Rights

[Pharaoh Cat]

You have not forfeited your rights by walking down only one side, you have had your rights unfairly violated.

How so? Isn't it better to say that the stranger who said that you can't walk on that side of the road had no right to do so in the first place? ???
Even if you concede and don't walk on that side of the road, it still doesn't give that stranger the right.

Scissorlegs, xSilverPhinx. I combined your responses since you both said essentially the same thing.

Let me start by saying that outside of this thread I don't think or talk in terms of rights.  I'm trying, here on this thread, to make sense of a concept that is actually foreign to me.

Consider the eagle.  What are its rights?  It ascends, soars, sees a fish in the stream, dives, grabs, secures its grip, ascends.  Did it have the right to do that?  Where would those rights have come from?  How could they be taken away?

What of the fish?  Were its rights violated?  If so - how?  Of what substance are rights composed?

I don't think eagles or fish have rights, because as far as I know, they don't think so either.  As far as I can tell, rights exist only in the mind.  Rights are notions.  Only a notional consciousness, a sapience, can bring rights into being by thinking of them.  Eagles and fish are spared such conundrums.  They exist in a world that is governed (structured) exclusively by facts of life - facts of power, risk, opportunity, gain, and loss.

Nor do I think rights exist as simple positives; rather, they exist as double negatives.  To say, "I have the right," is to say, "There is no reason why I shouldn't."  To say, "I don't have the right," is to say, "I shouldn't."

Thus rights and morality are tightly coupled.  I have the right to do what isn't immoral.

But what do I consider immoral?  Objectively, nothing.  Subjectively, I abhor suffering, despise bullies, and submit to logical consistency.  My concept of rights, to the extent I really entertain such a concept, is wrapped up in the principle of logical consistency.  If I haven't committed to anything, then I have nothing to be logically consistent with, and so my rights are open-ended.  The moment I commit to something, I suddenly have something to be logically consistent with, and from that eventuality there emerges the notion, "I shouldn't," which is identical to the notion, "I don't have the right."  This only happens to me because I voluntarily submit to the principle of logical consistency.  Why do I submit to it?  Because that's the kind of guy I am.

What both of you want me to do, I think, is judge the stranger immoral.  That's what so much of morality-speak is aimed at: judging other people.  But how can I judge other people?  I lack an objective standard!  I have only my subjectivity, and the primary attribute of my subjectivity is this: it is mine.  It binds only me.  Do I judge bullies?  No.  I hate them.  There is no morality in my hate.  It is pure, raw emotion, irrational, instinctive, bestial, savage.  As the mongoose lashes out at the cobra, so I lash out at the bully.  I claim zero moral superiority and zero moral sanction.  I am the eagle and the bully is the fish.

Since I have no way to say, "You shouldn't," to someone else, I likewise have no way to say, "You don't have the right."  Furthermore, since I really have no way to say, with any coherent meaning, "There is no reason why you shouldn't," I have no way to say, "You have the right."  I can only claim rights for myself, and can only deny rights to myself, and the only principle I have available to me for doing that is logical consistency, because no other principle has struck me forcefully enough that I was compelled to submit to it.

What I have never understood is why anyone needs to claim moral superiority or moral sanction in order to strike back at the bully.  Kick him in the balls and punch him in the throat.  As he gurgles a desperate prayer to black-robed Death, raise your face to the sun and bellow victory in the inarticulate roar of the silverback. 






 

[xSilverPhinx]

What I have never understood is why anyone needs to claim moral superiority or moral sanction in order to strike back at the bully.  Kick him in the balls and punch him in the throat.  As he gurgles a desperate prayer to black-robed Death, raise your face to the sun and bellow victory in the inarticulate roar of the silverback. 

Wow, that's a nice image

I think I better understand what you mean now. 

[Stevil]

Consider the eagle.  What are its rights?  It ascends, soars, sees a fish in the stream, dives, grabs, secures its grip, ascends.  Did it have the right to do that?  Where would those rights have come from?  How could they be taken away?

What of the fish?  Were its rights violated?  If so - how?  Of what substance are rights composed?

Completely agree with this, except I would add humans into the mix as well.
We all have the right to do whatever it is that we can physically do.

Thus rights and morality are tightly coupled.  I have the right to do what isn't immoral.

But, completely disagree with this.

But what do I consider immoral?  Objectively, nothing.

So there we have it, if there is no objective immoral then we have the right to do anything.

If I haven't committed to anything, then I have nothing to be logically consistent with, and so my rights are open-ended. 

Just because you might accept everything as a right it doesn't mean that you have to commit to a subset of rights. You can still come up with a principle e.g. the golden rule and use that to enforce law onto society in order to create a functional sustainable society. Just recognise that these law rules do infringe on people's rights and thus take law very seriously, do not impose on a whim or appease a small proportion of the voters.

The moment I commit to something, I suddenly have something to be logically consistent with, and from that eventuality there emerges the notion, "I shouldn't," which is identical to the notion, "I don't have the right." 

It is fine for you to say I should but when you say noone should then you are imposing. I don't think it is necessary to come to a conclusion that you are capable of defining rights or morality. Just focus on essential law for a functional society.

[Stevil]

BTW Recusant,
I haven't had time to read through the article you gave a link to yet, I am very keen to and will do so soon.

[xSilverPhinx]

Consider the eagle.  What are its rights?  It ascends, soars, sees a fish in the stream, dives, grabs, secures its grip, ascends.  Did it have the right to do that?  Where would those rights have come from?  How could they be taken away?

What of the fish?  Were its rights violated?  If so - how?  Of what substance are rights composed?

Completely agree with this, except I would add humans into the mix as well.
We all have the right to do whatever it is that we can physically do.

Whatever is in our power? But then the word "right" because vague: morally and even legally meaningless.

For instance, would you also say that hurting others is a right, even if you could? Under what conditions could it be considered a right?

[Stevil]

Whatever is in our power? But then the word "right" because vague: morally and even legally meaningless.

For instance, would you also say that hurting others is a right, even if you could? Under what conditions could it be considered a right?

The problem with this discussion is that there are not enough words in the English language and the term "right" is ambiguous and we all have preconceptions with regards to what is meant by "right".

I do not subscribe to the term "right" because there is no such thing as an "objective right", but just because there is no such thing, that doesn't mean that we have no rights to do anything.

My dilemma, is in terms of trying to discuss this topic with people, especially with people from a different world view. Even in this thread it is difficult to clearly articulate amoungst atheists, we just don't have the words to easily discuss this topic.

I think as a starting point if we use the definition
Right = The universal approval to make actions that are not immoral

Then this in some ways in compatible with both Christians and Atheist, although ultimately it defines a different set of "rights"
For Christains they have a defined list of immorals. The universal approval to them means approval of god, thus god gives us rights by approving all acts that are not immoral.

For Atheists we don't subscribe to objective morals or immorals (at least, I don't know where we would get these from if we believe they do exist). With regards to universal approval, our universe is non conscious, it can't disapprove of anything, so basically we have approval to do anything that we physically are capable of.
So in essence for Atheists we could simplify the definition of rights and state that we have the right to do anything that we are physically capable of doing.

This doesn't mean that we think people in society should be able to do anything that they are physically capable of doing (for example, hurting others).
Yes, we have the universal right to hurt others, but as part of society we want to restrict this right in order to create a functional society. In this way, laws create restrictions not new rights (legal rights are a subset of universal rights). All qualified rights must be a subset of universal rights. (e.g. woman's rights, human rights, animal rights, gay rights, legal rights)
These rights are defined by us (humans) and are used to put constraints (boundaries) on the superset of all actions that we can possible perform.

So if the following is agreed:
1.   We have the universal right to do any action that we are physically capable of performing
2.   We do not subscribe to any objective morals or immorals
Then how do we define law for our society?
Is the purpose of law to:
A. Create a functional society
B. Create a moral society
C. To create a functional and moral society

Once we define the purpose of law, then we can go about defining how we come to an agreement on rules when we don't even subscribe to objective morality.

