From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Rights and Revisionism (was Re: Social Democracy)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:52:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.164521.27845@macc.wisc.edu>, 
anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
> In article <1992Nov2.214711.12178@gordian.com>
> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> If rights were a mammalian inevitability, hyenas would have
> them.  If they were a primate inevitability, baboons would
> have them.  Hyenas and baboons have societies, but they
> don't have anything analogous to rights.  Rights are not
> even endemic to human societies.  They're artifacts, at
> best.

  The basic difference is that mankind has one thing that all
the others do not possess: volition. The ability to reason
is what separates man from the rest of the animal kingdom.
It is this difference which gives rise to the inevitability
of the concept of rights. 
  I do not use word inevitable in the sense you are probably
taking it (e.g. like manifest). Rights need to be the product
of reason just like all other deductions and inductions about
nature. Our ability to recognize them does not alter the
fact that they exist independent of our understanding. Rights
are ours for discovery not creation.
 
> I would say that rights are a social construct with a
> definite history.  They are the creation exclusively of
> human beings.  They have no independent existence of
> any kind, out there in nature somewhere.  And there are
> in addition no universal rights; each community defines
> for itself what it calls rights.

  This is wrong. Communities cannot arbitrarily define
what rights are and are not (I mean this philosophically,
obviously). This is the tragic error which leads to dismissal
of travesties in other communities as just being "their community
standards". 
  Surely there must be *some* modicum of standards which apply
to all societies regardless of what they wish to perpetrate on
their populace? Shouldn't these standards be based on some 
objective facts of what man is and is not? If not, how do we
prevent these community based slaughters? Is moral outrage
not an option?

> >If rights are to occur in nature, they must be of the
> >potential kind.  I agree that rights of the realization kind
> >can only be "created" by society.  The open question,
> >however, is whether there should be any rights which are
> >realizations vs.  potentials.  I suspect that we both know
> >where we stand on that issue.
> 
> I don't see much of what your point was here.  If you will
> abandon the idea that rights are "natural," you will also
> get rid of the potential/realized distinction, which I think
> merely clouds the issues.  Potentials mean little, apart
> from a certain symbolism, to people whose rights are
> systematically denied by virtue of such social liabilities
> as racism, sexism, and homophobia.  To use your (curious)
> food analogy, food around the corner is not too useful if a
> high barrier keeps you from rounding that corner.

  Ah, but that is of the essence isn't it. I could, of course,
ask you to abandon your notion that rights are merely social
customs which are up to the whim of the moment on who should
get them and who shouldn't. It cuts both ways.
  As for potentials, potentials count for quite a lot. The
potential of life and the enjoyment thereof was made a profound
difference since the dark ages. Recognizing that a human is
only a potential which only he/she can realize is the basis
of individualism. This is consonant with nature which makes 
no guarantees about life at all. There is no such thing as
the right to eat. The only thing found in nature is the
potential to find food.

  This...
> The analogy to food is manifestly inadequate.  Not eating
> kills your body; that's very simple.  Not having rights
> injures (usually doesn't kill) your mind.  [Note: I don't
> actually accept a mind/body division.] What happens then is
> not simple at all.

  And this:
> That's simply not true.  Don't eat and you die.  Rights are
> not like that, not at all.

  I disagree, and you seem to contradict yourself. Lack of rights
can make life not only make life intolerable (there is more to
man than just subsistence living, as I'm sure you'll agree)
but abridging on a persons most fundamental right, the right
to their own body, certainly is fatal.
 
> >we cannot change certain facts of it.  A society can only
> >recognize or ignore our nature; it cannot make it be
> >something other than what it really is (without using force,
> >that is).
> 
> Nature cannot be ignored, by society or anything else;
> that's what "nature" *means*.  No force of any kind can
> change that.  Our understanding of it may change, but only
> that.  In human-historical time scales, the only pertinent
> natural facts are pollution and extinction of species.

  Really? The various wholesale slaughters of various portions
of our own species are not noteworthy?

