Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Suave
I think it's pretty realistic, but sure I'll toss out some more. 
Let's say there is a government in place. Someone breaks into your house and steals your stereo. How do you know that you currently have the right to ownership of property, and to have your own private property? Because if you call the police (a branch of the government), people will come and enforce that right for you. |
A much more realistic example. thanks.
whether someone breaks in to my house or not has no relevance to whether or not a government is in place. The government is not there to protect me, it is there as a 'reactive' force to administer justice. I still have the right to my own private property and its privacy as well as the right to protect it from someone who would break in and steal it. With a government in place, they only have the right to prosecute as 'the people' to provide justice and show the criminal element that 'the people' speak with one voice against those that violate those individual rights.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Suave
Or speaking practically, women in certain poor nations do not have the right to free speech. You and I may believe that the right to free speech should be universal, but their circumstances (a government and social system that do not recognize a woman as having the right to free speech) state that they do not have that right.
|
We, in the USA, have the right to free speech. We consider this a pre-exixsting right. Just because other nations have allowed a single leader or group to assume control and deny them that right does not mean that this right does not exist, it is just being denied them at that time by those in power at that time.
This is the problem with alot of peoples thinking. The government is not there to provide, protect, or promote our own individual rights, we do that. That is what is so important about the 2A, when the government decides that it's power is more important than our rights, we can tell them 'not so much'.