to the creator about what he/she engineered into us humans, ask him/her to copy me.”

I assume you refer to John Hart Ely, notable legal scholar who also notably doesn’t seem to be on record stating that rights are intrinsic.

You missed Kant who correctly observes that, “There is only one innate right. Freedom.” And this isn’t Freedom™, but rather freedom of will so far as we can exercise it before running into the freewill of another. Managing that intersection, of course, is purpose of defining and protecting rights.

So what is your point? You arrive as if to support a point of view, set off a volley of insults as if in preparation to getting down to business, and then proceed to fizzle out with a sloppy helping of non sequiturs and irrelevant cites. C’mon, we aren’t so bad here. It’s time to for you to stand up in front of the group and say, “I am an ethical objectivist, and I need help distancing myself from this untenable position!”

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

TS:

So have you abandoned all pretense of argument?

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow *
When I’m engaging the Olentzeros of the world on this board, I don’t just say “you are clearly unfamiliar with the works of Adam Smith and his successors”…

Oi, how did I get dragged into this, and what kind of example of an opponent in a debate am I cited as being? Just curious.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

Sorry, Olent, but I needed an example of a thread where I had to use basic economic principles in formulating my responses, and the first thing that sprung to mind was that “What if we abolished money” thread from awhile back – I thought in that thread you did not exactly demonstrate a real grasp of supply and demand and how they work.

Anyway, I was trying to make a point about good argumentation using that as an (admittedly unstated) example. I should have been more specific, and thus my comment tarred you with too broad a brush, for which I apologize. I raise in my defense the fact that I was sleepy at the time.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

Actually, I just looked at the time stamp and realized I made that comment in an earlier post. I take it back – I wasn’t sleepy! I have no defense!

[erislover]

I don’t understand why a right can’t be considered inherent in man—that is, pre-government man—without being considered a gift from some creator. It could be a gift from a creator, this is true, but why should it have to be? All the government needs to know is: “I have these rights now, however they got here. As far as you are concerned they are inherent in me.” The fucking end.

I swear, the only time people are interested in undermining inherent rights arguments is when they are interested in violating them. I would give up my inherent rights argument if you and your precious government would quit fucking with me.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by erislover *
**I don’t understand why a right can’t be considered inherent in man—that is, pre-government man—without being considered a gift from some creator. It could be a gift from a creator, this is true, but why should it have to be? **

As I’ve pointed out, whether you ascribe inherency to an act of God or to something “in nature” is just semantics. Either way, you cannot demonstrate that rights exist outside of the simple act of men deciding they exist – thus, rights are not inherent, they are creations of man.**

All the government needs to know is: “I have these rights now, however they got here. As far as you are concerned they are inherent in me.” The fucking end.**

As a practical matter, this is true. But you could say the same thing about the Big Bang: “we exist, however we got here, so what does it matter?”**

I swear, the only time people are interested in undermining inherent rights arguments is when they are interested in violating them. I would give up my inherent rights argument if you and your precious government would quit fucking with me. **

I assure you I have no interest in violating your rights, nor do I wish to fuck with you. An anyone remotely familiar with my posting history would not use “your precious government” as a descriptor of my view of the state. One can be fully committed to the protection of man’s rights while still recognizing that they are not preexisting things.

[erislover]

But you could say the same thing about the Big Bang: “we exist, however we got here, so what does it matter?”

If I thought the government gave a shit about these philosophical matters, I would let it pursue them. No problem.

An anyone remotely familiar with my posting history would not use “your precious government” as a descriptor of my view of the state. One can be fully committed to the protection of man’s rights while still recognizing that they are not preexisting things.

Yes, it just becomes terribly convenient to say: “I am protecting your rights! I care! A lot! … well, no, not about that. That’s not a right. And don’t go pulling this ‘inherent in man’ crap on me, you know it doesn’t hold water.” You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t feel I can trust anyone with that power.

thus, rights are not inherent, they are creations of man.

So is government. So you tell me, which came first: man’s volitional will (inherent in his nature; that is, a part of him biologically a priori) or government. Some of us have this silly notion that our volitional will came part and parcel with man, long before government came on the scene, and if men are to create government, this is also an act of volitional will, and this volition existed before the government, as long as man has been a biological creature.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by erislover *
If I thought the government gave a shit about these philosophical matters, I would let it pursue them. No problem.

My point was that understanding the Big Bang doesn’t matter for the purposes of day-to-day living. Regardless of how man got here, we’re here now, and we’ve got to deal with that.

