NationStates Jolt Archive

Simple question:

Do you think rights mentioned in a constitution should be held applicable for foreigners which engage in some sort of relation (eg live there, deal with government instutions etc) with the country too? Would you go even further and say that the rights should be held to be valid for every person on the globe?

Why, why not?

Yes, the rule of law should apply to all, not just a select few. Now, certain things such as the right to vote or hold office (In other words, actually running the joint) should be held for citizens only, but all other rights and protections should be extended to anyone who falls within the jurisdiction of said country.

Yes for foriegners, no for the globe. We need to draw the line somewhere. The American Government (I assume you're talking about the US), elected by the American people, serves the American public, not the global public.

That doesn't mean we should be deliberately oppressive to non-americans.

Yes, everybody in a country has to abide by its laws.

Art. 22. A foreign national within the Realm is equated with a Swedish citizen in respect of

1. protection against coercion to participate in a meeting for the formation of opinion or a demonstration or other manifestation of opinion, or to belong to a religious community or other association (Article 2, sentence two);

2. protection of personal integrity in connection with automatic data processing (Article 3, paragraph two);

3. protection against capital punishment, corporal punishment and torture, and against medical influence aimed at extorting or suppressing statements (Articles 4 and 5);

4. the right to have a deprivation of liberty on account of a criminal act or on suspicion of having committed such an act examined before a court of law (Article 9, paragraphs one and three);

5. protection against retroactive penal sanctions and other retroactive legal effects of criminal acts, and against retroactive taxes or charges due the State (Article 10);

6. protection against the establishment of a court of law for a particular case (Article 11, paragraph one);

7. protection against unfavourable treatment on grounds of race, colour or ethnic origin, or on grounds of gender (Articles 15 and 16);

8. the right to industrial action (Article 17);

9. protection against expropriation or other such disposition and against restriction of the use of land or buildings (Article 18);

10. the right to an education (Article 21).

Unless it follows otherwise from special provisions of law, a foreign national within the Realm is equated with a Swedish citizen also in respect of

1. freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of assembly, freedom to demonstrate, freedom of association and freedom of worship (Article 1);

2. protection against coercion to divulge an opinion (Article 2, sentence one);

3. protection against physical violations also in cases other than cases under Articles 4 and 5, against body searches, house searches and other such invasions of privacy, and against violations of confidential communications (Article 6);

4. protection against deprivation of liberty (Article 8, sentence one);

5. the right to have a deprivation of liberty other than a deprivation of liberty on account of a criminal act or on suspicion of having committed such an act examined before a court of law (Article 9, paragraphs two and three);

6. public court proceedings (Article 11, paragraph two);

7. protection against interventions on grounds of opinion (Article 12, paragraph two, sentence three);

8. authors’, artists’ and photographers’ rights to their works (Article 19);

9. the right to trade or practise a profession (Article 20).

The provisions of Article 12, paragraph three; paragraph four, sentence one; and paragraph five shall apply with respect to the special provisions of law referred to in paragraph two.

Art. 23. No act of law or other provision may be adopted which contravenes Sweden’s undertakings under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

I'd think that's pretty comprehensive and common-sensed, even if I would like for voting rights to the Riksdag to be based on time of residence like elections to lower governmental strata are for foreigners and not be contingent on citizenship.

If you mean the U.S. Constitution - it should only apply to citizens. Citizens choose to live under it, at least upon reaching majority, and foreigners have their own laws as it is. If a foreigner chooses to become an immigrant with legal status, then they have rights equal to a citizen, beyond their immigration status.

rights are inalienable,

the (us) declaration of independence (which is recognized by the us
supreme court as a legal document) states all men (sic) are created equal,
and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights (which could technically mean parents and of course simply being born means those rights are inalienable simply because you are alive)

rights are not granted by the us form of gov't, the us gov't, or any gov't.
those human rights as outlined in the us constitution, bill of rights
is but a reminder of these rights, and the places gov't is not allowed to go, lest it is not of, by, and for the people and ceases legitimacy.

rights are not a privilege of citizenship.

rights just are because you are alive

to big a question to ask though I'm inclined to yes especially silly affairs like human rights

10. the right to an education (Article 21).

:eek: and how far does this right go?

foreigners have their own laws as it is.

does that mean you support the dutch coming along and teasing you with brownies and/or legal prostitutes?

does that mean you support the dutch coming along and teasing you with brownies and/or legal prostitutes?

