From: rhinoceros (rhinoceros@freemail.gr)
Date: Fri Oct 24 2003 - 13:44:36 MDT
[rightsboy]
"Rights" are a linguistic invention; a tautological rule set that we humans have invented ("evolved"?) for our own use, in order to implement a "human-friendly" societal network of human beings. (Don't mistake them for anything more or less.)
[rhinoceros]
Heh, what's with your nickname then, rightsboy? Is it about the topic you usually talk about? :P
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.
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? Although it is true that it is a made up social rule, I don't find it tautological. Rights is a real enough concept.
Of course, what is a right and what is not differs at diferent places and at different times. 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. 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.
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.
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.
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".
---- This message was posted by rhinoceros 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 - 13:44:58 MDT