Subject:
|
Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:03:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1051 times
|
| |
|
|
I'm addressing three of Frank's notes here, not just the one upline from where
I'm posting.
As a result of my use of "good and just" coupled with the assertion that
rights are merely a legal construct, Frank pointed out that we need to know the
origin of justice because we seem to feel like there is an absolute there. I'm
not sure how to delve into it much. I don't think there is an absolute in
terms of justice, morality, or rights. These notions and how we apply them are
simply reflections of the kind of world in which we are most comfortable.
So when I say that a right is a legal construct but also an absolute, Frank
asks why it can't be sold away or limited. The answer to this is that there
are lots of things that we should be allowed to do in general, or by default,
but that they are limitable. Those things are not rights, but privileges. All
that this understanding requires is different verbiage when expressing or
defining the rights. I would not advocate rewriting the constitution to
include "All people have the inalienable right to exist." That's too open for
misunderstanding. It would have to be expressed with many more words than that
to cover the reasonable limitations.
As a silly example, if we have the right to shout "I am alive!" I'm not
opposed to people agreeing to not shout it under certain circumstances, and
even being paid for that agreement, but I am opposed to one party being able to
bring suit for breach of contract against someone who decided to shout "I am
alive!" If that is merely a privilege, then suit should be possible.
In enumerating what is 'right,' Frank lists: "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," and "punishment for wrongdoing should focus first on
compensation, and secondly on preventing future future harm." But we don't
even agree on all that. I don't think it's wrong to take resources from
someone if I need them, at least under some circumstances. And I bet we
disagree on the details of punishment of wrong-doers. Most of what you wrote
is stuff that I think paints a picture of a nice world, but it is so general
that there's a lot of wiggle room.
From where does the right to 'own' "the health of one's body" arise? Why is
that a first order right but my "right to exist" is derivative? It seems like
putting the cart before the horse to simply declare that all rights are
property rights rather than to dig out _why._
For clarity, I don't think that the "right to exist" includes any kind of
maintanence payment. What I think it entails is the right to be in a place
that is sustaining of life (i.e. we can't just round people up and assign them
each a square foot of New Mexican desert) unencumbered by duties that make
survival unlikely (e.g. war draft, onerous taxation, etc.) and an economic
infrastructure that allows everyone the chance to earn their keep. I am in
favor of people being allowed to overdose on recreational drugs like beer and I
think that is not inconsitent with the right to exist.
When I was bemoaning the difficulty of redistributing land-stewardship, the
assertion that if the initial distribution were made fairly and there was a
fair economic system, then redistribution wouldn't be needed. That's a tidy
stance and all, but it completely divests the "right to exist." I can even
accept that you (or anyone) doesn't think that people actually have the right
to exist (though you might be the first against the wall when revolution comes
;-), but since my point it propogating this discussion is to hammer out snags
in my "right to exist" philosophy, just negating it off-hand doesn't seem
useful.
And I'd be curious how you would structure an economy that was fair. I've
never heard of such an implementation (unless again, the Hopi of antiquity
count...I still haven't done the research). The only thing that I can imagine
is making the currency of the land the man_hour. That would be fair, but if my
suggestion to socialize ownership of land freaks you out, I'd expect this
change to really cause a stir.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
47 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