Not so long as they're within their borders. ;) But yes, technically we're all supposed to perform due diligence in learning the laws of the countries we visit, even if few do. The big Drugs = Death Sentence signs you see sometimes in Asia help reinforce the message, I think. :p

If you mean the U.S. Constitution - it should only apply to citizens. Citizens choose to live under it, at least upon reaching majority, and foreigners have their own laws as it is. If a foreigner chooses to become an immigrant with legal status, then they have rights equal to a citizen, beyond their immigration status.

So if I'm on holiday and get arrested in the US I shouldn't have any protection under the 5th amendment?

So if I'm on holiday and get arrested in the US I shouldn't have any protection under the 5th amendment?

You probably would, though your fifth amendment rights, specifically, I'm not sure of. Depending where you're from, you might simply be extradited back to your place of origin. Depending on the crime, you might not be.

You probably would, though your fifth amendment rights, specifically, I'm not sure of. Depending where you're from, you might simply be extradited back to your place of origin. Depending on the crime, you might not be.

Not what I was asking. In your opinion, as a foreign national arrested in the US for breaking US law, should I have the protections afforded to US citizens under the US constituion?

:eek: and how far does this right go?

"Art. 21. All children covered by compulsory schooling shall be entitled to a free basic education at a public school. The public institutions shall be responsible also for the provision of higher education."

University education is free for foreigners and Swedes alike, but it's not a "right" per se as you have to have the grades to get accepted to a uni, while "compulsory schooling" (i.e. 9 years in primary school) is as the name says - compulsory and thus a right.

Not what I was asking. In your opinion, as a foreign national arrested in the US for breaking US law, should I have the protections afforded to US citizens under the US constituion?

No. Ideally you would be given the rights of your home country after being sent back. If there were no way of getting rid of you, you would be given ordinary due process by default, if I remember correctly. You probably wouldn't have any right to a reasonable bail like a normal citizen would, and you might he held for years without knowing the charges against you or whether you were going to be deported, but beyond that, you would have those basic rights by default. Enjoy the vacation though, if you're planning on visiting. :)

No. Ideally you would be given the rights of your home country after being sent back. If there were no way of getting rid of you, you would be given ordinary due process by default, if I remember correctly. You probably wouldn't have any right to a reasonable bail like a normal citizen would, and you might he held for years without knowing the charges against you or whether you were going to be deported, but beyond that, you would have those basic rights by default. Enjoy the vacation though, if you're planning on visiting. :)

My god, you are a savage. What kind of fucked-up person would want people held for years without charge and without knowing what they are accused of?

Regardless of how often our Constitution has been read to not apply to foreigners, it really should.

No. Ideally you would be given the rights of your home country after being sent back. If there were no way of getting rid of you, you would be given ordinary due process by default, if I remember correctly. You probably wouldn't have any right to a reasonable bail like a normal citizen would, and you might he held for years without knowing the charges against you or whether you were going to be deported, but beyond that, you would have those basic rights by default. Enjoy the vacation though, if you're planning on visiting. :)

Unfortunately, there'd be no reason to give ordinary due process, were it not for the US constitution.

Might I also add the the US constitution is explicit when it's citizens only and implicit when it also includes foreigners on US soil?

Also, I might add the almost every other western democracy has the decency to include all human beings in their constitution.

The Constitution isn't exactly ambiguous. It enumerates which rights apply only to citizens(voting, presidency). It very clearly enumerates the powers of government and limits it when it comes to denial of rights from ANYONE within it's borders.

Why do so many people have such a hard time understanding the Constitution??? Am I some sort of Constitutional Savant? :confused:

The way I see it, the government is prohibited from infringing on such rights. Whose rights are being violated does not matter, if it's not okay to infringe on one person's rights, the same applies to everyone.

My god, you are a savage. What kind of fucked-up person would want people held for years without charge and without knowing what they are accused of?

Want? It's the status quo right now. Sure, I wish the process moved more quickly, but it doesn't. Compare the number of U.S. Attorneys with the the number of cases they have on their collective plate. It's pretty overwhelming, and sometimes foreigners end up in limbo for a good long time.

The Constitution isn't exactly ambiguous. It enumerates which rights apply only to citizens(voting, presidency). It very clearly enumerates the powers of government and limits it when it comes to denial of rights from ANYONE within it's borders.

