From: Kathryn Aegis (aegis@igc.apc.org)
Date: Mon Dec 29 1997 - 18:44:32 MST
Lee Daniel Crocker:
>The test is for our benefit, not his.
Ah. Yes. Then the entity has no real incentive to engage in such a
test, because it is fraudulent. It claims to *confer* rights, when
in fact no one can confer a right. In fact it actually confers
*recognition* of a right, a status that the entity could claim by
other means, given enough time and resources.
>It tells us whether or not we
>have been enslaving him, and whether it might be more profitable for
>us to recognize him as free, because free men produce more than slaves.
Under a human rights paradigm, if the entity perceives that he has
been enslaved, then it/he/she has probably been living under
conditions of slavery. If others cannot figure out whether they have
been oppressing someone, the easiest method of finding that out would
be to ask the entity, and to actually listen to the response, however
difficult it may be to listen to. Setting up a test to do so only
shows that what the entity thinks and feels has been demoted in favor
of the standards of a third party.
Sin,
Kathryn Aegis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:17 MST