[Pharaoh Cat]

We all have the right to do whatever it is that we can physically do.

Why?  Presumably because there is no such thing as objective morality.  But in the absence of objective morality, shall we argue for the existence of objective rights?  On what basis?  It seems easier to affirm that in the objective realm both morality and rights are absent.  Only in the subjective realm do morality and rights emerge.

Thus rights and morality are tightly coupled.  I have the right to do what isn't immoral.

But, completely disagree with this.

Do you still, after writing your later post?  In your later post you seem to affirm what I say in the above quote.

But what do I consider immoral?  Objectively, nothing.

So there we have it, if there is no objective immoral then we have the right to do anything.

Only true if rights exist objectively.  If they do, then the microscope or the telescope should detect them or should at least detect something that implies them.  Anything objective is amenable to the scientific method.  Shall we expect the scientist to teach us of rights?

Just because you might accept everything as a right it doesn't mean that you have to commit to a subset of rights. You can still come up with a principle e.g. the golden rule and use that to enforce law onto society in order to create a functional sustainable society.

If I am powerful enough, then yes, certainly.  I could also, if powerful enough, impose some insane and stupid principle that fosters a society of lunatic idiocy.

Just recognise that these law rules do infringe on people's rights and thus take law very seriously, do not impose on a whim or appease a small proportion of the voters.

Why not?  If power is all we can objectively affirm, then the only objective counter-argument is an opposing force, gun versus gun to the death or surrender.  This is why we need to bring subjectivity into the discussion.  There are only two available paths: war, or consensus around subjective values.  The Bill of Rights, for example, represents consensus around subjective values.  What state of affairs is most conducive to arriving at a consensus?  Balance of power.

It is fine for you to say I should but when you say noone should then you are imposing.

Fortunately I never say that no one should.

I don't think it is necessary to come to a conclusion that you are capable of defining rights or morality. Just focus on essential law for a functional society.

Isn't this a thread about rights?

Rights and laws make an interesting duo, as either can be mother while the other is daughter.  I can first affirm rights and then make laws to protect those rights, or I can, alternatively, make laws and then discover rights in the implications of what I legislated.  For example, nowhere in the Tanakh (the Jewish scripture) will you find any statement anything like, "You shall have the right to have property of your own and keep it."  Rather, you will find this: "You shall not steal."  That law implies a right to have and keep property.

[The Magic Pudding]

I'm more comfortable starting from the assumption inaction is the natural state, but you can be justified to do things.
Hunger justifies killing a fish.
If a guy is tossing dynamite in the lake to catch fish, you'd be justified in whacking him.
I don't think theists are justified in vilifying people.

[Pharaoh Cat]

For Atheists we don't subscribe to objective morals or immorals (at least, I don't know where we would get these from if we believe they do exist). With regards to universal approval, our universe is non conscious, it can't disapprove of anything, so basically we have approval to do anything that we physically are capable of.

No, what we have is the lack of disapproval, or, more specifically, the lack of divine, universal, or objective disapproval.  Mortal, particular, subjective disapproval may still exist and very often does.  Do we care about it?  To what extent?

So in essence for Atheists we could simplify the definition of rights and state that we have the right to do anything that we are physically capable of doing.

Only true until we start playing a game - but I'll desist from employing that language, since it doesn't seem to help me communicate.  Instead I'll say, with less generality but perhaps greater clarity, we don't have the right to do anything we are capable of doing if we live in a society of laws, since laws enshrine or imply rights and the limitation of rights.  Legally, I don't have the right to sneak up behind you and shove a broadsword into your abdomen.  It is equally true that if you and I are playing chess, I don't have the right to reach out with my hand and palm your queen when you aren't looking.

This doesn't mean that we think people in society should be able to do anything that they are physically capable of doing (for example, hurting others).
Yes, we have the universal right to hurt others,

It really seems more straightforward to deny the existence of both universal/objective rights and universal/objective morality.  The universe in its objectivity knows nothing of rights and nothing of morality.  Out there in the jungles and in the seas there is only power, struggle, death, and birth.