Why do so many people have such a hard time understanding the Constitution??? Am I some sort of Constitutional Savant? :confused:

I don't know. When it says "the government can't do such and such," I would think that it would be pretty clear that the government isn't allowed to do it. Apparently not.

The Constitution isn't exactly ambiguous. It enumerates which rights apply only to citizens(voting, presidency). It very clearly enumerates the powers of government and limits it when it comes to denial of rights from ANYONE within it's borders.

Why do so many people have such a hard time understanding the Constitution??? Am I some sort of Constitutional Savant? :confused:

LG's got it right here.
It's just that racists get ticked off when immigrants and supporters carry flags other than a US flag at parades and such.

I don't know. When it says "the government can't do such and such," I would think that it would be pretty clear that the government isn't allowed to do it. Apparently not.

Which is exactly the point of the Constitution; to enumerate and limit the powers of government. Government. Not citizens. Not foreigners. Government.

*Bleah*

Yes, the rule of law should apply to all, not just a select few. Now, certain things such as the right to vote or hold office (In other words, actually running the joint) should be held for citizens only, but all other rights and protections should be extended to anyone who falls within the jurisdiction of said country.

Which constitution?

Why do so many people have such a hard time understanding the Constitution??? Am I some sort of Constitutional Savant? :confused:
Well, I'm talking constitutions in general.

And my main reason initially was about the way countries treat foreigners, whether they are immigrants or somewhere else. If you think that the rights mentioned in a constitution should be general human rights, then treating an immigrant trying to get into the country differently from a citizen trying the same move would be unconstitutional. Punishing people in Iraq in a cruel and unusual way would be unconstitutional. And if you voted the first option, tolerating a genocide in Africa might also be unconstitutional.

I suppose you're right if you view the constitution as a set of limitations to the government. But others (many European ones, for example) look more like a set of ideals and goals that the government sets itself, and in that case the question makes sense.

LG's got it right here.
It's just that racists get ticked off when immigrants and supporters carry flags other than a US flag at parades and such.

Heh. Illegals have no right to legal representation in immigration/deportation hearings, remember. That's government policy, not some racist agenda. So that's at least one point of evidence that they don't have all the same rights we do. ;)

Simple question:

Do you think rights mentioned in a constitution should be held applicable for foreigners which engage in some sort of relation (eg live there, deal with government instutions etc) with the country too? Would you go even further and say that the rights should be held to be valid for every person on the globe?

Why, why not?

Human rights, yeah. But your OP is misleading since I'm assuming that you see immigration as a right as well.

Which constitution?
Which one would you like?

rights are inalienable,

the (us) declaration of independence (which is recognized by the us
supreme court as a legal document) states all men (sic) are created equal,
and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights (which could technically mean parents and of course simply being born means those rights are inalienable simply because you are alive)

Umm.....

no..

Simple question:

Do you think rights mentioned in a constitution should be held applicable for foreigners which engage in some sort of relation (eg live there, deal with government instutions etc) with the country too? Would you go even further and say that the rights should be held to be valid for every person on the globe?

Why, why not?

Yes because the Constitution doesn't serve to "give" rights to anyone. To speak about it in those terms either means that you're using verbal shorthand, or your an idiot.

The Constitution spells out certain powers that the government has. Anything that the Constitution doesn't say that the government can do, it can't do. That's what Constitutional Rights are (note the caps there). Not privileges that Americans give themselves through their government, but a side effect of our national legal philosophy which says that the government has no authority to do things like rummage through your things arbitrarily, keep you from speaking your mind and sharing your thoughts with others, praying as you choose, and an indefinite number of other things. That's why the 9th amendment says that just because we've named certain rights doesn't mean there aren't others. It's pretty much a "and that's just off the tops of our heads" disclaimer. It's also why in the Bill of Rights the last amendment isn't really about an individual right at all. It's about a reiteration of the limit of Federal Power. If the federal government hasn't explicitly been given a power here, then only the states can have it.

If the government has no authority to shut people up then everyone's right to free speech is by extension guaranteed.

Umm.....

no..

You see those ellipses you put at the end of the word "no" there? Those indicate that you're supposed to have some other words there. You aren't just supposed to invite people to supply their own self-debunking arguments.

Your post was entirely pointless because...

