[cuchulainn]

Some would limit it to those enumerated in the BoR. Others, like me, would point to the 9th Amendment and say there are many un-enumerated civil rights.

In short, my view is that a civil right is something the government cannot do to you -- as opposed entitlements that the government gives to you. Obviously, equivocation can come into play with my rough definition. We have a right to a speedy trial. Does the government "give" you a speedy trial, or does it refrain from inflicting you with long-unsettled allegations?

In any event, it might help the recent confusion over proper thread subjects if there is some consensus on THR about what constitutes a civil right.

So I propose such a discussion (without the verboten topics of religion, abortion, ect., of course). For example, someone recently started a thread on police brutality, which I would have thought was a clear-cut civil rights issue -- IMHO freedom from police brutality is a civil right. But it was closed as being OT from civil rights.

Mind you, I'm not complaining. This is not intended as a moderator-bashing thread, so don't make it that. They can shutdown any thread they see fit -- any thread for any reason -- and I won't complain. THR ain't my property, and arbitrary and capricious thread moderating is the civil right of the THR owner and his agents, the moderators.

[Sergeant Bob]

Cuch Some would limit it to those enumerated in the BoR. Others, like me, would point to the 9th Amendment and say there are many un-enumerated civil rights.
I'm with ya here! But, I have a feeling this one might get as controversial as some of the verboten subjects.

[Gordon Fink]

According to my desk copy of The American Heritage Dictionary, civil rights are “[r]ights belonging to an individual by virtue of his or her status as a citizen.” Contrast this with the idea of human right, rights belonging to an individual by virtue of being human. For example, voting is a civil right but not a human right. As a U.S. citizen, I have the right vote during civil elections, but I do not have a right to vote for Microsoft’s board of directors, as I am not a Microsoft shareholder.

~G. Fink

[Mad Man]

[O]ur view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty.


Nadine Strossen. President of the American Civil Liberties Union (http://aclu.org/).
"Life, Liberty, and the ACLU (http://reason.com/Strossen.shtml)" Reason (http://reason.com/). October 1994 (http://reason.com/9410/october94.shtml).

[mantispid]

Meh, I prefer natural rights to civil rights anyway.

[Moparmike]

Yes, I am very interested in what constitutes a civil right. Especially as that is the criterion with which every post in L&P is judged against.

This should be a good thread.:)

Personally, a civil right is anything that the government cant regulate that human rights doesnt cover.

[geekWithA.45]

The way I learned it, unnalienable rights are those inherent in your existence, and civil rights are those granted by government.


For example, voting is a civil right but not a human right

Actually, I would argue that voting is a BAD example of a civil right, and is actually an unnalienable right.

The right to vote comes directly from "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".

The vote is the specific mechanism by which those _just_ powers are consented to.

Without it, (or some other mechanism of consent) government would have no conduit to any Powers delegated to it, are therefore would be invalid.

Therefore, the mechanism of consent is a right that cannot be granted by government. It is the other way around: through our vote, we grant the government it's existence.

Now, there are certainly some tanatalizing concepts that spin off from this. The first most obvious is the digression concerning the disenfranchisement of felons, but I'm going to leave that one alone for now.

A more interesting question is that of non participation in the vote/mechanism of consent.

By not voting, could it be argued that we are withdrawing our consent from the false choice presented to us?

As a practical matter, it works out to be an abandonment of power on our part, but the D of I had something interesting to say:


He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise;

In this case, they are making the argument that if government doesn't exercise the Powers granted to it, if it is feeble or inneffective, that Power automatically passes from the government, and back into the hands of the People.

Now THAT might have some interesting repercussions with respect to Bill of Rights enforcement.

The concept requires pondering........

[Edward429451]

Because the sovereigns (us) were born as citizens, the 14th amendment could not and did not apply to them. They do not need citizenship or rights granted to them, as we are "natural born" preamble citizens, rather than citizens created by legislation. Our rights were endowed by God and unalienable.

"When the Constitution was adopted, the people of the united states were the citizens of the several states for whom and for whose posterity the government was established."
Perkins v Elg, 99F. 2d 408, 410, (1938)

Because 14th amendment federal government citizenship was the result of a grant from the legislature, United States citizens, subject to its jurisdiction, were "granted" legislative civil rights as opposed to "endowed" unalienable rights.

"A 'civil right' is considered a right given and protected by law, and a persons enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by the law that creates it."
82 CA 369, 375, 255 P 760.

A recent 1993 Federal Court Ruling in Denver, Colorado clearly differentiates state citizen's unalienable rights from the privileges and immunities of the 14th Amendment citizen of the federal government:

"The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. (see Slaughter House cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873). Instead this provision protects only those rights peculier to being a citizen of the federal government; It does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship."
Jones v Temmer, 829 F. Supp. 1226

The Code of Federal Regulations defines "citizen"

"Who is a citizen: Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen."
26 CFR sec 1.1-1(c)

"A person is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, for purposes of aquiring citizenship at birth, if this birth occurs in a territory over which the United States is sovereign..."

"The Congress shall have the power...To excercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (Not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, ( (district of Columbia) and to excercise like authority over all places (federal enclaves) purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same will be, for the erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock yards and other needful buildings; AND- To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the forgoing powers..."
Constitution, Article I, sec 8, Clause 17.

"The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particulasr state."
Constitution, Article IV, sec 3, Clause 2.

Hope this helps.

Sounds backward, but for legal purposes, we are NOT citizens of the United States but rather "A citizen of the Republic of Colorado" (for me) and so forth. We granted them a few rights, and they granted their own citizens 'civil rights'. (such as people born in D.C., or the blacks who were granted citizenship upon being freed.) Our rights are not civil, they are endowed.

[TheBluesMan]

This thread is a very good idea. It will be useful for both membership and staff to post their thoughts on the issue. Here's Oleg's guidelines: Legal & Political is for discussions of legal aspects of weapon ownership and civil liberties. Anything centering on religion, abortion, homosexuality and other topics which have reliably generated flame-fests over the last year are prohibited. Despite our hopes, these important but contentious issues simply do not get discussed in a civil manner.

I think you'll find that the moderators of L&P are keeping an open mind on exactly what a civil right is and isn't. Obviously, the Bill of Rights is a good starting place, but, as Cuch said, the Ninth Amendment doesn't preclude other rights. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. We all have our own ideas of what constitutes a civil right and I'm sure that there will be some disagreement as some threads get closed and others don't. Eventually, I think we'll all come to an understanding of what is and isn't good subject material.

I'm going to float this thread for a little while so all L&P regulars can see it and contribute. For the purposes of this thread, it is more important to express your opinion than to take issue with another member's opinion.

[geekWithA.45]

the blacks who were granted citizenship upon being freed.

I would argue that by Rights, no legislation was necessary to make them citizens. (As a _practical_ matter, few at that time were prepared to recognize their citizenship, however, and therefore the legislation was necessary)

The slaves at that point HAD BEEN BORN on American soil, and thus qualified for preamble citizenship.

Their unfortunate condition of slavery was NEVER VALID OR LEGITIMATE. It was an excercise of a Power that was NEVER JUSTLY held by any individual or State.

Slavery was not an issue of property rights. No human can own another. Period. Any attempt to claim to do so is at the claimer's risk and peril.

Slavery was not a States Rights issue either, because NO STATE can legitimately claim ownership of another as a Power either.

Slavery was both an economic and a social issue, backed up by the illegitimate "color of law".


I'm going to go one step further, and state that by Rights, EVERY slave uprising was just and warranted, and that EVERY slave would have been well within their rights to take up arms and kill their "masters" dead on the spot.

Any one of us would do that today, if someone were foolish enough to claim ownership of our person.

(ps: for what it's worth, I'm a white guy)

[Baba Louie]

from the American Heritage Dictionary
Civ il adj. OF 1. a citizen or citizens: "civil rights"...
So its Old French and means citizen
Right(s) n. ME...2. Often Right. The persons who adhere to traditional attitudes and beliefs and hold conservative political views 3.That which is morally and ethically proper, "just or good" 4. A just moral or or legal claim: "the right to vote"...
So its Middle English from Old English [riht] meaning straight

OK, using that as MY basis, I'd say anything that pertains to or is defined within the bounds of "a citizen's inalienable morally, ethical and just treatment and actions" as defined by the mores of the time for that particular culture. There's the rub. That last qualifier.
I'd also say that it is anything different from "military" rights as you can only be one (a citizen) or the other (militia or government issue... they own you)

So the real question is are we talking about a US citizens' rights in 2003 or are we discussing a UK citizens rights in 1805 or a Roman citizens rights circa 45 BC? Lets say "USofA" and "today" cause thats waaaay different from the US of A circa 1855.
As you can see, these nebulous things we call civil rights evolve and dissolve, wane and wax as our (ahem) civilization gets older and our government gets bolder.
From white, male, literate land-owners only being able to vote to anyone who has a valid (or not so valid) ID being able to cast his or her vote in whatever language they speak... its their/our right.
These rights can be defined by government at all levels, Federal, State, County, City or Township and now even at a United Federation level. Each a little or a lot different.

Like the US English language, these Civil Rights will continue to grow and adopt other cultures little mannerisms, keeping those that we like today and discarding older less useful idioms... or should I say continue to dwindle and be stifled by the smothering of outside sources foreign to "Our Ways".

There is NO one answer to my mind. It is what it is at this point in history or they are what they are at this point in history.

Being morally and ethically challenged, not knowing just from bust, proper being anything you can get away with and having places in this country where 30 - 40% of the population work for some form of government agency makes defining "Civil Rights" and exercise in futility.

But its fun to think about. :banghead:

Adios

[Gordon Fink]

Actually, I would argue that voting is a BAD example of a civil right, and is actually an unnalienable right.

Look at it this way.

As an American citizen, you do not have the right to vote in the United Kingdom. The franchise is not inalienable, because it can be taken away short of killing you. Your right to vote requires the consent of your countrymen. Voting is a civil right.

A British subject in the U.S. still has the inalienable right to freedom of speech. You can suppress that right to a degree, but you cannot deny him of it, short of killing him. Freedom of speech is a natural (human) right.

What we’re looking at here is a hierarchy of natural rights, civil rights, privileges, and immunities. Natural rights are inalienable, existing by virtue of our existence. Civil rights depend on our relationship with our fellow citizens and exist as a byproduct of civilization. Privileges are special benefits available only to certain individuals, social classes, etc. Immunities are legal exemptions that apply only to certain parties and usually only under special circumstances.

On the High Road, we are especially concerned with the right to keep and bear arms. This is a natural right. Why? Because it is inalienable. Firearms might be outlawed, but the determined could still get a gun. A criminal might be incarcerated in a maximum-security prison, but he could still fashion a weapon from a spoon, a belt, etc. The right to keep and bear arms can be suppressed, but it cannot be taken away.

~G. Fink

[cuchulainn]

Firearms might be outlawed, but the determined could still get a gun. A criminal might be incarcerated in a maximum-security prison, but he could still fashion a weapon from a spoon, a belt, etc. The right to keep and bear arms can be suppressed, but it cannot be taken away. Gordon, You seem to be describing abilities, rather than rights :)

Here's another hierarchy for you:

A. Right – that which society has an ethical obligation to allow us to do, such as the RKBA (in most cases … obviously, there are exceptions involving competing rights, like disarming a lunatic or barring someone from speaking on your property).
B. Liberty – that which you are legally allowed to do.
C. Freedom – that which we are unfettered to do.
D. Ability – that which we can do.

Any action can be one, some or all of these.

For example, you have the right, liberty and freedom to flap your arms to fly, but you don’t have the ability (A, B, C).

You have neither the liberty nor the right to murder your neighbor, but you do have the freedom and the ability (C, D).

English people have the right, freedom and ability to own handguns, but not the liberty (A, C, D).

An unemployed man has the liberty, freedom and ability to seek Welfare, but not the right (B, C, D).

I'd say that a privilege or an immunity typically would fall under B, C, D for those who qualify.

[Gordon Fink]

Cuchulainn, you are talking about the limitations of various rights. Accordingly, mere ability does not guarantee a right.

