Do states have rights?

[Surlethe]

From here: some ideas I haven't seen before and find terribly interesting.

Coercion is the basis of all morality, monseiur. Let us consider the fact that people are not the basis of organization, but societies; the state is the organic representation of an independently evolved society which, also, has rights, arguably rights that, stemming from the collective experience of all its members, exceed those of a mere individual.

Why should collective experience entail rights for the society? Aren't rights granted on the basis of sapience? Given that overall societies are themselves composed of organized groups, should the groups receive rights more than those given mere humans but less than those attributed to society as a whole? What of groups that overlap, and groups that partly compose other groups? Are all levels of organization between the individual and the entire society ignored? I haven't seen this sort of idea in much depth before, so I'm curious about its ramifications.

[Knife]

I don't honestly know. Taking her framework, in that states are societies, the only 'right' I can perceive is the right to exist or to continue to exist. For, if a society is wiped out or in other ways dies out, it can hardly grant other rights to it's people.

[Wicked Pilot]

I always thought of 'state rights' not as something intrinsic and unalienable, but something we hand out for a variety of practical reasons. One would be so local problems can be solved on a local level by those more experienced with the issue at hand. Florida and Alaska are two very different places with vastly different day to day issues, so it makes since to a large extent to let them work their own problems individually. Two would be to have a certain variety among the way things are done so that societal natural selection can bring about good practices and weed out the bad ones. State government can be innovative in their handling of tax issues, education, health care, crime, etc, and better solutions can be found. On the opposite end state governments can absolutely suck (I'm from Louisiana, I know), and their best and brightest leave (I did).


In summary; 'states rights' not a right, just a really bad name for a practical organizational setup.

[Darth Wong]

Why must everything boil down to the "rights" of some entity? Why can't someone say that states simply need to do certain things in order to serve the general public welfare?

[Wicked Pilot]

Why can't someone say that states simply need to do certain things in order to serve the general public welfare?

If you want to take away or limit someone's rights as a human being you can't do so in the name of governmental structure.

[Rhob]

Why must everything boil down to the "rights" of some entity? Why can't someone say that states simply need to do certain things in order to serve the general public welfare?

What does "the general public welfare" mean to you?

[Darth Wong]

Why can't someone say that states simply need to do certain things in order to serve the general public welfare?

If you want to take away or limit someone's rights as a human being you can't do so in the name of governmental structure.

How did "general public welfare" become "governmental structure"?

[Wicked Pilot]

How did "general public welfare" become "governmental structure"?

I'm not sure what you're asking. My point is that the phrase 'states rights' has been used predominately in arguments to restrict or deny rights to individuals. Any other more accurate term would be a less effective buzz phrase in the game of politics and public opinion.

[Darth Wong]

How did "general public welfare" become "governmental structure"?

I'm not sure what you're asking. My point is that the phrase 'states rights' has been used predominately in arguments to restrict or deny rights to individuals. Any other more accurate term would be a less effective buzz phrase in the game of politics and public opinion.

We're not debating public opinion. We're debating ethics, as in "Why should collective experience entail rights for the society?", from the OP. My argument is that rights themselves are artificial constructs which were created in order to craft an improved ethics system, and they are not the totality of ethics.

[Simplicius]

The right to exist is a rather broad category, and could probably be broken down into rights which pertain to the allocation of people and resources to maintain that existence. E.g. if the state has the right to exist, then it must have some right to coerce or compel its people to fight to defend it, and it must have some right to allocate industry, money, and raw materials for the purpose of defense. It must also have the right to expel or otherwise discipline people who pose an internal threat to the state; it must have the right to obtain revenues to fund the continuing operation of the state, and the right to allocate personnel and resources for projects necessary to the functioning of the state.

All of these are components not only of the right to exist, but the second major right of a state: the right to rule. This goes so far as the right to retain or pass on as much of that right as it chooses. A state may limit itself by granting rights to its citizens, or to its sub-organisations (provinces, states, counties, whatever), or it may not. The right to rule would include the right to increase or decrease the power it hold over its people.

However, if the state is fully sovereign, then these rights are only as good as its own ability to enforce them. By ruling and existing, a state establishes a right to rule and exist. If that state is overthrown, then its right to rule and to exist are, de facto, nonexistent. This is the problem when discussing rights not granted by a superior authority; they are 'rights' only in a very circular sense.

[Rogue 9]

The state as an entity has no intrinsic rights whatsoever; the individuals who are served by the state grant it powers for the common good, but that no more gives it rights than your car has rights because you drive it. The State is a tool to better serve the People; nothing more.

[Darth Wong]

Rather than asking which "rights" the state has, I think it is more constructive to ask what the state needs to do in order to fulfill its function, and then ask how one determines the point at which the state's needs must go unfulfilled for the sake of individual liberty.

Turning it into a battle of rights is the normal technique in these kinds of debates and I don't think it goes anywhere. People end up throwing unsupported "truths" at each other, with no way of determining how to arrive at a balance.

[Simplicius]

Rather than asking which "rights" the state has, I think it is more constructive to ask what the state needs to do in order to fulfill its function, and then ask how one determines the point at which the state's needs must go unfulfilled for the sake of individual liberty.

Turning it into a battle of rights is the normal technique in these kinds of debates and I don't think it goes anywhere. People end up throwing unsupported "truths" at each other, with no way of determining how to arrive at a balance.

What that doesn't do is resolve the function of the state, as far as the specific debate goes. The rights vs. powers issue is ultimately one of whether the state is prioritized over its citizens or whether the citizens are prioritized over the state. The Duchess' post quoted in the thread opening would seem to be a case that the state is an individual entity in its own right, rather than an organization to apply governance.

[Wicked Pilot]

We're not debating public opinion. We're debating ethics, as in "Why should collective experience entail rights for the society?", from the OP. My argument is that rights themselves are artificial constructs which were created in order to craft an improved ethics system, and they are not the totality of ethics.

OK, obviously the problem here is I'm giving my opinion on 'States Rights', the catch all buzz phrase in the US used to justify shit like slavery, discrimination, and what have you. That is the scope of my posting in this thread. My bad for being on the wrong page here. As for the broader idea that I now see is the purpose behind the discussion, I really don't have a stake or a desire to participate in that sort of philosophical argument. You guys have fun, call me when you figure it out.

[Surlethe]

Why must everything boil down to the "rights" of some entity? Why can't someone say that states simply need to do certain things in order to serve the general public welfare?

As I understood, the idea in the post quoted in the OP is that the state as an entity deserves rights of its own. Given, as you say, that rights are constructed in order to craft a superior ethics system, the questions in the OP then boil down to asking why the state should be considered an entity that deserves the protection of an ethical system.

[Junghalli]

I disagree with the statement in the OP. As far as I'm concerned the state is nothing more than an organization created by the people within it to assist in their welfare, and should exist to serve them. I fail to see why it has any more "rights" than, say, the DMV, or any other organization created to further the public good. That is to say it has no intrinsic value beyond the sum of its parts.

In practice the state is more important than any one individual because a great number of individuals depend on it. That is, to my mind, the limit of its intrinsic importance. I reject the nationalist concept of the state with a value that transcends its utilitarian usefulness to the population.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I too am of the opinion that the real reason for federalism is the fact that it is easier to divide up a state into regions to make the state more easily governable. Of course, apparently, the idea of pride crops up everywhere and eventually some people will mistake functionality for a right. Some people also believe that the great distance to the capital makes it harder to make key decisions and that they would rather govern themselves. Separatism arises when this pride grows too large for everyone.

[Baal]

Basically she is arguing in a round about way that the state has to do things to exist that are for the better of the whole possibly at the detriment of the one.

