When watching Star Trek i noticed that Q has his "powers" taken away in one episode. They granted these "powers" to Riker as well. And, many other shows do this, someone's powers are taken away. At least in Superman 2 they irradiated him or something to do it.
This has always bothered me. The point of Q is that he is not human with special powers, he is a being who can play with the universe *inherently* as a human can move his arm. Just like we cannot take away the "power" of someone to move his arm without destroying a part of his physical or mental structure, removing powers from Q should be the same. I don't mean this specifically by Q, but any characters where certain extra-human capabilities are inherent to their race.
Perhaps we can blame the State of Virginia for this. The Bill of Rights was a bad move. There are no such things as rights. The Declaration of Independence uses the term "inalienable rights" to describe this situation. That is, where the power of freedom is not granted or restricted, rather it is recognized. But the DOI made a mistake by using the word "rights". The Constitution itself only uses the word "right" once. And that is on a legal right, "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;". Being it is a made-up right it is called a "right" therefore. Everything else is expressly granted legislative "power". The Constitution is truly a beautiful document. But the DOI lead Virginia into the fallacious belief that all rights needed to be codified, and the Bill of rights changes it all.
In the first amendment "right of the people to assemble", the second "right of the people to keep and bear arms", the fourth "right of the people to be secure in their persons", the sixth "shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial", the seventh "the right to trial by jury", the ninth refers to rights given by the Constitution, which is not true, and the tenth reserves "rights" for the people.
Because of this, i consider the BOR the thorn in the side of the US. It took one of the most fantastic legal documents and destroyed it at its core by invented this idea that freedom was because of rights. An absolute tragedy that redefined how people were going to look at the freedoms we enjoy.
It is not that we have the right to do something, it's that noone has the right or ability to take it away. Even "inherent rights" while expressing this message, uses the word "rights". The term should more correctly express that in interpersonal actions, noone can object or impede the freedom of others. The codification into law should not be what people can do, but what other people cannot do to impede it.
I think this needs a name. And whatever it is, it should not use the word "right". That has played out already most unfortunately.
Does someone have a more eponymous name?