One natural right clearly ends where another begins. I would also argue that natural rights trump civil rights. You have the civil right to vote, but you can’t vote away my natural right to arms no matter how hard you try.

Now, obviously some of this is artificial, namely the way we decide how certain rights intersect. Some are clear … for the most part. For example, I don’t have the right to kill you, but you can’t stop me from trying. However, if I were to try, you would be fully justified in defending yourself, as I would be violating your natural right to life.

Other cases are less clear. We have the natural right of free association, but where does your right intersect with mine? When and how can you exclude me? Do we need civil laws to govern this relationship?

These kinds of question are difficult to answer, and I believe this is what leads to a lot of the ongoing conflict within our society (or any human society). However, I also think that recognizing a hierarchy of rights, privileges, and immunities would give us a logical framework for dealing with these conflicts.

~G. Fink

[tyme]

The way I understand it, at least post-CRA-1964, civil rights are positive rights that the government must protect in person<->person interaction. Civil liberties are negative rights, and are things that the government cannot interfere with. Of course, the government hasn't managed to find a constitutional way to enforce civil rights in interactions between private citizens unless one or both are acting on behalf of a corporation, but I don't think that changes the intent of the definition.

"Civil rights" don't have to be the same as either "rights" or "natural rights."

[Justin]

I'd have to say that Ayn Rand really nailed what a right is or isn't in the essays found in 'The Virtue of Selfishness.'

You have the right to do as you please so long as it doesn't violate the non-agression principle.

Said another way, if it has to come at someone else's cost, then it isn't a right.


Always struck me as being pretty self-explanatory.

[tyme]

How is shorting stock that any analyst can see is falling any different from fraud? Simply because people agreed by contract that they might lose money doesn't mean losing money is in accord with their will. Intelligent people clearly realize scams exist in the world, so why is it a violation of NAP when someone commits a fraud that's contrary to the victim's will if it's statistically expected? Furthermore, I can spend money I don't have, declare bankruptcy, and though that's a form of a scam it's still legal. Is that a violation of NAP or not?

How does the NAP-abiding libertarian reconcile medical research on monkeys with a duty not to initiate force? How do they reconcile zoos? It must be that it's acceptable to initiate force against non-humans, but then anyone who plays games with their definition of "human" can justify some truly gruesome actions like Nazi medical experiments, the Tuskegee experiments, etc. It also seems to me there's a moral disconnect in effect when society (through the courts, of course) deems it unacceptable to execute retarded humans who really did commit a crime, yet offers no complaint when scientists conduct lethal experiments on various animal species that are capable of learning and using sign language, and which have done nothing wrong.

There are other serious problems here. Nobody is objective in determining what force is; a hypothetical zen master may perceive a threat where a jury would convict him for assault/murder, if that was what he deemed necessary to eliminate the threat (otherwise presumably he wouldn't have interrupted his meditation, or would have exited the back door). Similarly, there are situations where initiation of force is unnecessary, but only a zen master could know. These are forgiven in a court of law even though they violate NAP. Should law be modified so that these people are thrown in prison?

Not only do I think that NAP doesn't encompass the whole of the moral/immoral catagorization, but I think the whole concept of NAP is a scam that's merely convenient as long as people ignore boundary cases. What is a "threat of force?" Do you know one when you see one? Since I've declared NAP a scam, I guess that means NAP is itself a violation of NAP? Who do I get to shoot? Ayn Rand's corpse or L. Neil Smith? :rolleyes: (Just kidding... clearly I'm not justified in shooting anyone who's only exercising the right to free speech... right? ...not even when the axe murderer has droped his axe, started walking away, and is muttering how brain stew would taste good with the liver he has on ice in the next room?)

I also think that talking about cost as the result of agression is stretching the words rather too much. Lots of actions that are not a form of agression, and even actions that aren't immoral, have costs. Such costs tend to be amorphous, statistically predicted costs, but I don't think that makes them any less "costs" simply because they're not absolutely guaranteed. Allowing women and various minorities (which will go unnamed because I can never figure out what terms are politically correct and which are not) to universally exercise their right to vote results, generally, in more socialist policies. This is clearly a cost that any warm-blooded libertarian can recognize even while they (and I) can't stomach returning to the social liberty policies of the mid-1800's or even to the 1940's.

[Don Galt]

Well, it seems obvious that "civil right" is not the topic for this forum--- as a fair number of them are forbidden discussions.

I guess this forum has a special definition of "civil right" that is unique to it.

After all, the roots of freedom of religion, the abortion issue, gay rights and gun ownership are ALL found in the concept of self ownership.

Or, put another way, all of those are manifestations of the same basic right.

But half of them are forbidden to talk about.

Obviously if we talked about them, someone might point out that they are all the same right, and homophobic, christian, anti-abortion republicans would have to confront the hypocrisy of trying to claim that self defense is a right when the other aspects of self ownership aren't.

When you think about it, this means we really can't talk about gun rights in any kind of philosophical detail here...

[Derek Zeanah]

After all, the roots of freedom of religion, the abortion issue, gay rights and gun ownership are ALL found in the concept of self ownership.

Or, put another way, all of those are manifestations of the same basic right.

But half of them are forbidden to talk about.The problem here is that, in THR's history, every thread on one of these topics has ended up as an embarrassment. People hold strong opinions on these topics:
You say abortion is an issue of choice; others claim the fetus in question has no choice, and abortion equals murder.
I say Islam is a peaceful religion in the same vein as Judaism and Christianity; others say I worship the devil and that they know that Islam is devoted to killing all non-Muslims and destroying American Freedoms.
Someone else says gay rights are about being treated as a human being by society, and are at the most basic an issue of free association. Others here say that Man/Man love is an abomination, an affront to God and all Right Thinking People, and that since we can't do what really ought to be done with Gays, we can at least keep the behavior outlawed.What you have is an issue that is polarizing to the THR community as soon as it's brought up.

Personally, I like seeing these issues brought up, as it gives me a chance to challenge some of the members here in the hope that I can get them to see my point of view (which almost mirrors yours, minus some conspiracy buy-in ;) ). Unfortunately, this never works, and I have come to accept that there are some issues that simply can't be rationally discussed.

