From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: What is a "right"?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:29:54 GMT

Well, now, I _am_ pleasantly surprised.  After a good bit of asking
a while back (when I wanted to talk about the drug issue), Missy J
finally comes through with a discussion of rights.

The layout of this posting is as follows.  First I will make
a few comments about Missy's conception of natural rights, and
argue that for the remainder of this discussion, we ought to
stick to 'nature' rather than 'religion' as a source for rights.
This doesn't seem to be a problem, since Missy says that they
amount to the same thing anyhow.  Then I point out that her
explanation of rights would certainly grant individuals a natural
right to own and smoke marijuana.  

Finally, I ask for a clarification about the appropriate
relationship between these 'natural' rights and what Missy
is calling 'legal' rights.

>         *  First and foremost are natural rights--those which are
>            (as the Founders stated) "endowed by our Creator."
>            These are life (the pre-eminent right, from which all
>            others stem), liberty (the freedom to act to exercise
>            other rights), and (depending upon whom you ask--John
>            Locke or the Founders) either property or the pursuit of
>            happiness.  

How is the particular content of these rights to be determined?
As you well know, I'm not about to accept any kind of religious
argument for the existence of rights.  But this doesn't seem to
be a problem, since you write...

>            These
>            natural rights are derivable either from religion or
>            from nature; either investigation yields at least these.

Let's stick to nature.  I would like to hear just a bit more about
the particular method we would use (in our investigation of nature)
to determine what particular rights we have.  What facts of reality
would lead us to say that someone has the right to do things of which
others disapprove?

In particular, I want to argue that your premises must lead you to
accept that people DO in fact have the right to (say) own and smoke
marijuana.  This is a peaceful activity which certainly falls clearly
under the category of 'property rights' AND 'pursuit of happiness'.

>            Such things as the right
>            to be free from the threat of murder and mayhem, the
>            right to behave with honesty and integrity and expect
>            others to do the same, and the right to the free exercise
>            of conscience are included here.

I think that all of the above points directly to a natural (moral)
right to own and smoke marijuana in a peaceful and honest manner.

Now, I think that you would argue that these natural rights ought
to be respected by the legislature.  It is certainly POSSIBLE for
a government to pass laws which do not respect our cherished rights.
But they ought not to do so.

But your post didn't explicitly (in the body, anyway) state
what you think the relationship between legal rights and natural
rigths ought to be.  I did find the following discussion in the
p.s. section:

>p.s. Having made my complaints, I would like to compliment Travis
>on noticing that 'rights' are an important concept in political
>theory and that we need (i) some definition of what rights ARE
>(ii) some notion about why people ought to have rights and (iii)
>some rational means of deciding what specific rights people ought
>to have.
>
>            As to (i), see above.  (ii) implies a lack of understanding
>            of the concept.  As rights are a just and absolute claim,
>            it is not that we "ought to have them," but that we do,
>            in fact, have them.  (iii) see (ii).

Well, when I ask what rights we 'ought' to have, I am asking about
our LEGAL rights.  Should the legislature respect our natural rights?
Or are natural rights such that the legislature may ignore them
carelessly?  If this is the case, then it doesn't seem to do me much
good to HAVE rights, since nothing follows from them for the just
running of government.

--Jimbo

Summary:

Missy's argument for rights (if valid) would support a natural right
to own and smoke marijuana.

If saying that a person has a natural right to do something implies
that the legislature ought not to pass a law preventing the person
from doing that something, then Missy's argument says that there
ought not to be laws against owning marijuana.



Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU