@Sic
"But why get all excited that the state grants you rights you should have anyway, while infringing on others. "
I do not believe that the state grants me rights. The state is my servant, it's job is to defend my rights.

"Anyway, who takes away rights more than governments? except maybe corporations."
a) no entity
b) ridiculous

So any time a government fails to defend your inalienable rights it has failed to do it's job and lost it's legitamacy?

'Warlords' may be a proto-state but they are shit at most of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration. Therefore they are not a 'good' state.

@Sic
"So any time a government fails to defend your inalienable rights it has failed to do it's job and lost it's legitamacy?"
Yes.
No.

Give me an example of a 'good' government

With regards to the mandate question. I agree this is problematic. But in the case of some electoral based system where said validity of the electoral process is not fundamentally questioned, it can be argued that the will of the people is being followed, whether that be 350 people or 350 million. Now, with regards to other forms of government (despotism, monarchy, whatever), there would need to be some means of polling the people form an independent and uncorruptible source to say if the government has that mandate.

For your first question of rights, I view the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution to be a good start. If you would like to list off those you think are actual rights (not priviledges), I will confirm or disagree with them one by one.

a) no entity
b) ridiculous

Yes.
No.

ok dude. these are not any kind of answer to anything. articulate your thoughts.

Just because a government fails to do something that it has lost it's legitimacy. Have you lost your ability to drive a car just because you had one accident? (you being a generic term, not you specifically, Sic). Failure does not imply a lost mandate and there fore a lost legitimacy. A government loses it's legitimacy by losing the mandate of the governed. No one, not even a large or small governmental entity, is perfect. But as long as their intent is positive and they have the backing of the people, they are just as legitimate as if they were/

Ever wondered how it is possible to make a phone call to anywhere in the world? No. It just works. Why? Thank the International Telecommunications Union, a UN body i.e. sponsored by your government.

Ever wondered how it is possible to fly anywhere in the world in reasonable safety? No. It just happens. Why? Thank the International Civil Aviation Organisation, a UN body i.e. sponsored by your government.

Standards. Sometimes nothing to do with government. but sometimes they are.

diplomat61 +1

In regards to elections, I would like to point out that less than 65% of americans voted in the 08 election (and that was the highest since 1901)

right to:
life
health
freedom of expression (speech, press, etc.)
freedom of religion
freedom from religion

These are a small number of what I consider to be inalienable rights.
can we agree on these few?

draugnar
but how do you determine the consent of the governed?

diplomat
tangent much? we're not talking about calling china. As far as I can tell we're talking about whether or not the state is inherently oppressive with the aim of deciding if we can live with out it and if we would want to

Life - Agree 100%, with that caveat that it can be revoked if the person in question himself violates anothers right to life.

Health - to not have it infringed upon by others I agree, to have free health care so when you get sick from smoking the cancer sticks you can get a lung transplant at no cost, I disagree.

Expression - agree, but limited to curb speech that would incite others to violate Life or Health of another.

Freedom of Religion - again limited to it not violating life and health or even expression (i.e. no human sacrifices, no refusing another access to medical care on religious grounds, no banning speaking out against a religion as a corporal offense)

Freedom from religion - agree 100%

IMHO the limited liability company, progenitor of the multinational corporation, has created more wealth than any other human invention.

The primary purpose of a company is to make profits for it's shareholders. Those shareholders are you and me, either directly or through our pension schemes. To maximise profits those corporations seek to minimise competition (=bad) but governments step in to prevent that (=good) with the result that corporations compete on price and features. Who benefits? Consumers, you and me (=good).

So, in my world: corporations create wealth, governments maintain rights, people benefit from both.

Yeah I am def not talking about state provided free healthcare haha.
so it seems on these few at least we're in complete agreement.
This gives me an interesting point to bring up. before that though, what else do you see as inalienable human rights?

