rickyp wrote:1.) there is such a thing as inherent rights; (But stipulate that until and unless they are codified and protected under law they are little more than wishes)

so you are saying that all rights derive from the government. Without government granting the right the right does not exist. Wow, That is so contrary to liberal democracy

rickyp wrote:. (The Tunisian revolution started with the self-immolation of one man. Who starts the collective moving comrade?)

True but it is an apples and oranges comparison. Mohamed Bouazizi's act was not an invocation of the right of revolution. It was an act of civil disobedience. However, those that took to the street in response were ones participating in the right of revolution.

rickyp wrote:. (Well I've already said that I think the arguement is a lost cause, but not for this tidy reasoning. For Bbauska's rationale. His "inherent right to revolution" isn't protected by law. He didn't win. His inherent "right is "ethereal"

Well all rights are etheral. This is why you need the 2nd Amendment to protect those rights.

rickyp wrote:Snarky? I thought I was clever.

Yeah, well your saracasm is very rarely clever.

and I'm still waiting for his difference on Canadian freedom of speech example. It's pretty darned identical, substitute speech for guns. Please Ricky, why is one so different from the other?

archduke

so you are saying that all rights derive from the government. Without government granting the right the right does not exist. Wow, That is so contrary to liberal democracy

NO. I'm saying that rights, without protections, are meaningless. And its been primarily governments that have protected those rights

archduke

However, those that took to the street in response were ones participating in the right of revolution

.

And yet those who took to the streets, a collective act of civil disobediance, invoke Bouazizi' as their first martyr. After all what is civil disobedience but rebelling against an authority that one feels is unjust.?
Archduke

Well all rights are etheral. Do I have an inherent right to start a family or can the Government decide who can and can not have children?

Do you live in China?

rickyp wrote:NO. I'm saying that rights, without protections, are meaningless. And its been primarily governments that have protected those rights

And when Government fails at protecting those rights what is the recourse?

rickyp wrote:

Well all rights are etheral. Do I have an inherent right to start a family or can the Government decide who can and can not have children?

Do you live in China?

Well I changed this but I guess you were posting while I was editing. No I do not live in China. But let me ask this. Are you saying that China has not violated it's citizens rights by limiting family size? You think it would be perfectly valid for the Canadian Parliment to pass a law limiting the size of a family?

Exactly what I said. It started in a man's mind, and grew collectively

If the 'enemy' was aided and/or the intent was to overthrow the government than what about the media? Is the media allowed to materially participate in aiding the 'enemy' and/or overthrow of the government?

bbauska wrote:Exactly what I said. It started in a man's mind, and grew collectively

I disagree. Use the modern Tea Party movement as the example. The Sons of Liberty were almost exactly like the Tea Party movement.

And when Government fails at protecting those rights what is the recourse?

He has no answer. He has stated several times citizens have no right to rebel. Ricky confuses legal rights with moral rights, he can not accept things that do not suit his opinion. Note he continues to evade the free speech question as free speech is embraced while guns are simply not an option.

Ricky has stated peaceful protests is the way to force change
Yet there is no answer to what to do when this is crushed by the government as it has been done in China, Iran, Libya, etc
Rebellion from a tyrannical government is sometimes required (but not accepted, I guess we should look the other way?)

x

Well I changed this but I guess you were posting while I was editing. No I do not live in China. But let me ask this. Are you saying that China has not violated it's citizens rights by limiting family size? You think it would be perfectly valid for the Canadian Parliment to pass a law limiting the size of a family

?

Depends on one's point of view. I think that they have violated their rights.
The Chinese government doesn't believe they have.
Since their right to have limitless families has not been guaranteed by their government, it doesn't exist.

Another example? When the American Declaration of Independence was written "all Men are created equal" and the Constitution was written did black people have inherent rights to freedom? If so why did it take another 80+ years for those inherent rights to become guaranteed? If a black slave attempted to invoke his equality, where did it get him?
It wasn't until these inherent rights were legally recognized and protected that he could invoke his right to freedom.
So until governments act to recognize and codify within the society they govern which "rights" inherent or otherwise, will be protected....the rights don't really exist.
To say, I have the inherent right to have as many children as I want, but until you are protected from legal retribution when you invoke the right - it doesn't exist.
You can argue all you want that rights exist but without protection for those rights its just individuals acting as far as their power to support their actions takes them.
The inherent right to rebellion is exactly that - a self assumed use of power to assert independence from governance for which no legal protections exist. (At least not in the US) .
I think you could make the case that the UN now offers (with the example of Libya) some protections for acts of rebellion. And perhaps the German constitution does for its citizens.
But, in the US, an act of rebellion is an act of treason. How can you have a right which is also a crime when invoked?

archduke

And when Government fails at protecting those rights what is the recourse?

There are thousands of examples of this... In the US the abrogation of the right to equal treatment under the law continued in many parts of your country for almost a hundred years, even after the Constitution offered the protection. What did black people, other minorities and their supporters do to ensure that the rights enunciated in law were in practice - protected?
There's a long history of the civil rights battle. Among those who fought for the application of civil rights were those radicals who talked about, and even used, violence. They were convicted of crimes (Black Panthers...) not treated as if they were simply invoking their right to rebel against a government that had failed to protect their rights.