So if the following is agreed:
1.   We have the universal right to do any action that we are physically capable of performing
2.   We do not subscribe to any objective morals or immorals

I do not subscribe to objective morals and also do not subscribe to universal/objective rights, yet I arrive at the same place as you, to whit:

Then how do we define law for our society?
Is the purpose of law to:
A. Create a functional society
B. Create a moral society
C. To create a functional and moral society

Once we define the purpose of law, then we can go about defining how we come to an agreement on rules when we don't even subscribe to objective morality.

In the absence of objective rights and objective morals, we are left with nothing to do but decide for ourselves, subjectively, what purposes we want our laws to serve, reach a consensus from among the various subjective points of view, and then design laws to fulfill the purposes called out in our consensus.

Here's my subjectivity for what it's worth:

First, I want logical consistency in whatever we do.

Secondly, I want a society in which all of its members thrive.

So now I ask, where can I study thriving to learn its parameters?  I answer, in the wild.  In the jungles and in the seas there is thriving to be studied.  What else do I find there?  Most conspicuously, I find balance.  In the systems of weather, in the systems of ecology, and in the systems of metabolism, there is always the tendency to settle into equilibrium at the some point of balance.  I will suggest, then, that balance is a likely candidate for thriving's most crucial parameter.

Thirdly, therefore, I want a society structured around the principle of balance.

How do we achieve balance?  Well, since balance occurs naturally in the wild, the laws of nature must be conducive to it.  Is there a law of nature that can be extrapolated into a principle of social behavior on which to build a framework for legislation?  I think so.  I think it's Newton's third law of motion: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."  I discuss this more fully here: http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8834.0

Fourthly, then, I want legislation to be built on a framework founded on Newtonian Ethics as I have proposed it, with its defining principle, "For every action let there be an equal and opposite reaction."

If the above were all in place, would the members of society have any discernible rights?  They would have exactly one, but it's a doozy.  They would have the right to reap as they have sown.

[Stevil]

We all have the right to do whatever it is that we can physically do.

Why?  Presumably because there is no such thing as objective morality.  But in the absence of objective morality, shall we argue for the existence of objective rights?  On what basis?  It seems easier to affirm that in the objective realm both morality and rights are absent.  Only in the subjective realm do morality and rights emerge.

This is certainly a difficult topic to articulate. I have no belief in objective morality and I have no belief in objective rights.
So, with regards to rights, we could either say nothing is a right or everything is a right or we could say we take the stance that the concept of rights is meaningless.
But how does this leave us positioned if we are in a debate with Christians?
For example, lets say that it is against the law for gay people to have sex.
A Christian will say that the government should not give the gay people the right to have sex because gay sex is not a right.
For an Atheist, if you do not believe in a higher authority to government, then how can you argue that government is wrong?
This also brings up another concept. The concept of objective wrong and objective right.
Who is to say what is wrong and what is right?
At least with my approach, if I state that all actions are a right, then I can defend the position by stating that a rule restricting gay sex is not an esssencial requirement for a functioning society. The emphasis is that government rules, restrict rights (actions) rather than give rights.

Thus rights and morality are tightly coupled.  I have the right to do what isn't immoral.

But, completely disagree with this.

Do you still, after writing your later post?  In your later post you seem to affirm what I say in the above quote.

No, how can I agree with you when there is no such thing as morality? This is a concept invented by religious outfits. Without religion, how do you define what is morally right and wrong?
I was using your statement because I could fudge it to mean different things for Christians and Atheists, but then I had to simplify it because it is absurd in the atheist realm to have a definition that includes morality.

But what do I consider immoral?  Objectively, nothing.
So there we have it, if there is no objective immoral then we have the right to do anything.

Only true if rights exist objectively.  If they do, then the microscope or the telescope should detect them or should at least detect something that implies them.  Anything objective is amenable to the scientific method.  Shall we expect the scientist to teach us of rights?

I do think we are getting hung up on semantics. I believe that the concept of rights is meaningless. I am just trying to use it in such a way that allows for discussion with Theists whom feel that there are situations that we as society, as government should not give rights to people.
My understanding is that rights are not given but are instead taken away.