I said, via polling. In this country (the USofA), we have the ability to freely express our opinions so long as we don't incite violence against other through those stated opinions. There are continual polls running about approval ratings and what not, and every couple of years we do this thing where we reelect and significant portion of our body of representatives, and every four years we have the option to yank the current regime out of the highest post and put a new one in place. That is how we determine that we have a mandate of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Now, I get that your, as Styx put it, "an angry young man". And I hope that age will bring about wisdom and a view of changing things from within non-violently. But for now, your own point of view is not the point of view of the majority that provides the mandate for our government. The good thing is, if you truly despise the US government that much, there is nothing stopping you from leaving. Don't want to/can't fly? Drive, take a train, take a bus. Mexico is to the south and Canada to the north.

In your world people benefit from corporations?
You mean people as a whole (as in humanity) or over-priviledged pieces of shit in industrialized 1st world nations? (I am one of those over-priviledged pieces of shit too)
I imagine you mean the latter, I dont know how many nigerians or mexicans or burmese have stock portfolios or pension schemes.

you dont see any deleterious effects of the existence of corporations?

I've always viewed liberty (change jobs, locations, whatever - without prior approval from some head of state, ala Hamlet) and the pursuit of happiness (not the guarantee, but your right to chase your dreams) as two more. They are from the Declaration of Independence. But again, the Liberty and pursuit of happiness, and in fact all rights, are revoakble if one has first revoked anothers inalienable rights. So I guess I'm saying they have limited inalienability (is that a word?) under the presumption that one is civil and doesn't crush these rights for others.

Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11
1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including their own, and to return to their country.

Article 14
1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16
1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17
1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21
1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of their country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in their country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organisation and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23
1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26
1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27
1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realised.

Article 29
1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Because I love the place that I live I just hate the people in charge.

Also the irony would be too much. One of 1% pop remaining of indigenous americans driven away by the injustices of a "white" government.

oh what does 'IMHO" stand for

Corporations make the luxuries that even people in the third world countries can enjoy, and they provide for those who would to be able to help those who can't do it themselves. I work with Engineers without Borders providing funding to a civil engineer friend because I feel the work he does to bring fresh, clean water to soem villages that wouldn't otherwise have it is important. Corporations make me "wealthy" (I'm not rich, but I do OK) and I in turn return soemthing to people as a whole through those organizations I support. My last employer was a big supporter of the Boys and Girls Club as well as the Marine Corps Toys for Tots and several other food banks and charities. Not just the people withint individually, but the company as a whole. They would pay us whenever we wanted to volunteer at some charitable function (helped build a house with Habitat for Humanity last summer) and then gave away awards and prizes to recognize those who went out into the community and did, not just talked or donated money.

So companies and corporations can be good community citizens. That isn't to say all are, but not all act against the people or are detrimental to society and mankind, as you seem to be implying.

@Sic
I work for a multi-national corporation (MNC), have done for 20+ years including postions covering Africa, Middle East, Asia and Europe. During that time all I have seen is good: bringing better quality products at lower prices to ordinary people, training people from those countries & giving them opportunities beyond their own borders, paying taxes to the countries within which we operate, working to implement sustainable environmental standards.

No doubt some MNCs are not so good but lumping them all in the same basket is simply wrong.

IMHO = In My Humble Opinion

@Sic - I saw your pictures on your deviantart page. You are Native American? How much of a percentage? Can't be very much.

@Sic
"As far as I can tell we're talking about whether or not the state is inherently oppressive with the aim of deciding if we can live with out it and if we would want to "
Draugnar mentioned that states have a role in delivering standards a few people argued against him so I provided a couple of practical examples

@Sic
I forgot to mention better pay & working conditions than local companies.

@Generally
You people have to stop watching so many TV programmes featuring 'evil' corporations. It is cheap story telling and rotting your brains.

A corporation is bound by law to put making money above everything else, including environmental health, and human rights. They say money is the root of all evil, so what does that make an entity whose sole function of existence is to make money?

I am half Anishinabeg. Thanks for debating my ethnicity to yourself in the least offensive way possible. =|

@Sic
You: "So any time a government fails to defend your inalienable rights it has failed to do it's job and lost it's legitamacy?"

Me:
"Yes.
No."

You: "ok dude. these are not any kind of answer to anything. articulate your thoughts."

Clearly they are answers but as you wish me to elaborate:
Yes = A government's job is to defend your rights, if they don't they have failed. How much clearer can I be?
No = their legitimacy is as representatives of the people. Screwing up once does not invalidate that. Repeatedly doing so does.