If rights are innate, the role of Government is to protect them, or least protect certain rights, as the State only has limited time and resources.The goal of this Government is to prioritize which rights it protects, among the infinite reservoir of rights that are innate and retained by the people (Ninth Amendment).
Without a state, you'd be pretty fucked.
You won't find anyone (other than Anarchists) that disagree with that statement.Without a state, you'd be pretty fucked.
Exactly. Without controlling politicians, our rights are safe. It's they who constantly seek to trample on them and try to micromanage our lives.
Nobody is discussing the merits of having a state. The question is whether rights exist separate from being granted by a state. Konradv's position is question begging.Without a state, you'd be pretty fucked.
???I would also point out that by failing to outlaw slavery the Constitution was clearly a piece of crap that failed to live up to the standards for government which justified the revolution in the first place.
"Rights" don't exist outside society. They are collective figments, only "existing" when society believes in them.Rights are just the name people made up to describe moral beliefs they considered important. The whole thing about them being God given is also a belief but it is also propaganda and an attempt to make sure people know they are important.
By calling them rights it is also meant to establish the relationship between the people and the government. Essentially the basis for establishing the government in the first place is for that government to protect these rights (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness). Inherent in the belief concerning rights is that government can be abolished if it fails to live up to these requirements.
I would also point out that by failing to outlaw slavery the Constitution was clearly a piece of crap that failed to live up to the standards for government which justified the revolution in the first place.