Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
I suppose you haven't spent much time on the Constitution, have you - its structure and purpose? Oh, but discussion of that substantive portion of my earlier post would detract from the distraction of focusing on semantics, wouldn't it?
Well, I must admit that I have not spent much time restructuring, re-purposing, and fancifully re-interpreting it into a moldy piece of cheese that can be shaped into any transient form that is useful at any given moment, NW Ponderer.

Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
"Rights" are merely interests that have gained sufficient importance to be protected by legal strictures - oh, which means protected by the State.

That is, at best, a description of privileges granted (and easily rescinded) by the State to its subjects, NW Ponderer, not Rights. Though, I do see how handy it can be to present Rights as being subject to the arbitrary interpretation of a ruling class, I remain much more comfortable with what I wrote in another thread quite some time back:
Originally Posted by issodhos
Allow me to first repeat, with emphasis added, what I have previously written, which was, �My view is that rights are inalienable and pre-exist the state and also pre-exist any agreement made among men to recognize them.� Please note that I did not write that they pre-existed man. I also wrote that �rights are integral to the human mind� which is to say they are integral to man. They are essential to the completeness of man and reflect the nature of man, not nature in general, not �natural� man, but the nature of man.

"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos