Proposition: States (that is, ruling regimes) have powers; private individuals do (or don’t) have rights, according to their ruling legal document(s).
I was thinking to engender some dialogue, but . . . guess not.
I was thinking to engender some dialogue, but . . . guess not.
Is it not true that individuals do (or don't) have rights whether they are private individuals or not?
Is it not true that some rights, such as the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not dependent on ruling legal documents? Admittedly, there are some rights dependent on ruling legal documents, just not all of them.
If the above is true and you're defining a State as a ruling regime (which I'm not sure I would), and a ruling regime consists of individuals as it must, would not the State have rights because the State is a ruling regime which is individuals who have rights?
Lawyers make up their own jargon then foist it upon the populace.
I would have much less of a problem with it, if it wasn’t for the slime factor.
Ps. My favorite scene in Jurassic park was when the lawyer gets eaten while he cowers (a good word to describe many liars...err lawyers) on the toilet.