So, the decision has been made (not by me, though I'm seeing the wisdom of it) to limit the discussion on these topics for the following reasons:
They are a diversion from the central purpose of this forum.
They cause strife between our members here.
Dealing with them is a pain for moderators (who occasionally have to ban people who refuse to "get it" and can't behave nicely), who, after all, are volunteers.
They cause the most negative feelings of any threads here, and the issues discussed never get resolved. The thread is closed, and it happens again with the next thread on the same topic. Over, and over, and over, and over, till THR said "no more!"
There are probably places where these topics can be rationall y discussed. If you're in the mood to promote and moderate such a forum, I might could set you up with one. But this isn't it.

My take on it is that we've tried, and we've hoped the membership here could discuss these important issues in an adult and non-confrontational way, and they've continually failed to do so. Not everyone, but each discussion has still failed.

What's the point in keeping these threads around? The topics are important, but if we can't have a reasonable discussion of them...

[Justin]

How is shorting stock that any analyst can see is falling any different from fraud? Simply because people agreed by contract that they might lose money doesn't mean losing money is in accord with their will.

I fail to see how shorting a stock is a form of fraud. If you are involved in buying/selling/trading stocks then you had better know what you're doing. Caveat Emptor, as the old saying goes. Selling stocks short is essentially no different than a gamble. All involved with the game know the rules (or they had at least endeavor to understand them and hire someone who knows what they're doing.) Claiming that short-selling stocks is some sort of fraud is really quite bogus. If it is fraud, then so is what happened to the comic book collector's market about 7 years ago, or the cigar buyer's market 3 years ago. The fact that stocks, or any other form of wealth-growing endeavor is not assured does not mean it's in violation of the NAP. My will may be to retire a multi-millionaire, but just because it's my will doesn't mean my rights have somehow been violated if that doesn't happen.

How does the NAP-abiding libertarian reconcile medical research on monkeys with a duty not to initiate force? How do they reconcile zoos? Animals =/= humans. Sorry, but I have yet to see one animal exhibit cognitive ability, to innovate, or to pass on memetic developments to others of their species (or those outside it, for that matter.) Since animals are incapable of asserting their rights in any form- verbally, written, or via demonstration it’s really not much of a leap to suggest that they don't have rights. Does a dog have freedom of speech? Do ants have a right to assemble?

It must be that it's acceptable to initiate force against non-humans, but then anyone who plays games with their definition of "human" can justify some truly gruesome actions like Nazi medical experiments, the Tuskegee experiments, etc. For the sake of argument we'll define human as any being that can be classified as being Homo Sapien or Homo Sapien Sapien.

It also seems to me there's a moral disconnect in effect when society (through the courts, of course) deems it unacceptable to execute retarded humans who really did commit a crime, yet offers no complaint when scientists conduct lethal experiments on various animal species that are capable of learning and using sign language, and which have done nothing wrong.Egads man, you're starting to sound like Peter Singer! On a personal note, I'm quite against the death penalty under really any circumstances, but more for reasons that are outside the scope of this discussion. As for those animals capable of learning and using sign language, it seems to me that they'd be prime candidates to stand up and assert their sapience. Yet that hasn't happened. Nor have they gone on to use said sign language to communicate amongst themselves and use it as a tool to improve their individual and group lot. They can't even make fire for crying out loud!

Not only do I think that NAP doesn't encompass the whole of the moral/immoral catagorization, but I think the whole concept of NAP is a scam that's merely convenient as long as people ignore boundary cases. What is a "threat of force?" Do you know one when you see one? So long as we're talking hypothetical boundaries and judging how they would apply given the NAP allow my to offer up what is a fairly well-known theorem in modern legal circles: The Rational Man. Given a human being who is capable of thinking rationally (certainly a rarity in today's culture, but not completely unheard of) it could be posited that a rational human being would be able to come to a rational conclusion as to what a threat of force is in a given circumstance. This, of course, presupposes that the rational person is given all of the evidence for and against the case.

I also think that talking about cost as the result of agression is stretching the words rather too much. How so? If an axe murderer chops someone into stew, did his actions not cost his victim his life? Given, the word aggression tends to denote a physical act, but if fraud is stealing, and robbery is stealing, and stealing violates the NAP, then its not outside realm of the NAP to include fraud as a form of aggression.
Allowing women and various minorities (which will go unnamed because I can never figure out what terms are politically correct and which are not) to universally exercise their right to vote results, generally, in more socialist policies. This is clearly a cost that any warm-blooded libertarian can recognize even while they (and I) can't stomach returning to the social liberty policies of the mid-1800's or even to the 1940's.I know plenty of white guys who vote that way. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to find that a majority of white guys vote that way. Skin color and gender have less to do with how a person votes than whether or not their personal world-view is skewed toward looterism.

[Don Galt]

On the contrary, the issue of gay rights was discussed in this very forum, rationally, and without acrimony.

Until it was shut down by a moderator, with no explanation given. (Even in PM after the fact, other than "it would eventually have devolved")

And, again, if you shut down all discussions of civil rights, then gun rights can't be discussed in any detail either.

If people break the rules, punish them. Don't prevent everyone else from discussing gun rights, or their philosophical roots.

(Oh, and if you guys really think that making the topic verboten is going to cut their discussion, you haven't been paying much attention. Every thread on this forum that goes more than 40 posts or so, seems to have at least one reference to abortion, gay rights or religion in it. And I don't mean a passing reference, I mean someone endorsing a position on the topic.)

It would be better if this forum were changed to only discuss the legal aspects of gun ownership and use.

Take civil liberties out of the topic. You can't half have it in there.... it just won't work.

Oh, and maybe you'd consider allowing discussio nof off topic stuff someowhere else-- maybe an area called "Offtopic" so you can move things there instead of shutting down pleasent non-acrimonious topics because "ammo availibility in alaska" is not of general benefit?

Seriously, you can't forbid human rights discussion and allow discussion of civil rights. Its a contradiction.