Do you think the Black Panthers had an inherent right to violent action against a government that was failing to protect their rights? Should they have been protected from retribution for their choice of methods? If it was their "right" to choose violence why were they jailed?

The Black Panthers acted in a different way than did MLK. Which one do you think violated the law RickyP? I think the Black Panthers indeed, DID, break the law. So did Reverend King and his supporters. The difference? Look to Gandhi, and you will find it there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party#Violence

Are you advocating the violence displayed in the link above?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MLK

Or perhaps you see the same actions from Reverend King's group?

Which one do you think is the best way to change? Are you advocating violent behavior? That doesn't sound like the RickyP I know...

Which one do you think is the best way to change? Are you advocating violent behavior? That doesn't sound like the RickyP I know...

Not usually. This (sideshow) has been a debate about the validity of "inherent rights" and what value they have. Period.
AND the reason I'm on this is that I've philosophically taken exception to the supporters of your 2nd amendment who say that one of the reasons the 2nd amendment exists is to protect an "inherent right to take arms against a tyrannical government".
If one views an inherent right as nothing but wishful thinking until protected by a functioning govenrment, as I do, then you understand why I think this arguement is poppycock.
And I beleive dangerous poppycock becasue it actually validates radicals who would choose to use violence.
I only used the instance of Manning to illustrate the "inherent rights" contradiction.
I think Manning probably has no legitimate defence for his actions. Including invoking any "inherent right".

Good, We agree about Manning.

The inherent right to fight a tyrannical gov't is BS in my opinion. The right is from the Constitution. Who cares what the motivation they wrote it for. To look into motivations pave the way for interpretations.

ok, you have an inherent right to free speech, your government in Canada protects it, by your definition it is therefore an inherent right. So you have the right to speak your mind. This right is tempered however by your hate speech laws.
You have an inherent ability to spout hate speech about anything you like but it is illegal and can land you in jail, but the freedom of speech grants you this possible illegal opportunity that you are supposed to resist. However, should your government step out of line, are you not wrong to say so? Your government suddenly starts killing the Inuits, are you supposed to say nothing about it? You have this ability, it is illegal to say anything about it but does the situation not "demand" you break the law and let others know what is going on? (this is no doubt what Manning will try to claim by the way). The rights allow you to do something that is illegal yet "morally correct" and I seriously doubt you would not agree this to be correct.

How is this different than the right to bear arms in America?
We are allowed to have guns but this right is tempered by us not being allowed to shoot anyone we like for random sport. That ability is available but is resisted.
But should the government get out of line and start killing Canadians that stray across our border, they arrest and even kill anyone who speaks up about this, they also start taking away our Canadian beer and whiskey, They impose curfews and attempt to disarm the general population, anyone of Canadian heritage is rounded up and killed. do we not have a right to rebel and use those guns against the government? Of course we do, the two situations are identical yet you accept one of free speech because it's a liberal ideal while guns are not, yet the two situations are in fact NO DIFFERENT.


So also based on your own definition, people have zero inherent rights, all rights are based on what their government will allow them to have. It would follow then that should Canada cancel your rights to free speech and freedom of association, then you would have absolutely zero recourse and would agree to sit back and take it. You said yourself you have no inherent rights, the people of Libya who are revolting from the terrible rule of Gadaffi have no right to do so either, yet you seem to support them how can this be? Why are you not mad as hell that these Libyan's are in revolt, based on your own rules, this can not be stood for.

rickyp wrote:x
Depends on one's point of view. I think that they have violated their rights.
The Chinese government doesn't believe they have.
Since their right to have limitless families has not been guaranteed by their government, it doesn't exist.

And once again you are saying the only rights are those granted by the government. Again quite contrary to a Liberal Democracy.

Oh and it was Archduke that made the comment not X.

rickyp wrote:Another example? When the American Declaration of Independence was written "all Men are created equal" and the Constitution was written did black people have inherent rights to freedom? If so why did it take another 80+ years for those inherent rights to become guaranteed? If a black slave attempted to invoke his equality, where did it get him?
It wasn't until these inherent rights were legally recognized and protected that he could invoke his right to freedom.
So until governments act to recognize and codify within the society they govern which "rights" inherent or otherwise, will be protected....the rights don't really exist.
To say, I have the inherent right to have as many children as I want, but until you are protected from legal retribution when you invoke the right - it doesn't exist.

No this is an example of a government being tyrannical and not protecting the rights of its citizens. Slaves would have been perfectly within their rights to revolt.

rickyp wrote:You can argue all you want that rights exist but without protection for those rights its just individuals acting as far as their power to support their actions takes them.
The inherent right to rebellion is exactly that - a self assumed use of power to assert independence from governance for which no legal protections exist.

You are absolutely right Ricky. All rights are elusive and require power to enforce. In most case that is the government. However, people must be able to be protect those rights themselves when the government fails to do so. We have that through the 2nd Amendment.
.

rickyp wrote:. And perhaps the German constitution does for its citizens.
But, in the US, an act of rebellion is an act of treason. How can you have a right which is also a crime when invoked?

No the US Constition does the same thing as the German Constitution via the 2nd Amendemnt