IOW, inquiring into the Big Bang is the pursuit of pure knowledge, knowledge for it’s own sake without practical application. And so is inquiring into the nature of rights. **

Yes, it just becomes terribly convenient to say: “I am protecting your rights! I care! A lot! … well, no, not about that. That’s not a right. And don’t go pulling this ‘inherent in man’ crap on me, you know it doesn’t hold water.” You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t feel I can trust anyone with that power.**

Well, ultimately you do trust people with that power. Consider the UN Declaration cited earlier in this thread. Are paid vacation days a fundamental, inherent right? Is there an objective answer to that question? If not, the question is necessarily decided by men through the application of reason and action. If such a right is to exist, it will be created, not discovered.**

So is government. So you tell me, which came first: man’s volitional will (inherent in his nature; that is, a part of him biologically a priori) or government. Some of us have this silly notion that our volitional will came part and parcel with man, long before government came on the scene, and if men are to create government, this is also an act of volitional will, and this volition existed before the government, as long as man has been a biological creature. **

Man creates rights as surely as he creates governments. I’ve said this earlier in this thread. If man wants free speech, and takes action to secure free speech for himself, then he as created the right to free speech for himself.

It is that combination of desire and action that creates rights. They do not exist before that time.

[erislover]

Well, ultimately you do trust people with that power.

Not a chance. The second the government drops the guns it is pointing at me, I’m taking all my rights back. It. Gets. Nothing. It has not demonstrated to be one iota of responsibility with them.

IOW, inquiring into the Big Bang is the pursuit of pure knowledge, knowledge for it’s own sake without practical application. And so is inquiring into the nature of rights.

Which would be true if it weren’t for the fact that inquiring into the nature of rights is what people do when they want to do something to other people. ie “What can I get away with? How can I sleep at night after forcing the population to give up 27% of its income? How will I, in my two-bedroom ADT security-installed house guarantee that they won’t come after me for taking their guns away? How will I, in my unlimited capacity for empathy, ensure that I don’t represent people, I represent ideas, and leave the people to conform to the options I give them in some twisted political pageant? Above all, what rhetoric can I mask all these actions behind to rationalize it away? I know! Government by the people! Just include the fine print that ‘the people’ are me and my cronies.” And so on.

If such a right is to exist, it will be created, not discovered.

By that logic, the strong nuclear force was created, not discovered, by scientists. Your call.

If man wants free speech, and takes action to secure free speech for himself, then he as created the right to free speech for himself.

And yet, somehow, if I try and secure my rights I am jailed. Funny how your happy world works, isn’t it? And I do mean for you to laugh.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by erislover *
Not a chance. The second the government drops the guns it is pointing at me, I’m taking all my rights back. It. Gets. Nothing. It has not demonstrated to be one iota of responsibility with them.

Way to duck my point: what rights are innate? And can this be objectively determined?

Is vacation pay an innate right?**

Which would be true if it weren’t for the fact that inquiring into the nature of rights is what people do when they want to do something to other people. ie "What can I get away with? […etc, etc…]**

Oddly, here I am inquiring into the nature of rights and yet, somehow, I’m not terribly interested in doing anything to anybody. **

By that logic, the strong nuclear force was created, not discovered, by scientists. Your call.**

IANANP (I Am Not A Nuclear Physicist), but IIRC strong nuclear force just means the force that holds protons and neutrons together. IOW, it is a posited explanation for observable behavior. It is accepted because (a) it makes sense and (b) nobody’s come up with a better explanation. It is a man-created explanation for observable physical phenomena.

This is a far cry from suggesting that rights are preexisting. You aren’t suggesting that “rights” describe things that can be observed; you are saying that “rights” are things themselves, and which are possessed by human beings.**

And yet, somehow, if I try and secure my rights I am jailed. Funny how your happy world works, isn’t it? And I do mean for you to laugh. **

Most reasonable readers would recognize that by “man” I was speaking of some number beyond an individual. Absent a legal mechanism for the creation of rights, rights can only be created by force. If you desire taxation without representation, or free speech, or guaranteed paid vacations, and you don’t have a mechanism to create those rights by law, you’d better be willing to fight for them, and you’d better be able to convince others to join your cause.

[Polycarp]

This was so ironic a comment on many posters’ attitudes on issues of Constitutionally guaranteed rights that I had to post it right here, rather than in one of the MPSIMS threads devoted to such ironies:

America is having a few technical difficulties…
The U.S. Constitution does not GRANT any rights!

[Knee-jerk liberal voice]
Well, yeah – that’s the jurisprudential philosophy of John Ashcroft in a nutshell!!
[/Knee-jerk liberal voice]