raymor

Were that true, there would be no such thing as "rights", the word
would have no meaning. I also wonder where you think Americans
get their rights from, because neither the constitution nor any other
major government document even purports to grant you any rights.
Let's think about that for say, 60 seconds.

The first amendment protects the right to free speech, correct?
It says that the government may not make a law "abridging the freedom of speech",
to quote it exactly.
In general, the majority, through the government, can make any law they want,
but rights are the exception - what makes something a "right" is that the majority
may not violate the rights of the minority. So even if the majority doesn't like your
site, you can still make it because of your right to free speech.
Do we agree so far?

I assume we agree that as the constitution states, government is barred from
infringing your human rights. Generally too, other men may not infringe your
human rights. Clearly anything granted to you by the government can be taken
away by the government. Anything granted by men can be taken away by men.
But men may not take away your rights. Therefore your human rights were not
given to you by men, but are part of your humaness. You have certain rights
because you are human, not because you were born in a certain place. Now the
Chinese governtment may indeed violate the human rights of some of it's people,
but those are indeed VIOLATIONS of their human rights, and are recognized as
such internationally. China cannot simply refuse to grant human rights and make
it OK. Why? Because human rights don't come from the government, but are
part of the nature of being human.

Governments can of course grant benefits, such as social security, and since it
granted those privileges choose NOT to grant them. If the government also granted
rights, and could therefore choose to NOT grant them, then a right would be the
same thing as a privilege and the word "right" would have no meaning.

The framers expressed the idea that certain rights are yours by virtue of your being
human by saying "We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".
Don't get hung up on the word "Creator", as it means something different to just
about everyone who reads it. You'll probably interpret it to mean that all of the framers
were thinking of some fairy tale old man in the sky with a long beard, which you think
is silly because it is. That's not actually what any of them had in mind, mostly people
would draw a picture of an old man as a METAPHOR, but the important thing is that
they said all men are ENDOWED with certain rights upon their creation, whether that
creation be by birth or other means is irrelevant. What's relevant is that the the
founding documents do not have a single sentence granting you any rights. Rather,
the constitution and other documents only recognize the "self evident" truth that you
already have these rights, and prohibit the government from infringing on the your rights.

I've laid out my reasoning pretty clearly, so if you think I missed anything important
and got the wrong conclusion please tell me exactly where I'm wrong. If my analysis
is wrong, I'd also be very interested to know what you think your right to free speech
is and where you think it comes from. The plain language of the Bill of Rights is that
it does not grant you any new rights, but simply bars the government from infringing
rights that it assumes you already had.