So would you say that human rights include due process?

@WilyRickWiles I'd say morally yes but legally and realistically that probably falls more under citizen rights when you're dealing with international issues like war/conflict, a foreign citizen committing a crime in a different country, etc.

Are you saying that all humans should be afforded the same set of fundamental rights or are you saying that humans should only be afforded rights by the nation(s) of which they are citizens (if any, and presumably factoring in any treaties between that and other nations). If the latter, do you think non-citizens should have any rights?

@WilyRickWiles Non citizens should have the right to be extradited to their own countries. Should they commit a crime as foreign nationals I believe they enjoy the same rights as a citizen as all are equal under the law. If convicted, and after serving their sentences, they should, without exception, be deported. We know all too well that sadly, this doesn’t happen enough.

Does it follow that anyone who happens to be on the correct side of the border has all the rights of a citizen? And are there any fundamental human rights that a person retains regardless of where happen to be?

@WilyRickWiles Human right are those rights that we all have as living creatures.Such as the right not to be harmed physically by another.
The rights of US citizens are outlined by the constitution of the United States and pertain only to those individuals that meet the criteria for the legal definition of citizens of the USA. The rights protected by the constitution do not extend beyond our borders and do not include protections for citizens of other nations except whereas they have legal permission to be within our borders.

@WilyRickWiles All freedom ultimately emanates from the barrel of a gun (or whatever the weapon of the day). Freedom is the work product-- the operational area, physically and abstractly-- of your ability to defend.

What we perceive as "freedom" under the auspices of a "nation" is simply a measure of shared detente. When push comes to shove, "freedom" is the equilibrium achieved in the balance of power which rests tenuously between demand, practicality and appeasement.

Even in nations that rule according to the "principles of the rule of law", freedom is simply a thin plaster shell erected over the top of this naked truth. Without the balance of power and the ability to defend, there is no freedom.

Without freedom there is no line between human rights and citizen rights and both are subject to the whims of the ruling class.

@jwhitten Well said!!

@Boardwine, @jwhitten So there's no such thing as human rights?

@WilyRickWiles That's a pretty stupid question. I've already given an example of what could be considered a "human right". What is your point? Other than to try to conflate two separate issues into one.

You can't have sovereignty and have us protect your human rights too. One of those idealistic illusions the left promotes these days. If other countries demand sovereignty from US intervention, how can we protect them from their own human rights violations? Fix your goddamned country--stop the human rights violations. Hey, then your country won't suck either and you'll probably be happy and proud to live there. Maybe I'd even live there if the left succeeds and destroys this country. The world is duplicitous.

@jwhitten, @Boardwine great series of posts. @Boardwine, may be your best post yet. You've had a lot of good ones, but this one stands out. Nice.

@RichardD You don't have to. But you only have the illusion of freedom. When push comes to shove, you will have to accept the new order as you will have very little ability to defend your operational area of "freedom". Ask anybody in any society which has undergone huge social upheaval from Russia to Germany to China to Laos to Cambodia to Iraq to Lebanon to Albania-- the list is extraordinarily long. When the political climate changed and the equilibrium shifted-- the system rebalanced according to the demands, practicality and appeasement. Which are reflective of the pressures of force within a society, which ultimately are derived from the weapon of the day.

@RichardD >> The UK was involved in two world wars to defend it.

You have the freedom that other people fought for and have "given" to you. You have the illusion of freedom. You owe your freedom to other people with guns and their generosity. You are allowed to do what they deem is acceptable. That is the extent of your freedom. If they decide that things will be different tomorrow-- you have no choice but to go along. The statement I quoted from your response is the proof that you know full well yourself the truth in what I'm saying. Had the UK lost those wars, you'd be speaking German today.

@RichardD That your freedom-- and rights-- are born from the barrel of a gun (the weapon of the day). You seemed to be implying otherwise. Perhaps I misunderstood your comment? We are all fortunate that our societies are rooted in the principle of the rule of law as it goes a long way toward smoothing out our experiences. But you could have just as easily been born into a despotic environment where the reality of that is considerably less abstract.

@RichardD What point are you trying to make?

@RichardD No. The barrel of a gun doesn't ensure freedom. It ensures power. Power to defend freedom. The power to take freedom. And life.I think one of the points @jwhitten is making is that without the ability to defend yourself your personal freedom is an illusionary veneer, given to you by those with weapons and just as easily taken by others with the ability to project force.

@RichardD The United States was born with weapons. As you Brits know yourselves. Without them, we would not have our freedom. You could point to India as an interesting example, but even there weapons ultimately are what won the day. And more to the point, it is their nuclear weapons that maintain it today.