Rights should only be given to those who earn them. People aren't born free, they have to work for it, people are only as free as they choose to be and by that I mean they work their way for it. And it is impossible to make everyone exactly as free as one another because some choose slavery or lack of freedom to some extent. For example wishy washy wimps choose to be everyones' doormat and many choose to be "followers" rather than thinking on their own. It's a sad truth.

Heh. Illegals have no right to legal representation in immigration/deportation hearings, remember. That's government policy, not some racist agenda. So that's at least one point of evidence that they don't have all the same rights we do. ;)

Just because a right is violated doesn't mean you don't have it. I've had a drivers license since I was 18. But for years it would be hard to find evidence of it because I didn't have a car until I was 23.

Rights should only be given to those who earn them. People aren't born free, they have to work for it, people are only as free as they choose to be and by that I mean they work their way for it. And it is impossible to make everyone exactly as free as one another because some choose slavery or lack of freedom to some extent.

You can't give a right. You can only give a privilege. Rights are, by definition, those things that one does not have to earn.

If you come here illegally, then you shouldn't get any constitional rights. I'm not racist, I just think that we need to secure our borders, Then kick out all the poeple that came here Illegally.

It's a sad truth.

Oh, what you wrote was sad all right, but not at all true.

Oh, what you wrote was sad all right, but not at all true.

So are you saying that people don't give up their rights ever or that their actions don't define the amount of freedom they individual in question gets?

So are you saying that people don't give up their rights ever or that their actions don't define the amount of freedom they individual in question gets?

I'm saying that your post was a bunch of codswallop.

Barring the racism from 200 years ago, my country's Constitution clearly states that ALL men are created equal.
This means they ALL deserve the same unalienable rights, granted to anyone else, under its influence.
This qualifies any military base as well, since any base is considered US soil.

These certainly include the rights to due process, the right to face your accuser in a trial by jury.
Anyone who is subject to our laws, MUST be granted the benefit of them as well as any native citizen.

End of story.

If you come here illegally, then you shouldn't get any constitional rights. I'm not racist, I just think that we need to secure our borders, Then kick out all the poeple that came here Illegally.

How will you kick them all out? There are estimated to be over ten million of them. How will you find them all? The government always checks twice too, to make sure of everything before they are deported. These people are often detained for a few months before being shipped out. Not only is it nearly impossible to kick out all the people that have come here illegally, but it is highly expensive to do so. How do you plan to pay for such a thing when we are in such large debt, and don't seem to be planning to move out of Iraq or Afghanistan?

In any case, everyone has rights, whether they be a citizen of a country or not. So it only makes sense that you would have to maintain those of a foreigner.

Human rights, yeah. But your OP is misleading since I'm assuming that you see immigration as a right as well.
I see freedom of movement as a right, yes. Immigration is just movement across borders, but is in that case seen differently than movement within borders.

I'm not entirely sure why, but I suppose that's how nationstates developed.

I'm saying that your post was a bunch of codswallop.

No it wasn't, I think my second post made that clear. People give up rights or succumb to mindtraps unconsiously then end up giving up freedom. Denying the truth of my post would be denying that "wishy washy wimps", push-overs, and "complete followers" exist.

I see freedom of movement as a right, yes. Immigration is just movement across borders, but is in that case seen differently than movement within borders.

I'm not entirely sure why, but I suppose that's how nationstates developed.
This is mine and that is yours. Step on mine and you'll get yours (Thanks to the immortal Mr. Pratchett).

In someways border control does make sense IF (And big if) the process is both fair and quick (Which it almost never is).

But, in any case, your point doesn't quite work as the different treatment of people coming across the borders (I.e. there's a line for citizens and one for non) requires those coming through to have some sort of documentation. Since you can't get a passport without being a citizen of that country (Indeed, unless you are born outside the country, you can't get one outside of said country) immigrants have to provide different documentation.

But, in any case, your point doesn't quite work as the different treatment of people coming across the borders (I.e. there's a line for citizens and one for non) requires those coming through to have some sort of documentation.
But that's the point. If you want to go from where you are right now to Osaka, you presumably won't need to show any ID to anyone. But if you wanted to go to Seoul, you would. I'm not entirely sure that's necessary - why not have open borders and if you do something wrong in the jurisdiction you're in, you'll be treated according to the laws (and constitution) there. That's how they did it in many countries before WWI, IIRC.