[tyme]

Fraud: Nobody intends to lose money investing in the stock market. Nobody intends to lose money to a scam. Both happen, and people who engage in unsecured transactions should expect some to be scams just as people who trade stocks should expect to lose money some of the time.

Animals =/= humans. Sorry, but I have yet to see one animal exhibit cognitive ability, to innovate, or to pass on memetic developments to others of their species (or those outside it, for that matter.) Since animals are incapable of asserting their rights in any form- verbally, written, or via demonstration it’s really not much of a leap to suggest that they don't have rights. Does a dog have freedom of speech? Do ants have a right to assemble?
Uhh.. paragraph 5 at http://www.koko.org/world/
Also http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/chimp/langac/LECTURE4/4asl.htm
These animals show at least the same level of intelligence as severely retarded humans - which are forbidden from being executed by the State after committing crimes.

Of course non-human animals aren't humans. That's kindof by definition, isn't it? Scientists can point to particular genetic traits that humans have and that gorillas/chimps don't. I can point to traits I have that simese twins don't, and traits simese twins have that I don't. Does that mean they're not human or that I'm not human? The only other way to convincingly define human is by percentage difference from some standard of the human genome, at which point "human" is defined through an arbitrary value X. People within X% of the standard human genome are human, others are not. Does X% apply to one or both sets of chromosomes? Are fetuses that have terminal mutations that also drastically affect the genome still "humans?" [Nobody's brought it up, but I figure I should address the "can reproduce with other humans" objection... what about impotent humans with severe genetic abnormalities?]

The point about cost was simply that "cost" is a much broader concept than the [notion of aggression in the] NAP, and your statement that anything with a cost is not a right is false unless you have some incredibly strained [i.e. narrow] definition of "cost," which I would not be willing to accept.

The gender gap exists, whether you want it to or not. The percentage of women and men voting for republicans is getting close, but put only a libertarian and a democrat on a ballot and I think you'll see a huge difference in voting patterns.
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20031113-090231-4928r.htm

As for minorities, the unknown factor in last year's election in TX was how many hispanics would be mobilized to vote due to the governor's race (the democratic candidate was hispanic), and everyone predicted that this would have a substantial effect on other races (the senate race, for instance). Hispanic turnout can't really be judged accurately, but the presumption is that large hispanic turnout didn't occur, and that's why Perry and especially Cornyn won by such large margins. I think there's plenty of solid evidence that race and ethnicity affect voting patterns. From a theoretical perspective, it seems unavoidable, because races and ethic groups aren't fully integrated and different policies have different effects on different segments of society.

(edits -- for clarity -- are in brackets)

[XLMiguel]

Life ain't fair.

There are no guarantees in LIfe.

Life is strange. In order to provide a little levity and antithesis, I offer the following:

The Bill of NO Rights
The following was written by State Representative Mitchell Kaye from Cobb County, GA.

We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, delusional and other liberal, bed wetters. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights.

ARTICLE I:
You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II:
You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone - not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III:
You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV:
You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V:
You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI:
You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII:
You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII:
You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

ARTICLE IX:
You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE X:
You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness - which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

[cuchulainn]

tyme,

but I think the whole concept of NAP is a scam that's merely convenient as long as people ignore boundary cases. Perhaps Libertarians do not apply the NAP broadly enough (I don't agree), but that doesn't make the NAP a bad philosophy. Misapplication of a philosophy does not mean it is bad, but rather than the user misunderstands it. How does the NAP-abiding libertarian reconcile medical research on monkeys with a duty not to initiate force? How do they reconcile zoos? It must be that it's acceptable to initiate force against non-humans, but then anyone who plays games with their definition of "human" can justify some truly gruesome actions like Nazi medical experiments, the Tuskegee experiments, etc. With all due respect, that's a non sequitur. Animal research and reconciling zoos does not require playing games with the definition of human because neither involve acts against humans. In fact, anyone who suggests that animal research and reconciling zoos involve playing games with the definition of human is himself playing games with the definition of human. :)

[cuchulainn]

Mike in VA,

I'm going to have to be pedantic. While I agree with the spirit behind that list, I would have changed the last two to"

"You do not have the right to be provided a job."

"You do not have the right to be provided happiness."

[rock jock]

The limitations on govt are enumerated in the BoR. Those not enumerated are open to debate at the state level. Of course, the desire to inflict our own views on others results in erroneous SCOTUS decisions, overreaching federal power, and the blatant hypocrisy we see here on the THR.

[tyme]

cuchulainn, how would you define human?

The only way to duck out of the issue is by taking a religious view and saying humans are the product of reproduction between humans, and that God created Adam and Eve. Boom. Done. This brings up an interesting question - how do I know I'm descended from Adam and Eve? Maybe blacks, chinese, or even british aren't... a fascist's dream! Round them all up and dump them in internment camps... err, I mean zoos. :rolleyes:

If that asinine approach isn't taken, there are more interesting problems. Chimps have something like 92-99% DNA in common with humans (the actual percentage is unimportant but it seems like that's a likely range), and have 48 chromosomes rather than 46. This isn't that difficult a problem... the chromosomal difference alone is qualitatively significant. But what does it mean? If a chimp stem cell is genetically engineered to be 99% similar, and some or all of the 24th chromosome pair is deleted, is that a human? What if it were engineered to 99.5% or 99.9%? I'm not sure what percentage of DNA is different between two humans, but you have to wonder - genetically engineer a chimp stem cell to resemble a humans' more and more, and at some point it becomes a human, right? Certainly if you replace everything in the stem cell with human cell components and manage to get it to act like an egg, the resulting creature would be a human, right? Reproductive capability, even if it could not be achieved through such genetic engineering attempts, is not required in order for the creature to be human -- people born sterile still have all the rights of other humans, don't they?

Again, the only way to shut this line of thought down is to define genetically engineered creatures as non-human (and maybe even non-animals). At that point, how can anyone tell the difference? Let's throw everyone -- except me, because I'm human -- in a zoo!