The basic needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

The problem with the arguement though is that overall it is bullshit. States historically have existed for the benefit of a very small select number of its members and to hell with the rest. In the entirety of human history it has only been on the last 200 years or so where states have existed that were for the benefit of everyone within them. Even then it has only been a small number of states on this planet and even they show that while all animals are equal some are more equal than others.

[Darth Wong]

Basically she is arguing in a round about way that the state has to do things to exist that are for the better of the whole possibly at the detriment of the one.

The basic needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

The problem with the arguement though is that overall it is bullshit.

Ah, the "it's bullshit" fallacy. This is also known as "I just don't buy it", and "shut up".

States historically have existed for the benefit of a very small select number of its members and to hell with the rest.

So? How does the existence of historically unequal societies invalidate the premise that a state may have legitimate need to infringe upon the individual for the sake of the larger society?

In the entirety of human history it has only been on the last 200 years or so where states have existed that were for the benefit of everyone within them. Even then it has only been a small number of states on this planet and even they show that while all animals are equal some are more equal than others.

Inequality of benefit does not necessarily mean that the disadvantaged party receives no benefit at all. Go back and check your non sequiturs at the door, please.

[K. A. Pital]

And Baal strikes again with wit and wisdom! The idea of working for the benefit of many is wrong because... there's inequality (wow, who'd guess!), and some vague historic, senseless bullshit.

What an idiot. Sometimes I'm at loss of words when I see how badly people fail at basic logic.

[Baal]

And Baal strikes again with wit and wisdom! The idea of working for the benefit of many is wrong because... there's inequality (wow, who'd guess!), and some vague historic, senseless bullshit.

What an idiot. Sometimes I'm at loss of words when I see how badly people fail at basic logic.

Try to learn English fuckwad. I never said working towards the benefit of everyone is bad. All I said asshat was that working towards everyones benefit is very rarely if EVER the goal of a State.

Whats wrong simple English to fucking complicated for you asshole?

[Baal]

And Baal strikes again with wit and wisdom! The idea of working for the benefit of many is wrong because... there's inequality (wow, who'd guess!), and some vague historic, senseless bullshit.

What an idiot. Sometimes I'm at loss of words when I see how badly people fail at basic logic.

Sometimes I really wonder if you asshate liberal wannabe elites of this website especially you and that faggot bag Wong actually live in the real world or if your so busy masturbating to Sci-Fi that you forget that real reality exists.

Eat a bullet asshole.

[Darth Wong]

Try to learn English fuckwad. I never said working towards the benefit of everyone is bad. All I said asshat was that working towards everyones benefit is very rarely if EVER the goal of a State.

And you would be full of shit, as usual. Government-subsidized health care, public road networks which are free for individual use, collective defense, police organizations, and welfare systems are all examples of governmental functions which serve the collective benefit, not just the interests of the rich and powerful.

Sometimes I really wonder if you asshate liberal wannabe elites of this website especially you and that faggot bag Wong actually live in the real world or if your so busy masturbating to Sci-Fi that you forget that real reality exists.

Eat a bullet asshole.

Oh noes! We pointed out that your argument is full of shit so you CRUSH our arguments by calling me a "faggot!" I bow to your superior logic, sir.

PS. Your jealousy of smart people is showing. You might want to cover that up.

[Surlethe]

Try to learn English fuckwad. I never said working towards the benefit of everyone is bad. All I said asshat was that working towards everyones benefit is very rarely if EVER the goal of a State.

Except that you said, and I quote, "Basically she is arguing in a round about way that the state has to do things to exist that are for the better of the whole possibly at the detriment of the one. The basic needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The problem with the arguement though is that overall it is bullshit." You must be out of breath from backpeddling so hard.

Whats wrong simple English to fucking complicated for you asshole?

... says the person who has apparently never used a comma in his life.

[Frank Hipper]

"Faggot" and an invitation to commit suicide.

Hmmm...