Coombs wrote:
Rights don't exist, absolutely.
Absolutely, as in no sense of the word (or words - rights and exist)?
Nobody has the right to free anything... to punish someone either. Societal constructs (not... unnatural).. have been created for the sake of individual survival through collective order.
My big question is, at what point is order restricting freedom in a way that is nonessential for individual survival (through the collective order and safety).
It seems according to this that though no one has any natural right (god given, or "existing" in some of the senses I think you have in mind), that humans have a double (possibly conflicting) interest: the individual one, and the common one. Since they live together ("urban living") it is not unnatural to them to create rules that see for those double edged interests, including voluntarily restricting themselves. For example they might restrict any one from harming anyone else.
Now if they all agree on that, and all commit to the rules and take upon themselves the duties as indicated by the law, it would seem that according to this each and every one of the citizens might conclude that they have a right not to be harmed by someone else (and other rights which mirror the indicated duties in the same way).
This is not some kind of fairy tale: in most western countries that is basically how things are understood to be.
It is understood in a strong enough way the the said rights are commonly organized in different "bills of rights", and are a corner stone for most judicial systems. (I'm not claiming that is the only route to induce rights, or that indeed the said bills consist of only such right. Indeed, different societies do have their ways, some of which are not necessarily defensible).
No law, society, culture, nation, judge, etc. have a "right" to anyone's respect or compliance. It's all a choice we make.
So we can return to the beginning: they may not have a god given right, but then you said it yourself: the societal construct is natural, and the agreement people make for their own interest just is the choice they make. That general, wider and interest engulfing choice to live with/under a pact - to abide by the laws we made ourselves - has to mean that we have a duty to respect the judge, the law, etc. - and that just means that they do have a right to such respect. I'm not saying it - you did.
In a less abstract way (more to the specific case), I agree with your intuition that here the interests of society (or the presumed ones, I'm not sure if the real ones) are too easily preferred to the individual's (thus trumping his rights 🙂 ).
I don't, however, support the too easy distinction between the said and done (physical violence - verbal one). It is rather complicated, and judgment there needs to take account of more than one principle, I think, but the simple "verbal just is violence lite" doesn't cover it all (think of consequences: one physically violent act leaves somebody dirty and hurting, but nothing will remain beyond a shower and a good night sleep; vs another plainly verbal act, which directly instigates a chain of events that cause the death of several human beings. And no, you can't escape with "it's the killings and not the uttering" - just build the case in a way it is the uttering. Enough times it is).
