Where Do Our Rights Come From - Are They Derived From Truth or Power?

This was originally posted in October of 2010. 

As you are reading this, replace the 1st Amendment question of "Freedom of Speech", with the 1st Amendment question of "Freedom of Peaceable Assembly."

--------

Culturist John and I once had a beer-sodden, knock-em-down, drag-em-out bar fight over this question.

I say our rights exist, because they came from God. I also accept the idea of Natural Law, which Wikipedia defines thusly,

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.

Both ideas co-exist for me. I believe God Created the Universe, so it is no surprise to me that he built a law code into nature itself. The Bible says that His Law is written in our hearts, and that unbelievers, who do according to the Law written in their hearts, show that they are a law unto themselves, and that their faith (in that Law) will be judged in the same way as Abraham's faith was, which is to say, their faith will be judged as Righteousness. (Many Christians will argue this point with me. Hey, just remember, my Philosophical fights turn into bar fights.)

Culturist John's perspective is that we get the rights we fight for, and only those rights. Now, this seems to be a truism. Obviously, here in America, for instance, we have only those rights we fought for in the Revolutionary War. Sure, they are enumerated in a Constitution, but we had to fight for the right to govern ourselves before we were able to write that Constitution.

And, the world over, people only have the rights they fought for.

But, the question is, can a government, with their inherent authority, take away your Freedom of Speech, by voting it our of law? Sure, they can do that. But, if they do, is it Right? Or, is it Wrong?

Let's further the question. Let's say the elected government votes Freedom of Speech out of Law, and then uses Martial Law to ensure that any ensuing rebellion in favor of Free Speech was quashed (think Iran of late).

If the elected government did this, they did so in all fairness. After all, it was within their authority, as elected Representatives, to Legislate and enact Law, right? And, it is the governments responsibility to ensure the peace, by putting down rebellion against law, right?

So, the elected government would have, effectively, taken away the right to Free Speech, by their elected authority, and they would have used Power to have effected this change in the Rights of the people.

All's fair, right? Is that ok with you? Is it Right, or is it Wrong?

Let's go even further. Let us say, some Left-wing dictator comes into power and wants to enact strict PC standards against Freedom of Speech. Let's say 60% of the people in the nation agree with this dictator, and willingly give up their Freedom of Speech. Let's say a rebellion ensues, and that rebellion is put down by a combination of Martial Law, and the will of the people, who agree with the dictator, that PC standards are the standards for speech, and that Freedom of Speech is no longer viable in a multicultural society.

It would seem to me that, according to Culturist John's philosophy (and, of course, I can not speak for him), this would have been an effective, and even righteous, revolution against Free Speech. After all, rights are only those things we fought for?

Those who would protest would do so with no moral authority, right?

So, the question is, do our Rights come from some source outside of ourselves, either nature, or God? Or, are our Rights merely those laws which we derive through a show of force?