From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Human Rights...
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 16:43:20 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Sep2.212653.28275@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
    >Hold on a minute! Libertarianism is the home of the
    >inalienable rights crowd! It's really too bad that the
    >concept is totally indefensible. No matter how you slice it,
    >human rights are a societal construct. How else can we (as
    >society) take away the freedom and/or life of a serial
    >killer, unless human rights are indeed "alienable?" Hmmm?

How about, hold on an hour!

You assert "human rights are a societal construct".

I assert that human rights are an absolute and exist by the virtue that
man exists.

Now, since I doubt you can "prove" your position (i.e., you are merely
making an assertion), and we shall assume (falsely) that neither can I,
then, we are left with the simple case of, well, which is better to hold
as a tenet? Or even dogma?

    >In nature there is no right to life, liberty or property.
    >These "rights" are the legal expressions of our societal view
    >of each man/woman as a responsible decision-maker, which was
    >the 18th Century rebuttal of the idea that the King was the
    >responsible decision-maker. The unprecedented advancement of
    >the last 200 years is ample testimony to the success of the
    >idea of Homo Economicus. I have often asked what those who
    >despise Homo Economicus would replace Him with, but I have
    >yet to get an answer.

Yes, there are rights. Sure, they are infringed upon, but they are rights
nonetheless.

There is one right which can not be interfered with.

The Pursuit Of Happiness. You can pursue happiness shackled in a jail
cell (indeed, martyrs often prefer it that way!).

    >Arguing over whether rights are inalienable or are
    >established by personal power is barking up the wrong tree.
    >*Rights are confirmed by society.* Political debate boils
    >down to a disagreement over what are the currently accepted
    >set of human rights.

Nope. By casting away the central issue (are human rights absolutes or
not) you subvert the argument.

    >Modern liberals argue for the inclusion of "positive" rights
    >to education, abortion, medical care, spending money,
    >housing, respect, equal opportunity, good vibes, etc, etc.
    >Needless to say, these positive rights can only come at the
    >expense of the negative ones, which is why we often hear a
    >certain net.character say that liberalism=fascism, and from
    >this perspective, it certainly is.

Actually, why use the positive word "positive". It's like revenue
enhancement instead of taxes. SOMEBODY has to pay for all those
positives, and that payment comes from a negatives, coercive taxes.

    >If you really dont like fascism, you need to realize that by
    >empowering the govt (whether for "good" causes of the right
    >or of the left) you are contributing to the growth of a
    >potentially fascist state. "Soak the rich!" springs forth
    >from the same part of the human psyche as "Kill the Jews!"

Yep.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)