It is, that when I hear or read it, I stop for an instance.

No, not really:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes,_Virginia,_there_is_a_Santa_Claus

That’s a really good point, John, and a pretty decent argument for why the whole run of illicit narcotics should be legitimized.

The system did work exactly as intended in Florida. I still think that many would not have voted in favor of that amendment if they had known what would then happen to the pigs. Also, what was regarded by some as inhumane treatment, was in fact the pig farmer trying to protect pregnant sows.

I think the way I define it would be simple:

1) Individuals entrust their government with certain powers that are better provisioned collectively.
2) Those governments engage in relationships with other governments (in this case States forming a Constitutional federal government), and entrust certain powers upon the larger collective (i.e. interstate commerce arbitrage, nat’l defense, etc).
3) The set of legal rights we call States’ Rights are the intersection of legitimate powers given to the States by their inhabitants that are not given by the States to the Federal government.

Think of it, perhaps, like attorney-client privilege. I as a client entrust my lawyer with confidential information. My lawyer then has a legal right to withhold that information from the government, because he is acting as my agent. I.e. I have entrusted that information to my attorney under the agreement that it remain confidential, and thus he inherits my right to privacy as my agent.

As for the pigs, I think that the system actually worked entirely as intended. The idea that pigs have rights is absurd, of course, but if your state chooses to recognize the legal rights of pigs, I would entirely expect that government be empowered to protect those rights, and consequently the behavior in question — raising pigs inhumanely (note the term “inhumane” is entirely incorrect as non-humans have no expectation of “humane” treatment) — ended in Florida. Yes, it had the consequence of simply moving those operations offshore, but Florida cannot regulate other jurisdictions.

I am wary of assigning rights to non-individuals. When I consider contractual relationships, I think more in terms of contractual obligations or responsibilities. I understand why such things as limited liability corporations exist and how they are treated by the courts, but with rights also come responsibilities. It doesn’t seem right that a fictional entity can enjoy virtually all the benefits of being a natural person without in turn taking on all of the liabilities.

Here in Florida, a constitutional amendment designed to protect the rights of pigs passed with a majority popular vote. The unintended consequences were that all the pigs were slaughtered almost immediately and pigs are no longer raised for food in Florida.

The argument that the States violated the rights of their inhabitants (meaning slaves) seems weak when you consider that at the time, they had no rights.

There’s a reason I used the term inhabitants so many times, rather than citizens. These slaves had natural inherent inalienable rights, by virtue of being human beings. They did not have legal rights, of course, but that fact is a condemnation of the governments of the States, not a rejection of the argument.

I am explicitly stating that the States were legally violating the natural human rights of their inhabitants, and thus no longer a legitimate government. A government instituted to protect rights loses its shine if it systematically and legally violates those rights.

From that perspective, a delegate, ambassador or other representative holds no actual rights of their own, but rather a responsibility to act in the best interests of those he represents.

Correct, inasmuch as you define these rights as natural rights. However, those people are empowered by their inhabitants to form an institution (State government) to act on their behalf. That institution, when it enters into relationships with other entities (be it a national superior government or peer governments) has legal, contractual rights.

On Twitter, my co-contributor Doug responded that he thought it was dangerous to use the language of “rights” with regards to non-individuals. I don’t disagree. There is a danger there, because we can easily conflate inherent natural rights with artificial legal rights. However, that does not mean that those legal rights do not exist.