@RichardD I think you should take another look at the history books.

In the 17th century, war broke out between King James II of England and Parliament, ending in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. This established a constitutional monarchy, which is a 'king-controlled-by-parliament' but the reality was that middle and labouring classes still had very little say in politics and still did not have the vote. The King and the upper classes remained in control

.In 1819 a mass meeting in St. Peter’s Fields, Manchester, turned violent when militia drew their swords to clear a gathering of middle and working class workers and their families calling for voting reform and a free press. Magistrates had deemed the reform illegal

.Britain did not become a democracy until the Representation of the People Acts of 1918 and 1928 that gave the vote to all men and women over the age of 21.

@RichardD >> Freedoms in the UK were not born with weapons. There was no revolution. Freedoms were voluntarily ceded by those with power to those without it.

I agree with Boardwine. You should read your history because I think the Romans might have a thing or two to discuss with you. As would the Germans, Vikings, the French, the Dutch-- and including your own British people themselves-- Wales, Scotland. the War of the Roses, the 100 Years War, Battle of Cornwall... just to name a few.

As near as I can tell from looking through the history books, Britain has been passed around like a public bicycle for a thousand years by pretty much everybody interested in having a go. Five seconds of Googling will get you a great big list... here's one from Wikipedia: [en.wikipedia.org]

>> True, the US made a unilateral declaration of independence by force of arms, but we didn't try all that hard to stop you

You mean you didn't try all that hard to stop us TWICE...

>> Look at Australia where independence was achieved peacefully.

I reckon that would depend upon your point of view... whether you were British or Aboriginal.... wouldn't you say? And then there was that little bit about a potential Japanese takeover during WW2 that got them off their butts and into the war.

It's amazing the things you can find out on the Internet... [en.wikipedia.org]

@RichardD >>In the US not everyone had the right to vote until 1924. (women: 1920). Problems with blacks voting until 1965? The Glorious Revolution (so called) was bloodless.

Bloodless?? I generally don't tend to think of the American Civil War as "bloodless". Nor the Civil Rights era either for that matter.

Even what is going on today in the Culture Wars is based on implied threat. To say nothing of the actual violent tactics being employed by Leftists to punctuate their message. Sooner or later, if it continues, it's going to provoke an escalating armed response by people who are not on the Left, and/or who do not agree with the scenario that the far-Left is pushing for the US and the rest of the world.

Even if actual guns and bullets are not involved, it is only because everybody knows they exist and are sitting around on shelves just waiting for the day they will be called into action. And upon that day, whoever has the biggest, baddest weapons and can use them the most effectively-- will prevail. And that doesn't always require high technology. The Vietcong fought a brutal, bloody war of attrition for quite some time with relatively primitive technology and guerrilla tactics.

An interesting read is "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu [en.wikipedia.org], written around 1,500 years ago, and is still required reading in most modern military academies. The book itself is quite short. The implications however, are much longer... [classics.mit.edu]

--

But we are getting afield of the original question and point regarding rights and privileges. I pointed out in the beginning that they are based on what we can defend. And that is all that I have continued to point out in all of my comments-- and moreover, what you yourself have even acknowledged in your own.

Society-- in my doctrine-- exists at the "point of the spear"-- meaning that illusory moment of equilibrium which is formed through in the collection of considerations, compromises, affordances and appeasements made by "dangerous" factions. Which faction you're in and how "present your danger" describe the envelope of your "freedom" and "rights". What you choose to acknowledge and ascribe to therein, and the tolerance you have towards others, is of your own choosing accordingly. Everybody else's "rights" and "freedoms" exist in your shadow.

--

without law and order there is societal breakdown and decency and morality quickly disappear.
it is no coincidence that as the population is losing faith in God it is also becoming contemptuous of any authority figure (the law and law enforcement) as well as any body that expresses a code of morality by which the citizens should conduct their lives.
Hedonism and personal expediency are rapidly replacing concepts of civic and personal responsibilities.

@iThink I don't agree that "God" specifically is a requirement, but certainly some basic "reverence" towards life and each other is. And I'm not sure how we accomplish that in an environment where human beings are treated so casually and life is regarded as being cheap.

@jwhitten understood - I only use the term "God" for the sake of brevity. People can infer what they will from that. The point is there has to be some sense of a higher power or moral authority...

>> Voting. Can you vote is where the line should be.

Does your vote MATTER is where the line should be.

@jwhitten Ah good old Gerrymandering. Keeping the vote down.