All right Bob. I’ll bite one more time.
Your rights are not etched in stone. They are fluid. Your democratic republic is not a free society in the Ayn Rand sense. It’s impossible to govern that way. It’s also impossible to have a functioning society without some form of government.
It's not my democratic republic. I didn't voluntarily join it. However that organization does "etch some of the rights" they claim they will not violate in stone figuratively speaking, in their bill of rights or other documents they claim they will honor. It's also impossible to be a protector, if the first thing a government does is grant itself an exception to do things which none of its alleged constituents has. You won't be able to refute any of that.
In a democracy rights are essentially rules that a society determines are important to them as a collective.
A democracy ? Non Sequitur, to the matter being discussed. A democracy doesn't ensure rights of everyone. They more often REMOVE rights, UNLESS each decision decided is unanimous without any duress. Which almost never happens. Anyway, in reality rights are things which don't come from other people who claim to be "leaders", you seem to be confusing rights with revocable privileges. They are two different things.
In certain situations your individual rights are less important than the survival of that society. Period. This is why we have laws that allow for war measures. Luckily for us we live in a democracy so these measures can only be temporary.
Laws that allow for war measures are made to increase nationalism / loyalty, enrichment of the elite class and are often not followed anyway. When was the last time the USA empire was involved in an actual defense of it's claimed territory? When was the last time Congress declared a war? Wars are often a feature and result of indoctrination. You keep talking like a democracy is inherently a good thing, as if a majority can shift a thing which is wrong into being a thing which is right. If that is so, explain gang rape.
I guess what it comes down to is this; I’m ok with a temporary restriction or my rights if it’s for the good of society. You’re not. I’m reasonable. You’re not.
I guess when it comes down to it, I'm not okay with me delegating your rights to an "authority", since that would be impossible for me to delegate a right I don't have. Nor could you possibly delegate my rights, absent my consent. You've failed to explain how that could happen despite being asked several different times. In other words you're unable to answer that one question and have avoided it, which collapses your democracy premise. Until you answer that question, your premise is naked and flaccid and relies on "because" as a foundation. Weak.
Now Bob I have a question for you. It’s not in relation to the topic of this thread but I need to know the answer before I waste anymore time reading or responding to your posts.
If you do waste more of your time, be sure and answer how you could delegate a right you don't possess. I'm sure you'll get right to that.
Yes or no only please. Do you think Trump is a good president?
No, there are no good Presidents. Some are worse than others, but none are good since they hold themselves to be exempt from actions which would be bad if you or I did the same things. Your question is like asking "are there any good rapists", since both use the same tactics which are based in capture of people without their individual consent. Although a rapist is a bad person, most don't have nearly the blood on their hands that a President has.
Okay, now time for you to answer a few questions.
Do you think consent in human relations is a vital thing to observe and respect ?
Would you agree that people who tread on others consent are doing it wrong?
How can a person delegate a right they themselves do not possess ?