No.
Well, yes actually.
And, again, no.
Firstly: No, logically speaking, implicit in the meaning of the word 'right' is what 'ought to be' in contrast to what is possible: i.e., it is possible for someone to kill me, but they 'ought not to', if we want to recognize that I have the 'right' to live. Does a lion have any more right to live, than a gazelle? If I need a kidney to live, and you have what I need, can I take it?
However, although the term 'self-evident', as used, is self-contradictory (if it truly was self-evident, it would not need to be stated, or debated)... but the primacy of the concept as the basis for our society leads to the conclusion that, for one to be a member of this society, one must accept the primacy of this rule - that not only are certain rights in existence, they are unalienable and, contradiction notwithstanding, 'self-evident' to the extent that it is assumed that it is invioable and not a matter for debate, at least not if you desire to be a member of the society.
So, yes, within this society, Individual Rights DO exist, are unalienable and invioable, if not strictly 'self-evident'.
Thirdly, does the government create these rights?
No... these Rights are created by the People; first, those who agreed to recognize them and enumerate (some of) them in the writing of the Constitution; and also by all those who choose to participate in, and benefit from, the resulting society. The government is charged with seeing that these rights are continued to be recognized, as well as separating out those who do not recognize them, thus preserving the idea that these individual rights do 'exist', within the society. The government does not create the rights but only enforces them - and is indeed restricted by them.
At least, in theory.
My opinion, obviously. I am not a constitutional scholar, this is just how my understanding of these principles has crystallized, after reading and talking about it - much of it from this forum.
Last edited by Reality Bytes; 07/24/08 01:30 PM.
