6 ms·

> Rights, in the US, are not GRANTED by government, they are RECOGNIZED by the US Constitution to exist OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT (upper case is for emphasis only).

> Rights, in the US, are not GRANTED by government, they are RECOGNIZED by the US Constitution to exist OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT (upper case is for emphasis only). In other words, these rights don't require government in order to exist. We are recognized to have them and government can't do a thing about it other than to respect and protect them. Imagine a bakery puts out a sign that says "the bread you can buy here was not baked by a bakery, it was only recognized to be bread". Does that mean that the bread that comes out of their oven that they earlier stuck dough into was indeed not baked by them? How does the fact that a piece of paper says something make what it says a fact? It is obviously nonsense that rights could exist without a structure to enforce them. Whether you call it "recognized" or "granted" is completely irrelevant, the fact of the matter is: If the government decides to act as if the right did not exist, then the right does not exist, and governments in general are very well capable of acting as if rights did not exist, and the fact that some piece of paper says "recognize" does not inherently change that, governments in general are also very well capable of ignoring pieces of paper. The only thing that protects rights is sufficiently many people acting to protect them.

robomartin 7y ago
No, it isn’t, in a country of laws these things have weight and meaning. If, on the other hand, we are talking about complete anarchy and the end of laws as our guiding principles then, yes, sure, in that case words on paper do not matter. Until then...
- vidarh 7y ago
  That is exactly the point: These things have weight and meaning as a consequence of there being a country of laws that recognizes them. Without a political entity to recognize or enforce them, they are just words. They're not some inherent property of people or nature, but concepts created through law and enforcement of law. As such how they are worded is no protection - only peoples willingness to resist changes is actual protection against rights being eroded.
  - robomartin 7y ago
    I think what's missing from this conversation is the mindset. In the United States, those words on paper are are respected by government and the people demand this to be the case. The culture is such that these things are not optional. Your right to free speech being a simple example. If don't live in a country that behaves this way it is likely very difficult to understand how this could be. I lived in Argentina during the time of military rule. I knew that any negative interaction with police could have terrible consequences for me. Even death. Sure, there were laws in place that were supposed to protect me and others, but that didn't stop anyone from committing atrocities because the culture did not honor laws as is the case in the US. I remember being detained with a group of friends coming out of a movie. We where put-up against a wall, spread legs and arms, frisked, interrogated, harassed, laughed-at and held for over an hour. Once the cops were done having their fun they threw all of our ID's on the ground and let us go. It took me YEARS after coming to the US to not have my blood pressure rise when interacting with cops. I mean, even having a cop car behind me was stressful. After a while you understand that things here are different. When we say "this is a nation of laws" it isn't something that goes on a bumper sticker, it has real meaning. I have a lot of cop friends and even trained at an Aikido dojo for years that was nearly 90% law enforcement. Context is important and the context is culture and laws. If you want to argue about what would happen if the US government went off the rails and decided to do as they wished against the population. Well, I am sure there's a good movie in there somewhere. Until then, it's just silly.
    - vidarh 7y ago
      > I think what's missing from this conversation is the mindset. That was exactly my point. Hence why I wrote: > only peoples willingness to resist changes is actual protection against rights being eroded.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  > No, it isn’t, in a country of laws these things have weight and meaning. What is your point? Even if noone cares about what that piece of paper says, it still has "weight and meaning"? Or are you just repeating what I said using slightly different words, i.e., in a country where people care about what that piece of paper says, what that piece of paper says has weight and meaning? > If, on the other hand, we are talking about complete anarchy and the end of laws as our guiding principles then, yes, sure, in that case words on paper do not matter. Until then... So ... a dictatorship is complete anarchy then? Or are you saying that it is inherently impossible for a government to selectively ignore individual laws or sections of the law? Or is it just yet another rephrasing of what I said, i.e., only if sufficiently many people act to recognize, demand, and enforce the rights, will there be rights?
  - robomartin 7y ago
    I don't really understand what you are trying to say. In the US the Bill of Rights is taken very seriously by everyone, from citizens to the heights of government. That's just the way it is. Forgive me, I just don't know what you are trying to communicate.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
      The point is that your original statement that these rights don't require government in order to exist ist just false. These rights require that they are taken seriously by everyone, from citizens to the heights of government in order to exist in any meaningful sense. It may well be that having them written down in such a clear form as the Bill of Rights helps in forming that consensus, but in the end, the consensus is what determines whether those rights exist or not, not whether these rights are written down or which exact words were used. And the further point is that there are plenty of people working to undermine those rights, and they don't need to change those words to be successful, they can also change how they are interpreted and how seriously they are taken in order to achieve their goal of undermining those rights, and that is what they usually do.
      - 7y ago