More importantly, if I'm not a citizen here, I don't enjoy the same sort of protections a normal citizen does. If I do something wrong, the state will treat me differently to how it would treat a criminal citizen. I could be banished from these lands, while you couldn't do that to a citizen. Worse, sometimes people just get banished without having done anything wrong.

If the limits of government mentioned in the constitution are not just for citizens, but also for others within the geographical location, or for people in general, that doesn't make sense to me. So I suppose what I'm ultimately questioning is the distinction "citizen vs non-citizen" in the state's dealings both at home and perhaps abroad.

Rights should only be given to those who earn them. People aren't born free, they have to work for it, people are only as free as they choose to be and by that I mean they work their way for it. And it is impossible to make everyone exactly as free as one another because some choose slavery or lack of freedom to some extent. For example wishy washy wimps choose to be everyones' doormat and many choose to be "followers" rather than thinking on their own. It's a sad truth.

What if I don't think you've "earned" your right to be alive? What proof do you have that you've done so? How can you show that you've "earned" your right not to be enslaved in some horrible forced labor sort of arrangement?

Honestly this is one of stinkiest pieces of bullshit sophistry I've ever come across in NSG.

Simple question:

Do you think rights mentioned in a constitution should be held applicable for foreigners which engage in some sort of relation (eg live there, deal with government instutions etc) with the country too? Would you go even further and say that the rights should be held to be valid for every person on the globe?

Why, why not?

Not so simple question really. As an Australian, with no Bill of Rights, there are no rights mentioned in my constitution!

Not so simple question really. As an Australian, with no Bill of Rights, there are no rights mentioned in my constitution!

There were many at the time the U.S. Constitution was drafted that felt the Bill of Rights wasn't necessary. That by enumerating specific rights that the government had no mandate to restrict, it was inviting the government to restrict whatever rights were not enumerated. I'd say both sides of that debate were a little bit right. *nod*

can any government, which fails to extend the same rights, to every living person, who for whatever reason, may happen to find themselves, on any soil it controls, be trusted by any other living person on any soil it controls? ever?

=^^=
.../\...

can any government, which fails to extend the same rights to every living person who (for whatever reason) may happen to find themselves on any soil it controls, be trusted by any other living person on any soil it controls? ever?



Sadly, those to whom rights are "extended" are quite happy to find some difference between themselves, and whoever is excluded. Almost as though "the more rights you are deprived of, the more I have." But this is a dying thing, a thing of patriotic identity.

The quite amazing (and good!) idea prevailing in the US, that unauthorized immigrants may have some rights, shows the way out of this: if you have a relationship with someone within your country (perhaps they care for your kids or wash your car), you grant them some of the rights which the "constitution" reserves for citizens.

Is it sad that one must have an economic relationship with another to recognize their rights? Or a hopeful way out of nationalism and racism, of sexism and speciesism?

I say the latter: globalization, cutting both ways. Not just exploitation of cheap labour, but recognition of humans if only by their labour. Hooray!

can any government, which fails to extend the same rights, to every living person, who for whatever reason, may happen to find themselves, on any soil it controls, be trusted by any other living person on any soil it controls? ever?..

Depends.

Ask the Germans, or the Japanese.
Certainly moreso than 60 years ago.

It is laughable to think a country is "constituted", is defined, by the basic document of its laws. To hold that document "sacred" is fully as stupid and unambitious as to worship any book.

Are a dozen guys who did their best way back when, any better an authority than an arrogant King (even the most corrupt of Kings) who can be petitioned and persuaded, or if need be killed?

(Yeah, I'm getting a bit drunk now.)

Depends.

Ask the Germans, or the Japanese.
Certainly moreso than 60 years ago.

Are you arguing that modern Germany or modern Japan owes everything which distinguishes their societies from Weimar or Imperium ... to a piece of paper?

But that's the point. If you want to go from where you are right now to Osaka, you presumably won't need to show any ID to anyone. But if you wanted to go to Seoul, you would.
Going from Nagano to Osaka doesn't involve leaving the sovereign territory of a nationstate though. If a different constitution applied without an overriding national one, things would be different.

- why not have open borders and if you do something wrong in the jurisdiction you're in, you'll be treated according to the laws (and constitution) there.
Because nations do have legit interest in controlling access to their nations. Keeping out those who are carrying SARS for example, or known terrorists/criminals.

