Subject:
|
Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Feb 2003 19:10:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
908 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> Things that it seems like we need to determine or agree upon:
>
> What is a right?
> From where do any rights come?
> From where does the right to exist come?
>
> Once those are answered, I think we will be closer to accepting many
> implications. Some of these are: to whom the right to exist applies, what this
> means about real property, and what (if anything) are we doing wrong?
>
> Here's what I think:
>
> A right is a legal construct. It is indicative of a class of behaviors
> available to all people upon which no governance may encroach. (I realize that
> many of the things we think of as rights, aren't implemented properly under
> this definition.) In the past I believed that it was acceptable for these
> rights to be sold away and limited by the owner of a venue. I don't think that
> today. It will be cleaner if we work from as absolute an understanding as
> possible.
>
> Rights come from us. The People (should) determine what our rights are. I
> reject that rights are either divine or natural. The rights that a society
> grants to its members is indicative of the social aesthetic that is prominent.
> At least until a group of people actively recognizes a set of rights, the
> notion of 'might makes right' is the reality.
>
> The right to exist is a piece of aesthetic that I support strongly. Like all
> rights, it's just something that we make up in order to facilitate a world in
> which we are comfortable. But it seems to me that without this one, any other
> discussion of rights is silly.
>
> I'm not so much interested in figuring out what the laws in the US or any
> particular country really mean, as I am in figuring out what is "right." What
> will build a healthier world for everyone?
>
> I guess one way to proceed is to hear why people do not think that everyone has
> a right to exist. I'd be interested in your opinions.
>
> Does any of this make sense?
Yes, it makes sense. There are certain rights that virtually everyone wants
for themselves, so we make a compact with the others in a given group to
acknowledge that it is best for all concerned that we grant those rights to
all within the group. Allowing ways to get around those fundamental and
universal rights is to undermine the very compact made in the first place
(indentured servitude for example). The rights are derived by the consent
of the governed. You can have whatever motivation you want (claiming that
rights are divine or natural) but ultimately, it is people that make the
compact (the legal construct). All rights flow from the legal construct
(the agreement of the people).
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
47 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