Just because you might accept everything as a right it doesn't mean that you have to commit to a subset of rights. You can still come up with a principle e.g. the golden rule and use that to enforce law onto society in order to create a functional sustainable society.

If I am powerful enough, then yes, certainly.  I could also, if powerful enough, impose some insane and stupid principle that fosters a society of lunatic idiocy.

Yes and there are many tyrants that do this. But without a higher authority how can a person say that a law is unfair or wrong, how can a person complain that their rights have been violated?
Christians have a way to do this, they implore god's law but what can Atheists do?

Just recognise that these law rules do infringe on people's rights and thus take law very seriously, do not impose on a whim or appease a small proportion of the voters.

Why not?  If power is all we can objectively affirm, then the only objective counter-argument is an opposing force, gun versus gun to the death or surrender.  This is why we need to bring subjectivity into the discussion.  There are only two available paths: war, or consensus around subjective values.  The Bill of Rights, for example, represents consensus around subjective values.  What state of affairs is most conducive to arriving at a consensus?  Balance of power.

What about the individual? How can the individual Atheist complain about having their "rights" violated? If they have no rights then they have no right to complain, they also can't have any rights that are violated.
Do you see what I am getting at. It is simmantics, but that is how theism works, Islam has a very high importance to the meaning of words and symbolism, so does Christianity. I feel they often confuse themselves with the limitation of words and hence derive great meaning into the ambiguity of their words.

It is fine for you to say I should but when you say noone should then you are imposing.

Fortunately I never say that no one should.

But what if someone in power does? Given you have no rights, how can you argue against rules that you don't agree with? What do you base your stance on? You don't have rights unless they are granted to you by the rule maker, so you can't complain if the rule maker doesn't give you certain rights.

I don't think it is necessary to come to a conclusion that you are capable of defining rights or morality. Just focus on essential law for a functional society.

Isn't this a thread about rights? 

Yes this thread is about rights, these are extremely important with regards to defining the law which in my view restricts a person's rights. If the law makes it illegal for a woman to go to school and be educated then how can she complain? She has no right to an education. If she does have the right to education despite what the law states then who is the author of this right?

Rights and laws make an interesting duo, as either can be mother while the other is daughter.  I can first affirm rights and then make laws to protect those rights, or I can, alternatively, make laws and then discover rights in the implications of what I legislated.  For example, nowhere in the Tanakh (the Jewish scripture) will you find any statement anything like, "You shall have the right to have property of your own and keep it."  Rather, you will find this: "You shall not steal."  That law implies a right to have and keep property.

Hmmm, again I think semantics is the issue. I understand what you are saying that in a game, the rights are known based on the rules of the game.
But in the game of life the Christians are playing the Christian game and defining the rules a that of god and his morality, and which they complain that the government, whom is bound to gods game, is not playing by the right rules.
If Atheists look to the game of life and don't recognise everything as a right then at best we can only state that the governments rules define our rights and theat we don't have any rights whatsoever out side of that definition as there is no higher authority that is authoring a set of rules define a higher right.

I certainly feel this is not our lot in life as Atheists. If we classify everything as a right then a government needs to justify all its rules and why these restrictions on our rights are necessary for a functional society.

[Pharaoh Cat]

This is certainly a difficult topic to articulate. I have no belief in objective morality and I have no belief in objective rights.
So, with regards to rights, we could either say nothing is a right or everything is a right or we could say we take the stance that the concept of rights is meaningless.

Or we could identify the kind of situation where rights exist.  I have suggested that rights exist in any situation where rights are defined, and that rights are defined in any situation where rules hold sway.  No rules, no rights.  But posit rules and you automatically posit rights.  In the wild, no rules, no rights.  In the city or at the chess board, rules hold sway, and so there are rights.

Everything that exists is limited.  Even space has a shape, with an outer edge, albeit that edge would presumably push outward if some object challenged the boundary.  Stars and stones, amoebas and ants, skyscrapers and stamps, all are limited.  To say that something is unlimited is to say it's unreal.  Only the unreal has no limits, for example the hypothetical God.  By insisting on limits to rights I defend the notion that rights exist.  As soon as I argue for no limits I argue for non-existence, whether the topic is God, rights, the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, or the quantity of phlogiston that can be hidden in a two by four.

If the making of rules is simultaneously the making of rights, as I have suggested, then whenever we make rules we should ask ourselves what rights we want to establish.  The rulemaker is the rights-maker.  Absent God, the rulemaker is some sapient organic individual or collective, and so the rights-maker is that same sapient organic individual or collective.  The rulemaker doesn't discover rights.  The rulemaker creates them.

But how does this leave us positioned if we are in a debate with Christians?
For example, lets say that it is against the law for gay people to have sex.
A Christian will say that the government should not give the gay people the right to have sex because gay sex is not a right.
For an Atheist, if you do not believe in a higher authority to government, then how can you argue that government is wrong?

First, check the rules to see if they already define or at least suggest some right.  For example, in the USA, the first amendment precludes Congress from making any law reflecting an establishment of religion.  That rule limits the rights of Congress, and helps define the rights of American citizens.  Congress can't stop us from doing X if the only reason we are being stopped is some religious dictum.  Congress can't stop us from eating pork due to kosher or halal concerns, nor can Congress stop us from participating in gay sex.  This is why people talk about a gay marriage amendment.  Before Congress can legitimately pass any law restricting anything about gay sex, the Costitution must first be amended, because as it stands, the Constitution does not permit any law restricting anything if the only reason for the restriction is some religious dictum.

If we lived in a country where nothing like the first amendment existed, and the topic was something like gay sex, then we wouldn't debate; rather, we would negotiate.  Power would sit at the table with power and hammer out some bargain, with each side employing whatever leverage was at hand.

At least with my approach, if I state that all actions are a right, then I can defend the position by stating that a rule restricting gay sex is not an esssencial requirement for a functioning society. The emphasis is that government rules, restrict rights (actions) rather than give rights.

I'll offer a way of talking that may work:

"Rulemaking is rights-making.  Prior to rulemaking, actual rights don't exist, but potential rights are open-ended.  The rulemaker must start from the supposition of open-ended potential rights and then must decide how rights will be limited in the actual, compelled by subjective values, governed by any extant meta-rules, and countered by any sufficiently robust power of a different mind."

Often there are meta-rules governing the particular rulemaking exercise.  For example, the Constitution is a set of meta-rules governing any rulemaking process undertaken by Congress in its job as legislator.  A large part of why the Constitution exists at all is to limit the power of Congress to restrict rights when they make rules.

I have to stop here but I'll come back later to continue.

[xSilverPhinx]

I think that looking at rights from a historical or cultural point of view helps one gain perspective. What Christians and other theists who believe that rights are god-given often ignore that these things are sensitive to both historical context and culture.

Gay rights, black rights, women's rights...these things were gained, not given.

[Davin]

I'm surprised Davin hasn't chipped in to this thread - he's always a feisty proponent of anti-authoritarian ideals.

When people think they know me, they are often surprised by my behavior. I think it's better for other people to assume that they don't know me and be far less surprised all the time.

Not much said here is something I disagree or agree with. I've had many discussions on rights and found that there is no good definition that can be used as a barrier. I'll try my best:

If something someone wants to do in no way affects anyone else, they should be allowed to do it without any kind of argument. Masterbation is a good example.

If something someone wants to do only affects those who ae willing to allow it to happen (without coersion), then it should not be prevented. Boxing is a good example of this kind of thing. One wouldn't allow a person to go around punching people in the face, but if the other person is reasonably able to consent, then it should be allowed.

If something someone wants to do affects someone else, then we need to consider whether the action is reasonable and whether we are going to allow everyone to do the same action or not. Most of the arguments fall into this last category. It's an all or nothing kind of game to me, it would be unfair to allow a certain group to say whatever they want and another group to not say what they want. Free speech is one of the best examples because everyone can be allowed to do it and no one is prevented from it (extreme cases aside).

The last cetegory is the protections of what is reasonable to prevent other people from doing to someone else. These things are stances against certain behaviors, privacy protections, personal property and safety are all good examples of what should be prevented to happen to someone. Ones privacy should be respected by the public and the government, only to be violated upon reasonable evidence that is overseen by an elected official. At least that is my opinion. I'd rather maintain my privacy at the risk of dying to a terrorist attack than give it up for a false sense of security.

[Stevil]

Or we could identify the kind of situation where rights exist.  I have suggested that rights exist in any situation where rights are defined, and that rights are defined in any situation where rules hold sway.  No rules, no rights. 

Everything that exists is limited.  Even space has a shape, with an outer edge,

Actually Space itself is the physical embodiment of nothing. I seriously doubt it has a shape or spacial limit (outer edge).

But I am glad that you brought the cosmos into the conversation. If we regress into space then the default rules are the laws of physics. In this game we are allowed to make any actions that we are physically able to. Unfortunately this means if a government comes up with a law making it illegal for us to go faster than the speed of light then we have no right to complain. I can live with this limitation.
Now that we have established the universal game and hence the universal rules and ultimately now that we have established our the universal rights
we can move forward in this conversation rather than spend all our time arguing about the definition of a "right"

If the making of rules is simultaneously the making of rights, as I have suggested, then whenever we make rules we should ask ourselves what rights we want to establish.  The rulemaker is the rights-maker.  Absent God, the rulemaker is some sapient organic individual or collective, and so the rights-maker is that same sapient organic individual or collective.  The rulemaker doesn't discover rights.  The rulemaker creates them.

You have just bestowed total responsibility to the governing power of each country.
When Hitler decided he didn't want Jews to exist anymore then he created a rule whereby they no longer have the right to exist. He had his soldiers slaughter them by the millions. By your definition, you would not be able to oppose him as you would not have the right nor be able to complain based on any rights violation.
... but if you agree with my definition...

If we lived in a country where nothing like the first amendment existed, and the topic was something like gay sex, then we wouldn't debate; rather, we would negotiate.  Power would sit at the table with power and hammer out some bargain, with each side employing whatever leverage was at hand.

When you say "we" you mean only those in power. In a few countries it is illegal for gay people to have gay sex. In Germany it was illegal for gay people to be alive.

I'll offer a way of talking that may work:

"Rulemaking is rights-making.  Prior to rulemaking, actual rights don't exist, but potential rights are open-ended.  The rulemaker must start from the supposition of open-ended potential rights and then must decide how rights will be limited in the actual,

How do we define "potential rights"?
It would seem somewhat watered down for a person to complain about having their potential rights being violated. e.g. that woman in the middle east who complains about being raped and then ends up in jail for her crime of sex out of wedlock.
[/quote]

[Pharaoh Cat]

Actually Space itself is the physical embodiment of nothing. I seriously doubt it has a shape or spacial limit (outer edge).

Wikipedia has a good article on the shape of space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe

But I am glad that you brought the cosmos into the conversation. If we regress into space then the default rules are the laws of physics. In this game we are allowed to make any actions that we are physically able to.

OK.  I'm going to stop disagreeing with your metaphorical use of words like "rules" and "allowed" and just follow your argument and see where it leads.

The default rules of space (the laws of physics) allow me to club you in the head and then, as you lie on the floor unconscious, the default rules of space allow me to cut off your limbs with a chainsaw.  Apparently that means I have the right to do those things.  Do I?  Why or why not?

Out in the wild, in the jungles and in the ocean depths, is there anything my body and mind can accomplish that I don't have the right to do?

I'll assume, until you tell me otherwise, that in the wild my rights are open-ended.  What I can, I may.  Might is right.

Unfortunately this means if a government comes up with a law making it illegal for us to go faster than the speed of light then we have no right to complain. I can live with this limitation.

Yet presumably I don't have the right to complain if the government won't allow me to dismember you with a chainsaw.  How did I lose that right to complain?  What force or fact took it away from me?

I'll need to hear your answers before I can continue.