Hibbert.pa@XEROX.COM (08/14/86)
Joe Testa said: "The reason that most of law is complicated (probably more complicated than it needs to be, of course) is that there are conflicts between laws, and conflicts between rights. Personal rights are not mutually exclusive. I have the right to use a gun. I have the right to not be shot by someone else." I do not agree that rights can conflict. According to my understanding of the term, a right is something that a person can claim absolutely. In this particular case, you have a right to own a gun, and you have the right to use it safely. You have another right, which is the right not to be aggressed against. These rights do not conflict. There isn't a case where you have to decide which one is more important than the other. You can do whatever you like with your gun that doesn't involve aggression. (I hope you understand the distinction I draw between natural or inalienable rights, and legal rights. I speak here of the former. If you intended the latter, then you can take this as only pointing out that a distinction is meaningful and useful.) The reason this question is a hot topic for me, is that I see the concept of rights being watered-down by the invention of new rights that do conflict with the rights that I believe in. The right to a job, or the right to a decent education are two examples of "invented" rights that conflict with the right to own and control property, and the right not be aggressed against. In order for some to claim a right to a job, someone else has to be forced to pay them. Any time people suggest they have a right to something, the correct question to ask is "at who's expense?" Real rights don't come at someone else's expense. Ersatz rights require that something be coerced from someone for their fulfillment. Chris -------
testa-j%osu-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA (08/23/86)
To: Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM Cc: KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU, From: Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM >I do not agree that rights can conflict. According to my >understanding of the term, a right is something that a person can >claim absolutely. In this particular case, you have a right to own a >gun, and you have the right to use it safely. You have another >right, which is the right not to be aggressed against. These rights >do not conflict. There isn't a case where you have to decide which >one is more important than theother. You can do whatever you like >with your gun that doesn't involve aggression. > >(I hope you understand the distinction I draw between natural or >inalienable rights, and legal rights. I speak here of the former. If >you intended the latter, then you can take this as only pointing out >that a distinction is meaningful and useful.) I understand what you mean, but i'm not sure that i agree. I still think that it is possible for "natural" rights to conflict. I've been mulling this over, trying to think of an example. However, i think that it would be more useful if we used the same criteria. If you could send me a list of what you consider to be a person's natural rights, we can proceed with the discussion from there. Your list should contain whatever exceptions apply: i.e. don't say "you have the right to use a gun", but rather "you have the right to use a gun without harming anyone not trying to harm you first". If you provide a list of rights, and i describe a situation where those rights DO conflict, we could go on forever with you modifying the list, i come up with another example, etc,etc. (Though you will not be "penalized" for a limited number of oversights -- i'm not perfect, so i certainly can't expect you to be.) I will be looking forward to hearing from you again. -joe testa- ------- -------
kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/24/86)
To: Hibbert.pa@XEROX.COM
From: ~joe testa~ <TESTA-J@OSU-20>
... If you could send me a list of what you consider to be a
person's natural rights, we can proceed with the discussion from
there.
... don't say "you have the right to use a gun", but rather "you
have the right to use a gun without harming anyone not trying to
harm you first".
1) You have the right to mind your own business. You are never
required to rescue anyone, feed anyone, pay taxes, etc.
2) You have the right to do anything with any adult that he or she
does not object to.
...Keith
-------