trc@houti.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (08/11/83)
A note on the nature of rights: A right to some thing is a right to action for that thing - not to have it handed to one. For example, the right to life is the right to act to continue one's life, without interference, and without interfering with others rights. The right to freedom is the right to act freely (for one's life) - again without interference, and without interfering. In general, a right is that which it is correct to have, and which it would be incorrect for others to deprive on of. (Correct in the sense of ethical/moral.) There is, in my opinion, and apparently that of the framers of the Declaration of Independence, a priority among rights. Should rights come into conflict, with no way to avoid that conflict, it is just to protect one person's greater right at the expense of another's lessor right. This will happen very rarely, if people act rationally. However, it is possible that circumstances beyond human control will force such a situation, or that a person will irrationally cause it. One of the implications of the above is that, so long as their right to act for their own lives is not being interfered with, there is nothing that says people's lives must be *ensured* before the right to liberty is allowable. The same goes for the right to the pursuit of happiness, in its place after life and liberty. As to slogans like "Give me liberty or give me death", there is no conflict there with the *right* to life - in fact, that right is what allows one to use one's life in defense of liberty. One could certainly claim that life without liberty, when liberty is possible, can be worse than no life at all. Such slogans are a dramatic way of saying "I am willing to risk my life, and accept even death, if through that, liberty for myself and those I love might be obtained. It is better to die with hope of freedom for the ones I value most, than to live without such hope, and suffer with my loved ones." Tom Craver houti!trc