From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: The Nature of Rights (long)
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:58:29 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <weqZROm00VAu49_1pr@andrew.cmu.edu> Gerard Deckert <ad1x+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
| 
| 	I agree that absolute rights would allow you to determine whether
| something is a good or a right.

Which is a major reason why I do not believe in "rights" -- I maintain
that this determination is not always possible.

|   Air is not a product created by someone
| - it is basically a resource that is free for the taking.  One has the
| right to support and maintain one's life.  Those who pollute the air
| beyond breathability are affecting other people, and must be accountable
| for that.

What's this "beyond breathability"?  Do I have a right to *clean* air?
If I live in the Los Angeles basin, is everyone who is driving a car
violating my "rights"?  What effect can I have on another person's air
without violating hir "rights"?

And, of course, breathable air is created (although not by people). It
is not "free for the taking", since it is not infinite.

| 	Sure.  Rational means acting in a manner that is consistent with
| reality.  It means recognizing that objects act in a certain way,
| according to their nature, and cannot act any differently than what they
| are.  If someone acts in their self-interest, they are attempting to
| further or improve their life.  This person is acting to gain a value. 
| It can be argued that someone who is irrationally greedy (to the point
| of criminal actions), is _not_ acting in his own best interest...

Exactly.  And the definitions become circular.  You can argue that this
person is either acting in hir best interests (and is rational) or not.
That type of tapdance isn't "objective".

| > When someone does something to you that you do not like, you can choose
| > your responses among the broad categories of submission, resistance,
| > flight, and subversion.  This is true whether the other party is a single
| > assailant or a squad of police.  In some situations, sometimes, you have
| > the fifth option of persuasion.  None of this has *anything* to do with
| > anything called "rights".
| 
| 	The situation you are describing is an anarchy, not a society at all. 

Nope.  These options *are* your choices in any society.  If a cop
tells you that three adults living together is illegal (and cohabitation
was a crime in Wisconsin not too many years ago), then you have exactly
the same choices as if a gunman tells you to hand over your money.

| In this anarchy, might makes right - justice is made at the point of a
| gun.  In a rationally created society, the only purpose of gov't is to
| protect the rights of the citizens.

Uh huh.  And "rights" are defined as those things the government is
protecting or enforcing.  This is called a circular definition.

| 	Animal 'societies' to date have been nothing more than a pecking order
| for the members.  The pwerful members take the best mate, the most food,
| the best tree, etc.  Their society is not based on the willing
| participation of its members as equal individuals, for their mutual
| benefit. 

You are simply wrong, here.  You need to learn some primate behavior.
A single babbon (even a *big* baboon) dies.  Primate societies are
thoroughly based on the mutual needs of the participants.

Elf! or Siobhan -- could you please give some Bonabos stories?

|  Animals can not and do not understand abstract concepts such
| as property, justice, rights, etc.  Dolphins and primates are closest to
| humans in terms of brain to body mass ratios.  It has been demonstrated
| that they do not have higher reasoning or conceptualizing abilities. 

Please cite some studies to back this rather astounding statement.

*Hugs*.

   Fritz