Where do government rights come from (morally)?

Government rights come from the consent of the governed.

 

nope. Morals don't have anything at all to do with rights.

Nope, not according to me. It is not moral. But once one is dead, they no longer have rights. And the shooter likely lost theirs also. In a civilized world. In an uncivil world, the shooter now has all rights until someone takes them away.

Does the whole world have a right to own a gun? Or just places where the gov't says they have the right to do so?

 

I think all rights are intertwined to some extent, if you really start digging down into it.
That's my opinion.

Maybe I would say they have the right to have a gun if they make the choice to live in certain places. I know that's vague but that's as simple as I can easily break it down here. (And I assume we're talking about natural rights)

 

IMO, there are no natural rights. Everyone has a right to life, so that could be considered a natural right. And everyone has a right to defend said life.
But in the end, IMO, might makes right. Moral or immoral.

 

What makes you think everyone has a right to life and that's not a 'might makes right' ?

(I don't expect you to answer that question, but surely there are a plethora of other rights that are like the right to life, wouldn't you say?)

 

It is a might makes right. Where did I say it wasn't. I only said it could be considered a natural right. Since everyone in the entire world has a right to their said life.

Rights are whatever one wants to keep/defend. And they can keep said right, as long as they are mightier than one trying to take any perceived rights.
Or whatever rights a society deems important and sets up an enforcement mechanism to protect deemed rights.

Is that too difficult a concept?

 

Then the right to life is fundamentally no different than the right to a paid for and free sex change operation, from your world view.

 

I don't know how you got from what I said to what you said. Obviously no one has legitimate authority to aggress against peaceful people who do not agree to that aggression. That doesn't change the fact that there are always going to be civilian casualties in war.

 

You're a great one for conflating two different concepts into one. The state cannot both be the people and be sovereign over the people. And no, the people do not exert their national sovereignty as a supermajority of states, they do so through their elected representatives in the House, Senate, and White House. The states have absolutely zero authority over the federal government whatsoever. I don't agree with it, but as it stands, 50 state governments can be overruled by ONE federal judge.

 

I don't think you understand the concept of rights at all. Or moral rights and wrongs. By your view, slavery, cannibalism, the subjugation of women, genocide, etc., can all be morally justified by saying "might makes right". So if Hitler had won the war, Hitler would have been right. Or as long as Stalin was in power, Stalin was right. The Aztecs were right right up until the point that Cortes arrived on the scene. The Inquisition was right because they were the most powerful. Can you see how this is a terrible philosophy?

 

Originally the legislatures of each state appointed senators, and of course judges can only be appointed with the consent of the Senate, and the President who appoints Senators is appointed by the electoral college who are appointed by the states. (Indeed if states wanted to they could change their rules and have their delegates to the electoral college decided by their legislature rather than popular vote within the state)
Originally federal judges were very reluctant to overrule matters that were in the perview of the states, but that has changed over time. The federal government had a much smaller role during the early part of the country's history, so judges were not making as many rulings.

 

And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

 

I see. So it's not wrong, then, to violate someone's rights? It's not right to respect them?

Rights are a moral concept. They are not the only moral concepts.

So they acted morally until someone can prove, through might, otherwise.

Individuals have the right to do whatever they wish so long as they do so peacefully. That includes owning a gun. There is no legitimate authority to interfere with that is not inherently immoral. Unless,as you believe, might is right. Then whatever governments do is right and individuals have no rights.

 

Morals and rights are not equal or related. They can be, but don't have to be.
Morals change all the time.
Rights change all the time.

Your morals are not my morals. Sure many overlap or are the same. But many won't either.
There is really no universal moral. Although some morals are practiced by most peoples. Like killing for no reason.
Having a right is not equal to being right/correct. How do you not know this?

Is this not the right being referenced when talking about a person's/groups/humans rights?
2: something to which one has a just claim: such as
a: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled, voting rights, his right to decide
b(1): the interest that one has in a piece of property —often used in plural mineral rights
(2)rights plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature

I understand when shiite hits the fan or push comes to shove, might makes right. Certainly you've heard, the winner makes the rules.

