From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Nov 21 2002 - 08:25:44 MST
Brett Paatsch wrote:
> But human compassion does not _naturally_ extend to all humanity.
> At least not in the main and/or not yet.
I've had discussions with many liberal-minded folk who believe very
strongly that Americans have a moral obligation to feed the hungry
anywhere on earth. I agree with them from a moral viewpoint, (though I
disagree that such moral laws should become statute.) I think most
people would agree what we have at least some degree of moral obligation
to all our fellow humans. The problems and discord arise when those
moral obligations enter the political process.
My own take on this is something like yours with your dog. I think it is
normal and natural to care about family and friends first (and yes,
perhaps even our pets) but if they are comfortable, and if one has the
means, then it is normal and natural to become more philanthropic toward
the world at large.
> This distinction you draw between positive and negative rights is
> interesting.
The notion of "positive rights" was handed down to us from marxism. The
idea made its way into American political thought via the now mostly
defunct Socialist party, and was later co-opted by modern liberal
democrats. It pretty much marked the end of classical liberalism in this
country, though classical liberalist ideas are now once again
proliferating via the Libertarian Party.
> I don't think it is negative that you seem to recognize negative
> rights but not positive ones in the sense you outline it, but I
> do wonder how you place the concept of contracts in your system.
> If one has contracted in a "free and open way" to provide or
> receive services such as education or health care are these
> services "positive rights" to your mind or not rights at all?
Of course one has a natural right to contract for services of any kind.
By asserting a "positive right," I mean that one asserts that one is
entitled to such services as a *birthright*.
Those who advocate the idea of positive rights sometimes assert the
existence of something they call "the social contract," which is
purportedly a contract we are all "born into" and which provides for
entitlements such as health-care and education. I reject the validity of
the social contract on the grounds that no contract is legal unless all
parties enter into the contract voluntarily.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:17 MST