Subject:
|
Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Feb 2003 20:39:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
817 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> I have decided that it makes the most sense for me to stop talking about space
> in the universe and just talk about land. Bear in mind that I think the
> argument extrapolates out to all habitable space, but for now, talking about
> land might be easier.
>
> Larry doesn't think that "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" implies
> "an unfettered right to exist." I'm not sure what he exactly means by
> unfettered, but I think he's just trying to indicate that no one owes their
> time spent --the most precious of resources, keeping you fed. I agree. The
> right to exist does not mean the right to exist under all circumstances.
> Refusing to feed yourself, endangering the life of another, and lots of other
> things are ways of surrendering that right. But I do think that the right to
> exist is (or should be) socially upheld for anyone who does not engage in the
> activities that we generally agree act to reduce that right.
>
> I think the abortion issue is tied to the right to exist only to the extent
> that we have to figure out exactly who has (should have) the right to exist and
> what criteria are applied for determining that right. It seems like an issue
> that would be easier to solve once the right to exist is hammered out.
>
> 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.
If a right is just a legal construct, then why can't it be sold away or
limited?
> 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.
If a right arises simply from the people, then I'm not sure a right to
exist is compatible.
> 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.
I think we need to explore the foundations of rights. Why do we feel
certain things should be rights. Perhaps we should start with what we
feel is "right":
- It is wrong to take or resources from someone just because you need
them.
- People should give excess resources to the needy.
- People should provide the resources their offspring require so that
the offspring may attain self sufficiency.
- People must uphold commitments made to another, and negotiate any
changes. People must not make new commitments that intefere with prior
commitments. People must compensate others when commitments are unable
to be met.
- People must not extort commitments from others.
- Punishment for wrongdoing should focus first on compensation, and
secondly on preventing future future harm.
I think a "right to exist" derrives from other "rights". However, the
health of one's body is a resource that belongs to one's self. The
health of one's body is clearly a critical part of the "right to exist".
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
47 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
