From: Kharin (kharin@kharin.com)
Date: Fri Oct 24 2003 - 08:21:07 MDT
"Necessary Rights is probably a better term. It is less loaded than Natural Rights."
Yes. Association of the term natural rights with Locke is somewhat awkward, since Locke assumes that the subject of said rights is not in a state of nature, but rather that concepts such as property exist and that this creates a requirement for some form of reciprocal contract. This is why much of Locke's theories are analogous to an idea of market exchange (i.e. freedom from any relations other than those one enters with a view to her or his own interest. Society is a series of relations between proprietors. Political society is a contractual device for the protection of proprietors and the orderly regulation of their relations.)
"The remaining link to the term "Natural Rights" is that these Necessary Rights are determined by our nature."
Hmm. I think that our nature is less important than what we consider our nature to be. Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke would all view nature differently and therefore come to different conclusions. Of course, they had limited knowledge as to what constituted human behaviour in a state of nature but even now these things are to a large extent a matter of interpretation.
---- This message was posted by Kharin to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29580> --- 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 - 08:21:30 MDT