[kelnos]

> A person's right to exist and to pursue continued existence is inalienable and beyond the authority of a government or society to regulate.

Natural/inalienable rights are a fiction. No one has any rights unless someone with guns is willing to enforce those rights. And hopefully the people with guns have some checks and balances on them such that they can't use their guns to violate those rights themselves.

I think it's great that we have (some) governments that have some list of human rights enumerated in their laws and founding documents. But even then, rights are protected unevenly.

> Does the government (any government) have the authority to require identity proof from a person, simply because that person exists?

That depends on what you mean by "authority". If you're talking about moral authority, then I'd probably agree with you that no, they don't. But in the end the authority that matters in reality is the kind you get by wielding a gun; under that definition, governments have all the authority they need to do stuff like that.

[soco]

You are presenting the government as being some external entity, not one chosen by will of the people. We have it like this because apparently most of the people got fed up with wielding their own guns all day long, and preferred to delegate that.

[falcor84]

I don't understand the argument you're making. How does whether you wield a gun correspond to whether you choose your government? Unless you choose your representatives by pointing your gun at people and telling them "be my member of congress, or else".

In any case, I absolutely agree with the parent that rights don't just exist as some platonic ideal, but rather need to be enforced in an organized manner, and I haven't seen any case yet of that being achieved without a representative government.

[vel0city]

> No one has any rights unless someone with guns is willing to enforce those rights

Right? Be in the state of nature. Argue with that lion you have a right to not be eaten. I don't think she will listen.

[notepad0x90]

you're right about force being the ultimate authority, if a government derives it's powers from it's force alone you would be right. but even in dictatorial regimes, the dictator needs support from various underlings and factions. But in the context of western democracy, governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed. In that context, no such authority has been given to them.

But still, what I was alluding to was that while governments can alienate rights by force, them doing so is exceeding their authority and resisting their rule is not rebellion in that context. Even if the people voted to alienate such basic rights, the government still does not have legitimate authority. My goal was to take away legitimacy from such governments and their rule.

I stated this in a sibling comment as well but this is the reason by which american revolution (July 4th coming up!) was justified. The english rule under king george used force to restrict and regulate inalienable rights and thus lost it's legitimacy. Without legitimacy, it was possible to organize resistance and revolt against such rule.

[hajile]

The pro private gun ownership argument.

[wruza]

A practical and realistic point of view that you rarely meet today, thanks for writing my comment.