The important part is whether rights come from an institution created by people, or some other source. I don't think what that outside source is is all that important to this discussion. We could debate the existance of God and all, but that's not the point. Please educate me and answer the question in my previous post.
They come from me...and chad and yossarain and John Galt and Barb and Nicephoras. Rights are human constructs. They are given by us, and can be taken away by us.
Now that's a scary answer to me. Because that means if 50% of the country (well, not quite, but whatever) decides it doesn't like a certain right, that right disappears. So if the majority doesn't believe in free commerce as in this case, then that is restricted. If they decide to put a bunch of Japanese people in camps, then that's ok because their right to be free was just revoked. Is that a big leap? Perhaps, but it happened. I like the following example: Let's say society is me + Chicago1871. Can Chicago1871 take my rights away? No? Ok, let's add John Galt to the mix. Now it's 2-1. Is that ok. Let's add chad and yossarian and make it 4-1. What's the golden ratio?
So you're saying we shouldn't lock up murderers? Not even to protect society from them? Surely that isn't what you're saying.
Your ugly-ass tomato plants keep infringing on my liberty right to have my property values not depressed by some wacko that won't buy his tomatoes at the grocery store. FORFEIT!
No, I said the opposite. If I infringe on your life and liberty, then society gets to infringe on my life and liberty by putting me in jail.
But right there you've conceded that rights are NOT inalienable (sorry TJ for not using the 18th century version of the word) if they can be taken away by the government. The point is the "governed" have set up a social contract whereby the government can take away rights for certain reasons. You deem murder to be a worthy reason. Society as a whole, through representative democracy has deemed that limiting the amount of sudafed you can buy to curb meth trafficking is also a worthy reason. You don't like that.....well, vote all your anarcho-syndicalist-libertarian-commune friends into power and change it. Until that time.....stop shouting...."help, help, I'm being repressed!"
Yeah, we typically call it the U.S. Constitution......you know a social contract outlining how our government works. I realize your comment was just an attempt to be cute.....but sometimes I wonder if you missed 8th grade Civics....much less an actual poli sci class.
So the current executors of the social contract are the Republican Party, since they control the White House and the Congress. Damn, that sucks. I don't like this contract. I never did take a "Civics" or "Political Science" class, so you're right there. I don't think it would much matter though if I had.
ARRRRRRGH! God ********ing damn it, Matt, do you not read? Seriously, this isn't hard! I'm going to put it in bold, underline and capital letters for you, because its already been said. A GRANT OF RIGHTS BY A SOCIETY DOES NOT MEAN THEY CAN BE TAKEN AWAY WITH A 50% VOTE. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION TO DETERMINE HOW OUR RIGHTS ARE GOVERNED. Now, quit annoying the hell out of every single rational person here with the stupid red herrings you keep determined to throw at us. There is a reason that the drafters of the Constitution (you know, the document that actually defined rights) declined to state they were in any way inalienable or God deriven. The Declaration of Independence is a polemic, and thus IS IRRELEVANT to the question where your rights come from. (I'm not even going to discuss that of the Declaration of Independence effectively being written by one person who happened to have a gift for florid grandiosity.) Quit trying to pretend society can take away your rights by a vote.
OK, leave the country. Seriously, its that easy to get out of this social contract. Living in the US as a citizen means you have to enter into it. Don't like it? Move. And, incidentally, you speak like the Republicans were elected dictators with supreme powers. They're bound by the same social contract, they just happen to be the people turning its gears. They're the functionaries fo the social contract, not its executors. There's a reason why they can't randomly put you in prison - its because they're subject to the social contract too. Even I don't think you're so stupid that a civics class won't help you.
Wasn't my right to buy copious amounts of Sudafed taken away by a majority vote on some law? The Consitution permits Congress to regulate interstate commerce, and by the twisted definition of that term that is accepted this falls under that (or it's some other clause, same difference for this discussion). Is the Iraq war part of the social contract? I don't think you guys agree with that.
Question for the Constitutional experts and those who like to play one on TV: Does the Constitution give us the right to free speech and the right to worship as we choose?
No. You need a civics class soon. Really, really soon. Part of the problem with a social contract, is that sometimes your country does things you don't like. If you'd like to live in a place where only what you like is allowed to happen, I suggest Petoria.