From: Louis Newstrom (louisnews@comcast.net)
Date: Fri Mar 08 2002 - 05:41:04 MST
From: "Richard Steven Hack" <richardhack@pcmagic.net>
> >A "right" - from Rand (and Morris and Linda annehill, who did some nice
> >parsing of this in their "The Market for Liberty," still probably the
best
> >introduction to anarcho-capitalism) - is an ethical sanction against
> >interference with ones action. This presumes a clear understanding of
the
> >component terms - ethical, sanction, action.
> >
> >Rights are a negative concept, in that they define when we can properly
> >forbid someone else from interfering with what we choose to do.
>
> Okay, this is a definition I can understand - a right is a sanction
against
> interference with one's actions. It's shorthand meaning "don't coerce" -
> but we can say that directly - so why do we need the concept "right"?
Simply, If you say "don't coerce" then you can't coerce people into
following that rule!
For a longer explanation, "don't coerce" applies to the person who might do
the coersion. A "right" applies to the person who might be coerced. This
is not just a semantic issue, but an actual distinction that has
ramifications.
If you make "don't coerce" a rule, then the remedy is to penalize whomever
is coercing. If you make a "right" then the remedy is to restore the right
to the person it was taken away from, and maybe award damages for losing
that right.
Along that vein, imagine a zookeeper who lets his lions out into the city
instead of feeding them. You can't punish the lions for "coercing", because
animals are not subject to human laws. You can't punish the zookeeper
because he isn't coercing anything. On the other hand, by making a "right
to live", you CAN punish the zookeeper for taking actions that logically
would result in interfering with other people's "right to live".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:50 MST