james@umcp-cs.UUCP (08/13/83)
Laura, What does "By definition there is no right to pollute" mean? I agree with you, but object to your idea of definitions. Would you mind delineating them? If they are fixed (definitions, right?), then no amendments are allowed, correct? The constitution, then, would not be considered definitions. Maybe we should argue about what should or should not be included in The American Definitions. --Jim
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (08/15/83)
"by definition there is no right to pollute". Hmm. I am talking about converting a morality into a legal system. My definition of "pollute" and my definition of "right" are mutually exclusive. This is not by LEGAL definition, but by LOGICAL definition. I view freedom as a continuous quality, and rights as the discontinuous pieces you can derive from freedom. There is no 'pollution' in my definition of freedom, so there can be no 'right to pollute'. this is akin to saying that by definition there is no such thing as 'the kindness of murdering innocent children', if you want an example of another impossibility "by definition". laura creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura ps - to the curious - James' article is a very good example of an acceptable way to argue.