[NatCh]

Originally Posted by JohnClif

Again, I disagree. I know that's what many people think, and what many people say, but this doesn't make it right. For instance, the right to free speech is not protected in North Korea, but North Koreans still have the right to free speech even if that right is denied by their government. Similarly, the right to own the fruits of one's labor is an inherent right, even if it is violated because the violator has a gun.

The ends does not justify the means... or else Hitler was right.

I'd agree that one's Rights are one's Rights regardless of whether they are ever exercised.

However, I also think that micomicon is getting at an important point: if you are prevented from exercising a Right, or even blocked from the means of doing so, do you still truly "have" that Right? I'm not asking if it stops being a legitimate Right or not, only pointing out that unless you have the option and means of exercising a Right, the fact that it is a genuine Right is largely irrelevant: there's a difference between having a Right and being able to exercise that Right.

For instance, the Right of Free Speech is specifically protected in the U.S. Constitution. If the Government came along and amputated my hands and removed my larynx they wouldn't have taken away my Right to Free Speech, but by depriving me of the physical ability to speak or write my Right of Free Speech would effectively be rendered meaningless.

This can be extrapolated to all the other Rights we "have" -- if I have the Right to vote, but somebody rips down all the signs telling folks where the new polling place is when it's moved unexpectedly (this actually happened in my neighborhood one time) then my Right has been effectively taken away. Though I still "have" the Right to vote, I can't exercise it, so I effectively don't "have" it after all.

The point I'm trying to get at in all this rambling is this: in a practical sense, you only truly "have" the Rights which you have the means to exercise, and the ability to protect that exercise.

We do have the "Inalienable Rights" with which we have been endowed, but in a situation where someone has the means to prevent our exercising them, and we lack the means to stop them stopping us, we effectively don't truly have those rights after all.

No, Hitler was not right. But he is an excellent example of why Peoples (no, that's not a typo) should be zealous in guarding their Rights from infringement, even if they choose never to exercise a given Right.

Of course, now that Hitler has been mentioned (not once, but twice), the thread is way overdue to wither and die.

Pity, it's such an interesting thread, too.