I can point at a chimp and say "not human," but that doesn't help to understand the issue. What happens tomorrow when some genetic researcher does exactly what's mentioned above? How should the courts decide whether these things -- creatures, beings, whatever -- have rights? Of course, I've erred in using "human" and "chimp" above, because the use of "chimp" and "human" is based on preconceived definitions that have no basis in genetics. There is no "human gene." There is no "chimp gene." If there were, a mere point mutation could cause a human to be non-human, and this doesn't happen. Any kind of problem -- genetic stupidity, muteness, deafness, blindness, deformities, missing organs -- doesn't disqualify a person from being human. Even if the fetus dies in utero, is it then not human? Absence of a (physical) brain might be a disqualifier - but by that measure chimps could be humans - why do we not treat them as deaf and mute people? That's precisely what those examples I cited previously are about. Animals can learn sign language.

As a final example, consider this unlikely but theoretically possible scenario:

Some particular instance of human reproduction results in an embryo that has an unbelievable number of mutations, and these mutations make it a viable chimpanzee in terms of chromosomes (48) and genes. It should be noted that this isn't likely to happen. It is only somewhat less improbable than the infamous Maxwell's Demon creating a perfect vacuum in by letting all gas particles out of a particular room and letting none back in. But it is theoretically possible.

What should a judge do? Does this "chimp" have human rights? Taking the above religious view and saying it's a human is going to upset all the animal researchers even though it would probably make the parents happy. Taking the opposite view may be practical, but what about the feelings of the parents? Does their child not deserve the same rights they have? What if the chimp has one human likeness, and it can speak? What do you do with a chimp, born to two humans, that can speak but will never exceed the mental capability of a child? (How much of a "child" is the intellectual limit in that situation would be uncertain, but I think it's safe to say that chimps and gorillas that learn sign language and hold semi-intelligent, if uninteresting, conversations do exceed the capabilities of a newborn.)

How can we ever expect to advance as a society when such a question would become a battle between religion and science, decided by a few judges and justices? That's what the question of rights seems to lead to.

[cuchulainn]

cuchulainn, how would you define human? The same way you do when you write: "Chimps have something like 92-99% DNA in common with humans." You use differenct words -- chimps vs. humans -- to define different animals. Chimps -- as you acknowledge -- are not human. Now whether they should be afforded special treatment over less sentient fauna -- say flatworms -- is a different question. But you're simply playing games with the definition of human. :) The only way to duck out of the issue is by taking a religious view and saying humans are the product of reproduction between humans, and that God created Adam and Eve. Boom. Done. This brings up an interesting question - how do I know I'm descended from Adam and Eve? Maybe blacks, chinese, or even british aren't... a fascist's dream! Round them all up and dump them in internment camps... err, I mean zoos. You pack three logical fallacies into that short paragraph. :)

1. Straw man -- You suggest that the only way to take the view that homo sapiens are the only humans is to base it on religion. That simply is not true. Plenty of atheist scientists take the view that homo sapiens are the only humans.

2. Non sequitur -- You suggest that denying the "humanity" of non-homo sapiens means you will deny the humanity of fellow homo sapiens. That simply does not follow.

3. Slippery slope -- You suggest that zoos somehow lead to fascist mistreatment of fellow human beings. You're projecting a highly unacceptable -- but false -- outcome to create negative emotion.genetically engineer a chimp stem cell to resemble a humans' more and more, and at some point it becomes a human, right? I suppose so, but that doesn't make the chimp you started with human any more than genetically engineering flatworms into humans makes the flatworms you started with human.

[tyme]

The fact that I'm using "chimp" and "human" to refer to different entities shouldn't be a problem. It's difficult to discuss the issue without leverage existing concepts of those two words. "Chimp" means the common socially accepted definition - if it looks like one and acts like one, it probably is one. Empirically, we can split chimps and humans by which are genetically capable of reproducing with which. This is somewhat useful to catagorize species (horses and donkeys being a notable exception), but not useful when talking about rights.

1. In order to avoid looking for inherent qualitative/quantitative differences between humans and other primates, you have to look at how the human/animal was created rather than what it is, by itself with no outside/historical information. If you accept evolution, at some point my great-great-....-grandparents were not human, so "creature X is human because creature X's parents were human" fails. Only religion provides a base case (Adam and Eve) necessary to overcome this deficiency. Adam and Eve are defined to be human by religious doctrine (or by God). The whole point of this was to head off the argument that humans are human by virtue of their parents.

The reason scientists and most other people accept this -- that chimps are not "human" -- is that they assume there is some philosophical difference between a chimp and a young mentally disabled child, or they're happy to accept that some % difference in DNA is "good enough" to justify cruel and unusual treatment of chimps. Alternately, it could be said that such researchers, being utilitarians, would conduct the research on anyone they can. Since they would face reprisal from society for conducting research on young, disabled children, they use primates instead, and accept society's definition of "human" and "chimp" to avoid being punished by society. Neither of these is useful in convincing me or anyone else who isn't already convinced.

2. If it is not possible to differentiate "human" and "chimp" in a valid way, both words can mean the same thing. I would not deny the humanity of anything that's human (It's obvious, I think, that humans possess "humanity"). I just question denying the humanity of "chimps" unless someone can point to some fundamental difference. Whether someone wants to treat all "human" creatures as beings deserving respect, or whether they want to put them in zoos, has nothing to do with whether all "human" creatures, whether than includes humans or humans and chimps, deserve equal treatment -- or even whether they deserve anything at all.

3. Clearly, references to putting humans (as commonly understood) in zoos are sarcastic. I only suggest that if chimps and/or some other primates aren't differentiable from humans, putting them in zoos is equivalent to putting humans in zoos, which is clearly unacceptable. Interestingly, if you shoot an animal at a zoo, you'll get in trouble, and not only because you deprived the zoo of an asset or because of the social disruption it would cause. The same animal, in the wild, gets no such empathy from most humans.

We don't have to focus on chimps. Just about everyone would be furious if someone came to take their pets to carry out on them the same experiments that are done on various other animals. A reactive response might be similar to the zoo example, that the researchers would be depriving people of property (pets), or that they would be causing mental anguish (to the owners). But I think at least part of the problem is that the owners feel their pets have some rights. Why? Where did they come from? Why do wild animals have fewer or no rights?

