 | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —John Neal
|
| | | (...) Sure, IRL, but I was speaking theoretically, as I believe were the FF. Merely because someone is able to oppress me and take away my rights doesn't justify it. (...) That is precisely why I claim they are divinely-endowed, so that no one has (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | (...) When you are oppressed you retain your rights. There are only two ways to be rid of rights: to surrender them (dangerously easy to do by mistake), and to have them taken from you through due process as established by the US Constitution. I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) I can accept your formulation more readily because it doesn't appeal to deus ex machina, but I'm not comfortable with the notion of "inherency." How is inherency identified/verified, and who gets to decide what is inherent? Hmm. Now that I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) The problem here is the conflation of legal notion with absolute reality. Rights are the legal/political expression of an aesthetic that nearly everyone (involved in the discussion) supports. While I wrote before that I was siding with John, (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | "Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:HzICys.15Iv@lugnet.com... (...) as if (...) The (...) same (...) I've definitely had some trouble with the origin of rights. They feel inherent, yet it also seems generally accepted (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | I've written here before that I think it would be more valuable to reframe the entire notion of rights as responsibilities. I think the absolutism of rights is easy to get tripped up on. (At least for me.) (...) One common stance is that an entity (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) This is a very nice summation, overall. (...) A good distinction to bear in mind. I don't think I have the ammunition to prove my case scientifically, so I should probably say I'm aiming for the philosophical angle. To clarify: By "inherent (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | Given that explanation, I think we both agree that discussion of "inherent rights" must assume that it is a social/legal construct. And that discussions of these general topics might be better served focussing on "inherent preferences." At least (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) But it does demonstrate irrefutably that those rights are not inalienable, contrary to the assertion of the founding fathers. Inalienable rights that can be taken away aren't very inalienable. And in all practical ways, rights that are utterly (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