That's how they did it in many countries before WWI, IIRC.
Depends a GREAT deal on said country, not all was rosy.

More importantly, if I'm not a citizen here, I don't enjoy the same sort of protections a normal citizen does. If I do something wrong, the state will treat me differently to how it would treat a criminal citizen.
I disagree with that, in regards to the law, all must be equal before it.

I could be banished from these lands, while you couldn't do that to a citizen.
Well, in terms of deportation, that does make sense as a punishment for a crime if you view non-citizens as guests. If you have a guest who trashes your house, don't you kick them out?

That said, I LIKE the idea of banishment as a punishment even for citizens. :D

Worse, sometimes people just get banished without having done anything wrong.
Which should not be the case.

If the limits of government mentioned in the constitution are not just for citizens, but also for others within the geographical location, or for people in general, that doesn't make sense to me. So I suppose what I'm ultimately questioning is the distinction "citizen vs non-citizen" in the state's dealings both at home and perhaps abroad.
Simply put, citizens are, as where the word came from, Men (I.e. humans) of the City (Or nationstate right now). The difference between a citizen and a non is that a citizen enjoys certain perks that a non-citizen does but at the cost of having certain obligations that a non-citizen does not.

To give an example, I am an American. I live and work in Japan. Right now, because I am in Japan, Japan asks that I pay my taxes to it. This, annoying as it is, is understandable as I am using Japan's infrastructure and so on. However, I am not Japanese and I do not enjoy some of the rights that my wife, who is does. I also have to pay (Well, report, I'm still in the exemption limit) my taxes to the US. These are my obligations to both countries.

The difference is that when I leave Japan, it no longer has any claim to my obligations and I have no claim to it. Being outside of the US though means as a citizen it can still call in my obligations and I still have my rights (Voting, calling on the Embassy, and so on).

In a perfect world, I would like to see citizen rights be mainly restricted to certain voting and office holding rights and all others being equal.

Are you arguing that modern Germany or modern Japan owes everything which distinguishes their societies from Weimar or Imperium ... to a piece of paper?

What?

No...

Im implying that both countries have come a long way since those days, even if there may be room for dramatic improvement.
That even regimes as notorious as they once possessed, get overthrown, and progress can be made.
Times change, people change, so can governments.

I dont really have any idea of what youre talking about.

can any government, which fails to extend the same rights, to every living person, who for whatever reason, may happen to find themselves, on any soil it controls, be trusted by any other living person on any soil it controls? ever?

Depends.

Ask the Germans, or the Japanese.
Certainly moreso than 60 years ago.
Are you arguing that modern Germany or modern Japan owes everything which distinguishes their societies from Weimar or Imperium ... to a piece of paper?What?

No...

Im implying that both countries have come a long way since those days, even if there may be room for dramatic improvement.
That even regimes as notorious as they once possessed, get overthrown, and progress can be made.
Times change, people change, so can governments.

I dont really have any idea of what youre talking about.

Let's blame Cameroi for that then :p

I assumed we were talking about the power of a constitution to define the working of a society. The two examples you chose (Germany and Japan) had "modern" constitutions imposed on them, and I thought you were maybe saying that those constitutions were the origin of the very positive improvement in both country's politics and standards of living.

I was lining up an argument that both countries had very strong cultures that would prosper under almost any constitution (and juggling the Weimar Republic in my mind to see which side of the case it would fall). If that didn't work, I was going to wave China in your general direction and hope it would distract you.

I am terrible at holding a consistent opinion. Hence terrible at debate. Never mind.

There were many at the time the U.S. Constitution was drafted that felt the Bill of Rights wasn't necessary. That by enumerating specific rights that the government had no mandate to restrict, it was inviting the government to restrict whatever rights were not enumerated. I'd say both sides of that debate were a little bit right. *nod*

Yes, the argument continues ("strict construction" and that).

Perhaps "rights" are a philosophical concept, and "government" a practical one, and in their purest forms don't exist for each other. Certainly there is trouble when one tries to relate "rights" with "power."

A simplification like "government is delegated power" or "rights are power" or even "rights are individual actions protected by government" doesn't quite bring them into the same frame ... and none of those is true in practice.

I think I need help on this one ... AnarchyeL could surely lull us into a warm sense of "well, at least someone understands this"

You and I could put our heads together of course ... but we'd probably sink the cue balls. :D