Re: Let's buils a set of rights from scratch!

Thread View: mod.legal

2 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

2 total messages Started by Eyal mozes Mon, 11 Aug 1986 06:01

#158

Author: Eyal mozes
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1986 06:01

41 lines
2899 bytes

>Rights should be a closed set logically. The simplest set of rights is the
>null set. There are no internal conflicts. Almost as simple are sets with
>one member, that being one of the traditionally recognized "negative rights",
>like freedom of worship in your own home. The moment you add another element
>to this set, it must be checked against the existing members, as well as
>against itself.
>The object, of course, is make this set as large as possible under these
>restrictions. If you try to include just one "bad" (inconsistent) member,
>you've corrupted the set, and your philosophy has just become "anything
>goes, as long as it feels good".
>Is anyone up to the challenge? If you don't like my starting-off right, feel
>free to choose another. Remember it must be self-consistent. And I'd prefer
>to keep children and other "incompetents" out of it, since the question
>of whether they require an entirely different set isn't established.

No, your whole approach to the issue is wrong.

If you start constructing sets of "rights" out of the blue, without
even bothering to define what a right is, and with a criterion such as
"theoretically possible for everyone to exercize all of them" (and add
"simplifications" such as "keep children and other 'incompetents' out
of it"), what you'll get may be an interesting exercize in logic, but
it will certainly not be a serious discussion of man's rights.

A sound discussion of rights must be based on REALITY - on correct
observation and identification of man's nature, the requirements of his
survival, and the effects of a social context on these requirements;
you should use these observations to define the concept of "right", and
then to discuss which are the valid rights.

The only philosopher to consistently take this approach in discussing
rights was Ayn Rand. I strongly recommend her article "Man's Rights"
(reprinted in two of her books: "The Virtue of Selfishness" and
"Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal") to anyone interested in understanding
or defending rights.

        Eyal Mozes

        BITNET:                         eyal@wisdom
        CSNET and ARPA:                 eyal%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA
        UUCP:                           ...!ihnp4!talcott!WISDOM!eyal

Re: build a set of rights from scratch

#160

Author: "Col. G. L. Sicherman"
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1986 17:27

15 lines
1466 bytes

> A sound discussion of rights must be based on REALITY - on correct
> observation and identification of man's nature, the requirements of his
> survival, and the effects of a social context on these requirements;
> you should use these observations to define the concept of "right", and
> then to discuss which are the valid rights.
> The only philosopher to consistently take this approach in discussing
> rights was Ayn Rand.

What, again?  People have different natures; some of us like the right
to own land privately, and others of us like the right to own the land
in common.  Different rights are best for different people; it's a political
problem.  Which brings me to my main point:

May we remove to net.politics.theory?  It's obviously the right place
for this discussion.

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads