Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: KrisKrinkle; Vaquero; Wyrd bið ful aræd
If a right is described as a power it is still a right. If states have powers which are descriptions of rights, then states have rights.

I think it is dangerous (conceptually) not to make a distinction between the rights of individuals and the powers of a state. The rights of a person and the powers of a state are very different ideas. I try not confuse the two.

You question referring to “states” as “ruling regimes.” I honestly do not know what to call them if not that. In the sense that the Founding generation used the term “government,” that is in the sense of “government by the consent of the governed,” I know of no ruling regime that can properly be called a “government.” Of course, in a political context a Chuck Schumer would agree with the sentiment that government be conducted “by the consent of the governed.” But his comportment, his manner of speaking, his very bearing cries out that he thinks of himself as a ruler, not a “governor.” The same can be said of The Kenyon Pretender, and of nearly every other politician. Perhaps you would care to hazard to name a few public figures who do not think of themselves as “rulers,” just as you might wish to name a few governments that are conducted genuinely by the “consent of the government.” I leave that task to you. I cannot.

Likewise, if there are some who would essay to make no marked distinction between the “rights” of individuals and the “powers” of a state (or ruling regime), then please proceed in good health by all means. Vaya con Dios, or, in Hebrew, לכי עם אלוהים.

320 posted on 01/15/2014 3:03:26 PM PST by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies ]


To: YHAOS
I think it is dangerous (conceptually) not to make a distinction between the rights of individuals and the powers of a state.

The distinction is in the modifier: individual rights, state rights, individual powers, state powers (whatever any of the foregoing may be).

You question referring to “states” as “ruling regimes.” I honestly do not know what to call them if not that.

a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.

Or

a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign

When I think of a "state" I think of more than the ruling regime. I think of the people, the territority they occupy, their government, the things that bind them together, not just the rulers. The ruling regime may change while the state remains.

As to the "consent of the governed", the words trouble me. I don't know if there is a government that has the consent of all of the governed on a national scale, at least not in all matters.

325 posted on 01/17/2014 3:55:15 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson