From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Human Rights...
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:26:53 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.theory
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

Let's get this out of sci.econ (after I post here of course)


In article <4ecf26u00WAy4MHFQw@andrew.cmu.edu> ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith) writes:
>>    Thomas O. Smith writes:
>>

>
>the very purpose of government is to create an institution with exactly
>the powers you criticize it for having.  You can't have it both ways.
>Either you acknowledge that inalienable rights exist, and the government
>has the right to do what is necessary to protect them, or you deny the
>existance of inalienable human rights and accept that rights are defined
>by personal power.  Libertarianism is the expression of the latter
>concept.  I am a firm believer in the former.


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?  

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.

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.  

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 
Newsgroups: sci.econ