> Humans have natural rights because of the type of natural
> being they are, because of their specific nature. This is
> where 'natural' in 'natural rights' comes from. 'Rights'
> in this context are those conditions in the interactions
> among human beings required by human beings, by their nature,
> for optimal functioning. Most such rights are negative
> such as the non-initiation of physical force rather than
> positive such as the supposed right some claim to goods
> provided by the work of others.
Counting from the beginning of the quoted paragraph, the third sentence
makes sense to me. [Others don't.] "Rights are those conditions in the
interactions among human beings required by human beings for optimal
functioning." That is OK, that is the essence of my definition of 'rights'
What doesn't make sense to me is your attempt to state that such
'conditions' are predetermined, and eternal. I have no capacity to
understand how anyone could believe such utter nonsense. I hope you don't
actually believe that? Do you seriously believe that such 'conditions', as
you stated, are predetermined and eternal?
If you do, you sound utterly totalitarian to me, no matter how you might
think you're not. Because if it is so, you're making an outrageous
assumption that every human being's "requirements for optimal functioning"
are the same - and indeed, that such requirements never change.
[Don't you have some kind of national education in high schools in America?
Perhaps even primary and secondary schools? Where you learn, somewhat
nationalistically as I hear, and several times per week, about your country
and your legal system and your rights? I think we might actually be on the
same wavelength, only you refuse to call the thing anything other than what
the "memes you're infected with tell you to", as Michael Lorry might say if
he were European. :-) ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:24 MDT