> >Indeed I do but that scheme is based on disinvolving the
> >government from meddling in other lives and giving people
> >incentive to be friends rather than enemies.
> 
> Naturally, I wish you luck.  The massiveness of the history
> of failure to provide such incentives seems telling, to me.

  Ah, but historically speaking, freedom has seen the light of
day for only *very* brief periods of time. These brief points
of time have produced prodigious explosions in knowledge
and culture though. I think not only of the post Renaissance, 
but also of ancient Greece and Rome.

> Rather than painting with too wide a brush, I'd say you are
> gouging with too wide a shovel.  :-) 

  Er, like from Bandini Mountain (a local manure pile)? :-)
  I'm sure Madison has a similar one :-)

> We need to ask
> ourselves: are we doing *anything* right?  If so, can we
> keep it or extend it usefully?  If not, can we change it?
> In either case, what and how, and to what effect?

  I agree with this. I certainly would not be one to state
that our society is black or white. There are many issues
involved -- some which we still do admirably some which we
are no better than (if not worse) the surrounding rabble.
  The point is that we need to identify not only what is
good, but *why* the good is good. At this point in time,
the great conflict is exactly the latter argument. We,
as a country, are vastly different in our estimations of
what the good is. As such, the constitution, DoI, BoR become
more and more disjoint from their philosophical basis.
It is no wonder that these principles are being eroded
(by the right and the left): they're pretty much just
free floating abstractions with no philosophical roots.
 
> >My answer is that individual liberty when given the chance
> >has produced the wealthiest and most tranquil state known to
> >mankind -- not utopia mind you but there is no serious other
> >contender that I know of.
> 
> This is a most peculiar sort of historical revisionism.
> 
> You have, I gather, a somewhat rose-colored view of the
> mythical United States at some mythical point in history
> when it was "good." 
> 
> The great wealth you speak of did not some from some
> nebulous goodness or rightness of our traditions: it came
> from the Industrial Revolution, cheap energy, cheap and
> plentiful raw materials, cheap labor, heavy government
> subsidies of military and transportation infrastructures,
> and geographical isolation from competing nationalisms.
> That wealth did not redound to the use or benefit of the
> masses of Americans, by and large.

  But what caused the Industrial Revolution? In truth, the
industrial revolution could have probably have happened 1000
years ago, but it didn't and for good reason: the grip of
the church and the general rejection of reason. It was the
Renaissance which kindled the flames which eventually led
to the Industrial Revolution. The Renaissance was primarily
about one thing: the rejection of the church and the placement
of the individual as ends to himself rather than the animal
like servant to a malevolent deity.
  America was the clearest example of individualism and reason.
The basis of government was that the individual was supreme
and his rights were inalienable. That America surpassed every
other nation with its Industrial Revolution is the effect of
its freeness relative to other nations.
  European nations seemingly had every benefit that one could 
ask for wrt the Industrial Revolution: they had far flung colonies
supplying them with all manner of goods. They had strong military
establishments which could project their will at a moments
notice. They had a structured and well established societies
which were relatively tranquil.
  Still, America buried them. Why? Because America had one
indisputable difference with the rest of Europe: a society
which was based around the supremacy of the individual which
held little allegiance to cast and class. Other nations
flirted with this sort of society, but it was America which
held truest to this ideal. 
 
> The tranquility you mention is merely relative.  If you went
> looking for civil unrest in the history of the United
> States, you would find it in all periods.  You can find war
> *in* this country at most points in its history; of course
> you will miss a lot of it if you look only for things like
> the Civil War and the World Wars.  The country was founded
> by war, has continued to prosper sustained in major part by
> war.

  As opposed to say the 100 years war. Or the various other
European conquests and crusades? I'll ask again, where is
this mythical society which was far more prosperous and
tranquil than America? Until you can produce an example,
I'll say that your are just blowing smoke  -- Camel smoke, 
no doubt.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: soc.motss