From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Mon Jan 13 2003 - 23:04:00 MST
Ron writes
> samantha [writes]
> > Do I understand you [Lee] correctly as saying that no such thing
> > as "natural rights" based on the nature of sentient beings such
> > as ourselves, exists?
>
> Samantha,
> Worse yet, is he suggesting that we should surrender
> any claim to our natural right to his or someone else's decision?
Certainly not. I just wish I knew what you were talking about.
I feel like I did as a little boy in Sunday School when they
kept talking about the Trinity. Now God, and Jesus, I understood.
But what was this Holy Ghost thingy? Surely (though I did not
possess the vocabulary at the time) it was a figure of speech.
Like "there was a spirit of happiness at the party". SURELY
THESE HIGHLY INTELLIGENT ADULTS DID NOT BELIEVE IN A TRUE GHOST!
Oh, but years later I learned, yes they did. Well, maybe not
the liberal-cum-atheists in the Methodist Church, but the true
Trinitarians did and do.
What is a natural right? Who issued it? From whence does
it come, or emanate? Surely it cannot be found anywhere
the way that real laws can (i.e., recorded in statutes).
For example, it's not been found in our DNA, nor does it
show up in anthropological studies. What the hell are we
talking about?
When I say "certainly not" above, I mean that I have no
intention of surrendering any of my legal rights as a
citizen of a Western nation. (While under the circumstances
I do not believe that John Ashcroft and his ilk have gone
too far yet, the further that they do go, the more I will
resist.) On many other fronts, Western governments, including
the U.S.'s, have indeed gone way too far, as any libertarian
will agree.
So what is this about "natural rights"? Am I blind to something?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST