From: RIGHTSBOY@aol.com
Date: Fri Oct 24 2003 - 16:00:36 MDT
[rhinoceros]
Heh, what's with your nickname then, rightsboy? Is it about the topic you usually talk about? :P
[rightsboy]
Good guess.
[rhinoceros]
Back to the topic... "Rights" is a linguistic invention in the same sense that any word is. The question is if it signifies something in communication.
[rightsboy]
If not, then it isn't "linguistic" in any functional sense.
[rhinoceros]
It is less obvious why you say that rights are a "tautological" rule set. Is it because what makes a right is
declaring it as one?
[rightsboy]
Precisely -- along with implementation by societal institutions (i.e. democratic government).
[rhinoceros]
Although it is true that it is a made up social rule, I don't find it tautological. Rights is a real enough concept.
[rightsboy]
By "tautological" I mean a human-defined rule, as opposed to e.g. something "discovered" in "nature". Real enough indeed.
[rhinoceros]
Of course, what is a right and what is not differs at diferent places and at different times.
[rightsboy]
According to your definition.
[rhinoceros]
But how did a right get to be declared as one. Apparently someone claimed that a common practice be granted the status of a right in a particular society.
[rightsboy]
I will leave it to the particular society to democratically determine what conditions and "common practices" are necessary for that society's self-maintenance and the "well-being" of its individual members.
[rhinoceros]
What we usually call "natural rights" were probably the ones which were so embedded in common practice that their official acceptance was secondary. Other, less universal social claims can be held by subgroups or declared as rights by appeal to authority.
[rightsboy]
"natural rights" is a conceptual myth invented in a philosopher's mind. Who you refer to as "we" is a conceptual myth invented in your mind. To minimize ambiguity, we would do well to clearly (linguistically) articulate those rights that we expect each other to be aware of and abide by, and articulate them in a manner that is comprehensible and useful to each and every citizen in their daily interactions with one another (best to teach them in the public school system).
[rhinoceros]
Does a right have a function? Sure, you can appeal to a right to your fellow people or go to court and demand action. You can also figure out your limits when you mess with others in a society. If a right is written down in a constitution, it can also be used to set the limits of legislation. And of course, a right can be abolished. All this sounds real enough to me. I don't see how this rule set is tautological.
[rightsboy]
According to the definition I am using, a right _only_ "exists" if it is "written down in a constitution", and socially (governmentally) enforced -- thus 'tautological'. Otherwise it is just somebody's conceptual myth, or perhaps an item on their "wish list". "Real enough" indeed.
[rhinoceros]
For an example, let's take private property... your home. It is natural that you'll want to defend it if you have to, no matter if you call it a right or not. The difference that a right makes is that society may take it upon itself to defend it for you (or steal it from you, but this is another discussion), and also to defend others' homes from you. Or you can go to other people and tell them "my rights have been violated" and get support. This is a real enough difference -- it hardly allows for a tautology.
[rightsboy]
No conflicts here. Again, by "tautology" I mean simply a linguistically defined and conventionally enforced rule. And no less "real" for it.
[rhinoceros]
If things were so that everyone had to defend their homes with a shotgun, appealing to a right of property wouldn't make any sense if you didn't mind what your shotgun-carrying neighbors would say, but if you did mind, then your shooting down people had better be covered by a "right".
[rightsboy]
If things were so that everyone had to defend their homes (from each other) with a shotgun, then an effective "right to property" would not exist. A right only exists to the extent that persons in a society acknowledge and abide by it on each other's behalf. Rights are not "God-given", nor are they to be found under a rock somewhere out there in "nature". They are a societal network protocol suite which operates to define the nature of the society which adopts them.
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 24 2003 - 16:00:57 MDT