I agree but that is not what's at issue here. In reality, our individual rights are supposed to be protected by law but are instead violated by other laws which supposedly create "Rights" out of thin air.
For example, John believes it's his "Right" to force Bob to pay for his health care, his housing, his food, and so much more. Numinus refers to these as "statutory rights", thinks they are perfectly legitimate, and doesn't believe they conflict with individual rights.
I, on the other hand, consider individual rights as the only legitimate kind of rights and consider many of the so called "Rights", be they statutory, civil, or some form of group "rights", are illegitimate because they violate individual rights.
I would say that such "statutory rights" are legitimate if they are correctly codified within the laws of our society....
At the same time, I would agree with you that no one has the "right" to make me pay for their health care etc..but I think where the distinction comes is that people give up some measure of their liberty to be involved in a society.
Therefore, perhaps the statutory rights are considered legitimate by the laws of a society, but not automatically the laws of nature?
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. - Thomas Jefferson
I think he had a point at the time, however I would be curious to see his reaction to a situation where the "tyrant" is perhaps the people that the government derives its power from?
Property is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of people. Depending on the nature of the property, an owner of property has the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy their property, and/or to exclude others from doing these things. - WikiNow there is more than one school of thought concerning the source of property Rights;
Some philosophers assert that property rights arise from social convention. Others find origins for them in morality or natural law. - WikiNuminus would fall into the first category and myself the latter.
So now, BigRob, I have but one question for you...
Which is superior, Natural Rights (Individual Rights as I refer to them) or Statutory Rights?
One of them has to take precedent.
I would say that Natural Rights take precedent, but that precedent to mean anything in a society, they must be protected under the laws of said society.
This matters because John believes his statutory rights outrank your natural rights and he's trying to rewrite the laws to make sure that when you get thrown in front of a judge, to defend your natural rights, they aren't recognized by law.
I agree it matters, and I think we need to be challenging such actions...
And BigRob I'm curious... I know your position on rebellion and succession, so at what point would you decide the laws of John to be illegitimate?
Well, I would say that while I might think a law is illegitimate, if it was passed under the established framework our society has for passing laws, then it carries legitimacy.
That said, if enough people find a law to be illegitimate, I think they are perfectly within their rights to throw out the old government and bring in a new one...which we do every two years in the election process.