robomartin 7y ago

No, it isn’t, in a country of laws these things have weight and meaning. If, on the other hand, we are talking about complete anarchy and the end of laws as our guiding principles then, yes, sure, in that case words on paper do not matter. Until then...

vidarh 7y ago
That is exactly the point: These things have weight and meaning as a consequence of there being a country of laws that recognizes them. Without a political entity to recognize or enforce them, they are just words. They're not some inherent property of people or nature, but concepts created through law and enforcement of law. As such how they are worded is no protection - only peoples willingness to resist changes is actual protection against rights being eroded.
- robomartin 7y ago
  I think what's missing from this conversation is the mindset. In the United States, those words on paper are are respected by government and the people demand this to be the case. The culture is such that these things are not optional. Your right to free speech being a simple example. If don't live in a country that behaves this way it is likely very difficult to understand how this could be. I lived in Argentina during the time of military rule. I knew that any negative interaction with police could have terrible consequences for me. Even death. Sure, there were laws in place that were supposed to protect me and others, but that didn't stop anyone from committing atrocities because the culture did not honor laws as is the case in the US. I remember being detained with a group of friends coming out of a movie. We where put-up against a wall, spread legs and arms, frisked, interrogated, harassed, laughed-at and held for over an hour. Once the cops were done having their fun they threw all of our ID's on the ground and let us go. It took me YEARS after coming to the US to not have my blood pressure rise when interacting with cops. I mean, even having a cop car behind me was stressful. After a while you understand that things here are different. When we say "this is a nation of laws" it isn't something that goes on a bumper sticker, it has real meaning. I have a lot of cop friends and even trained at an Aikido dojo for years that was nearly 90% law enforcement. Context is important and the context is culture and laws. If you want to argue about what would happen if the US government went off the rails and decided to do as they wished against the population. Well, I am sure there's a good movie in there somewhere. Until then, it's just silly.
  - vidarh 7y ago
    > I think what's missing from this conversation is the mindset. That was exactly my point. Hence why I wrote: > only peoples willingness to resist changes is actual protection against rights being eroded.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
> No, it isn’t, in a country of laws these things have weight and meaning. What is your point? Even if noone cares about what that piece of paper says, it still has "weight and meaning"? Or are you just repeating what I said using slightly different words, i.e., in a country where people care about what that piece of paper says, what that piece of paper says has weight and meaning? > If, on the other hand, we are talking about complete anarchy and the end of laws as our guiding principles then, yes, sure, in that case words on paper do not matter. Until then... So ... a dictatorship is complete anarchy then? Or are you saying that it is inherently impossible for a government to selectively ignore individual laws or sections of the law? Or is it just yet another rephrasing of what I said, i.e., only if sufficiently many people act to recognize, demand, and enforce the rights, will there be rights?
- robomartin 7y ago
  I don't really understand what you are trying to say. In the US the Bill of Rights is taken very seriously by everyone, from citizens to the heights of government. That's just the way it is. Forgive me, I just don't know what you are trying to communicate.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    The point is that your original statement that these rights don't require government in order to exist ist just false. These rights require that they are taken seriously by everyone, from citizens to the heights of government in order to exist in any meaningful sense. It may well be that having them written down in such a clear form as the Bill of Rights helps in forming that consensus, but in the end, the consensus is what determines whether those rights exist or not, not whether these rights are written down or which exact words were used. And the further point is that there are plenty of people working to undermine those rights, and they don't need to change those words to be successful, they can also change how they are interpreted and how seriously they are taken in order to achieve their goal of undermining those rights, and that is what they usually do.
    - 7y ago