Its been a couple of days since I got into this sort of discussion elsewhere on reddit and I've been thinking about it ever since. I've talked with my friends and tried to find where my logic is wrong, merely because I don't like the end result. I was wondering if anyone else would want to chip in.

The discussion started whether the "right to vote" was state-given or not (Heinlein's Starship Trooper world where you had to serve to become a citizen and get the right to vote). I believe the former and he argued the latter. Ultimately, though, we couldn't get past this line of reasoning:

1. I am a citizen of the Republic of France. I have the right to vote.
2. The Despot of Lichenstein, a neo-Nazi nationalist socialist, declares war on France and by miracle of miracles, somehow manages to conquer it.
3. As a despot, he is an autocrat, therefore I no longer have say in my government, therefore I have no right to vote anymore.
4. Therefore, the right to vote is state-given.

His argument is that as a citizen of France, I still have a right to vote in France, but it is temporarily restricted since France does not exist. I think this is too much mincing of ideas as in that case, else we all have the right to eat the skittles that come out of our own unicorn's a... mouths.

But then couldn't that string of logic instead be applied to any other right, even ones we think are "god-given" or "natural"? If we only have those rights because the state says that we have those rights (ie, allowing us to speak or vote or assemble), then are there such things as natural rights?

In our world today we might seem like it, but only because the sole superpower of the world backs that thought. But say Obama goes uber-Republican fear and declares himself the God-King of America and decrees that there is no more freedom of the pursuit of happiness - and has the power to back it up - where those rights ever really natural?

Discuss.