From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun May 12 2002 - 04:38:46 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Samantha writes
>
>
>>Lee Corbin wrote:
>>
>>>Let me speak operationally. If you ask me about whether some
>>>legal right exists, then I know perfectly well how to determine
>>>that. I can examine the law books and the enacted statutes. I
>>>can also consult the district attorney's office, the police,
>>>or experienced judges and lawyers. Crucially, there is a fact
>>>of the matter.
>>>
>>Do you think the origin or validation of rights is simply what
>>is written down? In who's book?
>>
>
> Um, my point was that I don't believe in "rights" in the abstract.
> I know what *legal rights* are, but that's it. You seem to have
> missed my point that one can determine what *legal rights* are,
> but how in the world is one to determine what "rights" in the
> abstract are? Yet you speak as if people somehow know.
>
Yes, I do. I think rights grow out of the nature and needs of
human beings and aren't an artificial construct. I think legal
rights are a codification of these natural rights at best and
something that hides the fundamental rights at their worst.
>
>>What was written down before the American revolution denied
>>us most of the rights the revolution was fought for.
>>Are rights then a matter of the winning party?
>>
>
> Oh, oh. This is getting very frustrating ;-) It's not *me*
> who believes in the rights that you keep refering to!
>
It is you who is saying (if I understand you) that there is no
such thing as rights except rights as codified. If not then are
any rights involved in struggles to go beyond what was formerly
codified as in the American Revolution, civil rights and so on?
> Now in the American Revolution, there was a lot of talk about
> "the rights of Englishmen". This made perfect sense, since
> over hundreds of years such had gradually evolved. What was
> spoken of was, of course, legal rights.
>
> But yes, also around the time of the American Revolution,
> people (I think!) began to speak of "Natural Rights". I
> once attempted to get a thread going on this list about
> "natural rights", but failed. I'm not sure, but I think
> that those things are something that some conservatives
> strongly believe in.
>
I spent some time saying then what I thought natural rights are
and that they truly are natural - based on the nature of the
entities involved. I don't remember you successfully countering
the argument. But it must not have been satisfying since you
periodically bring the subject up.
>
>>>Likewise, I can determine operationally if X approves of
>>>proposition P. The most obvious recourse is to ask X if
>>>he or she approves of P. Over time, especially if I'm
>>>being thorough, I can converge to an answer of whether
>>>X approves of P. Also, I can observe X carefully and
>>>maybe find out if there's a difference between X's verbal
>>>support of P and X's actions.
>>>
>>Way too much in your head and not straight shooting.
>>
>
> Sorry, to get too academic on you. I digressed to make it
> abundantly clear that I also know what it means for someone
> to approve of something. So, again, these are the only two
> things I understand:
>
> (a) legal rights
> (b) what someone approves of, or believes to be good
> for society
I am not sure if you don't actually understand more except the
more hasn't made it past your particular set of rational cesnsors.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:00 MST