 

Of course it's wrong to violate another's rights. IMO, and a good many others.
If rights are a moral concept, then why doesn't the USA have universal health care for all? Isn't it moral to treat the sick? Isn't is moral to do so, without profit?

In a civilized world, one should respect everyone else's rights. But we have some who think LGBT should not have the same rights as hetero people. Are those who oppose LGBT immoral?
In many gov'ts, yes, the gov't has most all the rights. Ever hear of those days when the King/Queen made all the rules?
In the USA and a few other countries, the people get to pick the gov't, which then should instill rights the people want.

That doesn't change the fact that when push comes to shove, might will win and make the rules.

 

Or, for recognizing the common elements in different concepts.

You're the only one to use that phrase. That aside, I never said the People had more authority than the People, I said they have more authority than any individual or group of individuals in the U.S.

Really? You're under the impression the Constitution does not represent an exertion of national sovereignty?

In case you didn't get the memo, the President has no constitutional role in the amendment process, and all Congress can do is propose.

Individually, of course not.

If 50 states decide to violate one or more provisions of A1S10, they can and should be overruled by one federal judge. OTOH, 38 states can, through the amendment process, fire every federal judge, nullify every federal court ruling from 1789 to the present, or even obliterate the Judiciary entirely.

What's not to agree with?

 

Some believe that it is right for the state to deliver healthcare and wrong not to. Others disagree. It's a subjective moral value.

Is profit immoral?

I doubt that you actually agree with that statement.

I typically only concern myself with what the state ought or ought not do. How people choose to view things is up to them. I deem it immoral for people to shove their morals down the throats of others, as you would do and as anti-LGBT folk would do.

If they have something, such as rights, they must have taken them from somewhere. From where did they get those rights?

 

There is always a line in the sand to be drawn on most every issue?

Of course not.
Is not making a profit immoral? You didn't answer.

Of course I do. I try to live by it. But your opinion on it is worthless, so carry on.

I see, you think fighting for equal rights is shoving morals down others throats. Says a lot.

In the King rule, they gave them to themselves.
In the USA gov't type system, the people, supposedly, gives us our rights.

 

What are "government rights"?

 

The US has been fundamentally transformed from a nation of people endowed by their Creator with certain and inalienable rights into a nation of people endowed by each other with uncertain and arbitrary entitlements.
No one has a right to anything that obligates another to provide it. If it comes from other people, it is an entitlement not a right.

 

Making doctors work for free would certainly be immoral.

When your "equal rights" treads heavily on others' rights to practice and observe their religious tenets, yes, it's shoving your morals down others' throats. When your religious tenets tread heavily on others' rights to a free society, as the Muslims' tenets do, that's also shoving your morals down others' throats.

Not a good basis for rights. They have to be innate in us or they can be taken away by the same people who granted them.

 

Yes. And no one suggests such a thing

Agree, why would you think different.

The only innate right in us is the right to live.

 

The right to live requires two other rights to be meaningful: the right to liberty and the right to property. A slave does not have the right to live, so to have the right to live requires being free. Someone who cannot own property has no right to his own life, so to have the right to live requires being able to own and keep property. If a government said, "We respect your right to life, but we're not going to allow you to have any food," is it respecting your right to life?

 

A slave does have the right to live, if he wants to fight for it. As does any other human. One can live without being free.
We don't have any right to liberty. How do you think we do?
And certainly there is no right to property that is natural. We are on this earth with every other creature in the world. They have the same right to a specific piece of land as any other creature.
Only by man, gov't, people, do we grant property rights.

 

A man's life is not his own if he is a slave, ergo, in order to have a right to life, you must be free.

You're thinking too narrowly of "property". Property is everything you can possibly possess or own, whether it's a piece of land or a banana. If you cannot own anything, specifically food or the means to get food, you do not possess your own life, so in order to have a right to life, you must be able to possess property. As for your claim that everyone has the same right to a specific piece of land as any other creature, that's too nonsensical to even debate.