I think we create rights for ourselves so that we can accept doing harm to non-humans, whoever we classify them as, because we realize it is inevitable or perhaps even necessary. Vegetarians and animal rights groups may be a bit more honest - they "hurt" and kill plants because they don't have brains. People get rights first because of some strange notion of their potential, and because of their parents (in some ways, children are still property). Somewhere along the line, at age 18 or when they're emancipated, children become adults and are given full social rights.

Which arrives at a core of social philosophy. I respect others' rights so that my rights are respected. Why are chimps presumed to be evil? I never signed a contract saying I'll respect other people's rights, but I'm treated with the assumption that I do even when I'm in a foreign place and nobody knows me. Why are chimps not given the same consideration? Why is it assumed that they have not entered society? Have pets entered into society? If chimps have not entered into society, it seems to be mostly because they've been physically isolated first by chance and then with a cage. They are given no opportunity.

Try to kill a chimp or gorilla that knows sign language and a court might find that you're guilty of something more than cruelty to animals. Why does learning sign language matter? If a person kills a toddler who hasn't learned to speak, is that murder?

[cuchulainn]

tyme,

Sorry, but all you're doing is playing semantic games with the word human. Frankly, you are distracting from your argument -- the idea that we should afford special treatment to chimps (or even flatworms) need not depend on such semantic games.Which arrives at a core of social philosophy. I respect others' rights so that my rights are respected. But there is a next-stage that humans are capable of going to -- respecting others' rights despite the lack of reciprocity. This is based on ethics, something chimps are incapable of grasping as a species.

If you show me that chimps -- or even flatworms -- as a species are capable of taking that leap, I'll start to consider the possibility that animal rights (or at least chimp rights) might be valid.

Certainly individual chimps can be taught to behave, but that is with the goal of receiving a reward or avoiding a penalty. Humans -- though they go through such a primitive carrot/stick stage as toddlers -- as a species are capable of progressing to the point of understanding and practicing the ethics of rights. This is the germ of why humans have rights.

Unable to truly respect rights, chimps -- as a species -- cannot live in a society based on rights. So why should they get rights.

And please don't compare the chimp to a toddler or mentally deficient person. I have been careful to use the qualifier "as a species." I'm aware that not all humans have the ability to take the leap from selfishness to ethics. But the majority of the species does; so we all get the rights no matter our abilities.

[Gordon Fink]

Humans—though they go through such a primitive carrot/stick stage as toddlers—as a species are capable of progressing to the point of understanding and practicing the ethics of rights.

Correction: some humans reach this point. I suspect that most do not, unfortunately.

~G. Fink

[cuchulainn]

Gordon,

But the capability is there for most humans whether they actually do achieve it or not -- that was my point. The capability does not exist for chimps; thus chimps are incapable of maintaining a society based on the ethics of rights.

[Gordon Fink]

I wouldn’t go that far in the other direction either.

~G. Fink

[dustind]

The NAP does not cover what is or is not human. You do not even need to use humans, you just have to define what you are talking about. Whether a monkey or human is a human is just as irrelevant as wether chevy or ford makes better cars. If I wanted I could apply and program in the NAP to the artificial intelligence of computer robots. You could also easily apply the NAP between humans and animals if you wanted. Many people simply take the "butter and garlic" approach to animal rights, as in that is all they have. The right to butter and garlic. :D

The NAP is simply "you can not initiate force against others." This includes fraud ( it is a type of force) and also people usually apply it to their property as well.

Killing animals violates the NAP against that animal, but so what? When I go pheasant hunting tomorrow I will hopefully violate the NAP against a few birds. Since they are not humans I do not care. I will happily harm them for the sake of food despite the fact that they have not harmed me.

Your stock market analogy does not work out unless some kind of fraud was committed, people know the risk, and if they are not lied to they have no one to blame but them self. If someone guaranteed them easy money then that would be fraud, but since brokers do not do that it is not fraud.

[tyme]

Killing brain-damaged babies violates the NAP against those babies, but so what? Since they are not capable of the same kind of rational thought I am, why should I care?

The whole thing with chimps.. let me see if I can fix this since the discussion has gone way off-track and it's mostly my fault.

Let's accept that "chimps" are different from "humans." Are "people with an IQ below 70" different from "people with an IQ above 100?" Should society still treat them equally? Do they still have equal rights (or, if we follow modern liberal theory, do the intellectually challenged have more rights than people with more normal intellectual capacities)?

Okay, so if I call Tom Jones and tell him stock XYZ is going to go up, and Tom buys stock XYZ and loses a ton of money, is that fraud? Is it fraud if I short XYZ right after I call him? He should know I might be lying (unless I'm his broker, in which case the SEC would severely regulate my communication with him), right? Why does the same thing not apply to e.g. an informal sales deal? How many times do high-schoolers and college students promise to sell/trade things and then violate that agreement? How many go to jail?

[cuchulainn]

Killing brain-damaged babies violates the NAP against those babies, but so what? Since they are not capable of the same kind of rational thought I am, why should I care? ... Let's accept that "chimps" are different from "humans." Are "people with an IQ below 70" different from "people with an IQ above 100?" Should society still treat them equally? Do they still have equal rights :) You're still committing the slippery slope fallacy -- you're attempting to sway the argument with feelings by implying an emotionally-negative result that does not follow logically from the action.

Despite what you suggest, rejecting animal rights does not lead to rejecting the rights of humans with lesser IQs. Similarly, respecting the rights of all humans, no matter their IQs, does not require acceptance of animal rights. Conversely, acceptance of animal rights does does not assure respect for human rights and vice versa.

No matter how you look at the supposed cause-and-effect connection, it simply does not exist.

Sorry, no matter how many times you repeat the argument -- and no matter whether you are explicit like the other day or implicit like today -- it remains logically flawed.

[tyme]

Is separating creatures by an IQ difference of 30 points more arbitrary than separating creatures by a DNA difference of 5%? What if it's 60 IQ points, or 70? You're trying to ascribe "understanding of rights" to humans and not to other creatures based on no evidence other than the obvious - we can only communicate with a very few, and they appear to have little to no capacity to grasp our ethics, so they're assumed to lack reason, an appreciation of rights, and maybe self-awareness. All this, when we humans can't even define "self-awareness" or "reason" in an objective manner.

If we take your assertion that every member of a species has the rights of the most intelligent member, how do you deal with the fact that one of those chimps/gorillas I pointed out had something like a 75 IQ? Is that not good enough? If society gives morons rights because you or I have some idea what rights are, we'd better be quite sure that zero, or at least very very few, chimps or gorillas are capable of understanding rights before we go injecting them with various things and keeping them in cages. How many humans really understand rights, anyway? I have some vague idea, and I know various theories of rights, but I have no idea which of those theories is correct... I can only guess. And I'm not remotely qualified to teach a human ethics class. The animal that signed "don't know" when asked why it hurt its handler would be quite an interesting creature to have in an ethics or philosophy class, if you ask me.

I remain unconvinced by any of your suggestions that I'm trying to use various fallacies to advance my argument. I don't want animals to have the same rights; the very scientific research I question is giving a statistical boost to my life expectancy, humans don't seem to consider me less human if I marginalize other creatures so there's no social cost, and the experimentees are not likely to form a mob and arrive at my doorstep with torches. There's no clear pragmatic cost to treating non-humans like dirt. I'm just not sure that my opinion on the matter is just.

[Gordon Fink]

Okay, here goes nothing.…

Objectively, if you look closely at humans and other social animals, you will find very few qualitative differences. Many other species live in communities, use tools, build habitations and other structures, communicate with one another, and even train younger members of the social group. At best, humans exhibit these characteristics to a greater degree of complexity.

So do animals have rights? Yes, I think they do. Should we harm or kill animals without good cause? No. We should not. However, our survival must take precedence over other species. That is an inescapable natural law.

In a perfect world, though, we would not have to kill animals even for food. In the future, we could grow cloned meat in vats and eat as much as we liked without remorse. Until that day, some animals will have to die so that we can survive.

~G. Fink

[cuchulainn]

we can only communicate with a very few, and they appear to have little to no capacity to grasp our ethics, so they're assumed to lack reason, an appreciation of rights, and maybe self-awareness. :) Exactly, the chimp species cannot grasp our ethics of rights; therefore the species cannot participate in a community based on such ethics. Thus, discussion of their treatment in terms of rights is unfounded. This fact, of course, does not answer the question of how we ought to treat them, and you could be 100% right in your opinion of how they ought to be treated even if you are 100% wrong in you opinion about rights.

As for "reason" and "self aware," I've already as much as acknowledged both -- they are demonstrated in chimp's ability to learn to behave based on reward or penalty. But the ethical concept of rights is more than behavior modification. How many humans really understand rights, anyway? I have some vague idea, and I know various theories of rights, but I have no idea which of those theories is correct... I can only guess. The basic concept of rights is rather universal among humans, and it is rather simple. Rights define states of being that a human is entitled to maintain even if respecting those states of being means other humans forfeit rewards or endure penalties -- You demonstrate that you grasp this simple concept when you write: "I don't want animals to have the same rights; the very scientific research I question is giving a statistical boost to my life expectancy."

I suspect that you're confusing the concept of rights with disagreements over whether a particular state of being is a right or with disagreement over whether rights are innate or granted.I remain unconvinced by any of your suggestions that I'm trying to use various fallacies to advance my argument. I don't want animals to have the same rights That's the logical fallacy called non-sequitur ;) You used a particular fallacy, and your wants neither prove nor disprove that.

[goon]

When it comes right down to it, the only reason that anyone has any rights is that someone respects those rights.
For example, lets look at freedom of speech.
We know that we have this right. The Constitution establishes this right in a legal sense and we would still have this right without the Constitution.
But if an evil man gets elected and starts killing people off for exercising that right, then you don't have that right anymore.
So I guess that at the end of the day, the thing that establishes a right is your ability to keep that right.

[tyme]

cuchulainn, I'm not sure how you're defining "right" if you think that even if chimps deserve better treatment, we're not violating their rights. I think rights are all about what kind of treatment a creature deserves. We're clearly in disagreement on that, since you qualify your definition of "right" as only applying to humans.

There are benefits from treating animals like dirt, but we are moral and ethical creatures, and if we give that up what are we besides (as you claim) animals (which don't have rights, and which we may or may not be mistreating)? If we ignore ethics -- as they apply to animal treatment -- by defining "rights" as applying only to humans, aren't we no better than other species? (This leads back to the silliness that's been brought up before, putting people in cages, doing live ebola vaccine trials on them, etc.)

Gordon, since you think obtaining food trumps rights, what if there were no plants or other animals? Would we be justified in killing each other (for example, what about The Queen v Dudley and Stephens)? If we would not be justified, why are we justified in killing animals for food, or even worse doing medical experiments on them for research that may or may not result in better medicine for humans? If it is justified, non-humans must be fundamentally different.
-------

No, I'm not confused about rights in the way you suggest. There are many theories of rights. There's the issue of where rights come from: (a) rights come from raw power (b) rights come from government (c) rights come from social will (d) rights are inherent and don't come from anything. (There are certainly other theories I'm forgetting and/or am not aware of, but I think these will do.)

Then there's another critical aspect of rights, namely which theory is used to balance competing rights. Any chosen method of balancing a set of competing rights will dictate how far our rights extend. Therefore, disagreements about the nature of rights are necessarily disagreements about which rights we have and which we don't.

In the end, it's not about what rights we have but how far those rights can violate others' rights before they're invalidated. And that issue is left completely unresolved by (a) through (d). I already grinched in another thread about the Non-Aggression Principle. I don't think anyone's come up with a good theory for how rights should be balanced. Therefore I don't think anyone has a good idea of what rights are.

Goon, you assume that when Government violates rights, those rights cease to exist. That's only true under theories (a) and (b) above. If rights are inherent, or if they stem from social will, the government can do anything it wants, but won't be able to eliminate any "rights" as they're defined. It may be silly, but it's all about how "rights" are defined.

And I'm getting tired of your implications that I'm engaging in fallacies just because we don't agree. A "non-sequitur" is something that is claimed to follow logically from prior arguments but doesn't. There was no such implied logical connection in the statement you cited.