From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Human Rights...
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 16:39:03 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 
!Hf3f3f

		    -- nnng comp.binaries.mac
		    =cyyqls 00*
		    ftp sumex-aim.stanford.edu
		    anonymolus

		    bye
		    !!
		    anonymous
		    phil@netcom.com
		    bye
		    ls
		    cd CC.d
		    ls
		    man gcc
					    qls
					    ls -l
					    man CC
					    man cc
							  !!
							  /target
							  q
							  ls
							  mail
							  d 11
							  q
							  rn

							  %

							  nn-r











							  awell, keebler & schuchat does 120 and 200, but they are rather expensive
							  and sometimes slow.

							  i take all my 120 & 220 work to Kwik Foto Lab,
							  22368 Homestead Road (Foothill exit off of 280, right there).

							  the guy there, roger, does great work, balances each print by hand,
							  and gets more and more professional work each day. tell him phil sent
							  you and ask for his prices.

    >
    >Libertarians argue for a narrow set of "negative" rights;
    >that is, that you shant be killed (or poisoned), robbed,
    >enslaved or imprisoned without the due process of law, and
    >they argue for a minimal state whose purpose is to attempt to
    >ensure the above. Some consider this to be rather
    >cold-blooded in its simplicity, but let's consider the
    >alternatives.
    >
    >Conservatives lobby for additional negative rights, such as a
    >right to never be exposed to certain speech or art or sexual
    >orientation, a right to not have any neighbors who smoke weed
    >or commit acts of prostitution, etc. They also lobby for some
    >additional positive rights such as the right to have the word
    >God on our money and in the pledge of allegiance. Needless to
    >say, all these additional negative and positive rights result
    >in greater state power over the individual, which is why some
    >people think that conservatism=fascism, and from this
    >perspective, it certainly is.
    >
    >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.
    >
    >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!"
    >
    >That is why libertarians adhere to the narrow concept of
    >negative liberties and the minimal state, whether we believe
    >that these rights are natural in origin, or whether we
    >believe that these rights are societal in origin.
    >
    >
    >--Al Date
    >
    >
-- 
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 ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4919 ca.politics:7273