From: kent@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Kent J Crispin)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Wage Slavery (Was: BIG LIE about the market)
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:21:22 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab.

In article <1992Apr9.014812.7322@waikato.ac.nz> hgm@waikato.ac.nz writes, in 
response to some comments on mine about the difference between rights and
values:
>Shared values may lead to contractual rights. Rights you and I agree to give
>each other but what if our values are not shared.
[example deleted]
>Does whoever represents the minority view have
>no right to any recognition of their values?

Two levels of thinking here:  At one level I would say "sure", just because
that's the way I was brought up.  I agree that within the context of the 
social values we (probably to some extent) share, such "rights" exist.  But
there is another level to consider -- "rights" in the abstract, independent
of the accident of which society we happen to be born and raised in.

There are societies in existence at this very moment where it is considered
a "right" to kill someone who "insults your honor".  There are other
societies where "freedom of religion" is not a right.  Rushdie is under
a sentence of death because of words he wrote -- a rather different notion
of the right of freedom of speech.

From this other level, rights seem to be somewhat arbitrary, moderately
stable constructs of the society that produces them.  We can try to
justify them philosophically, but if we are honest with ourselves we
quickly admit that we are hopelessly biased.  More than biased, I would
say -- nations go to war, revolutions are fought. 

This is why I emphasize the notion of values rather than rights.  Values
are intrinsically individual (the fact that we have to use the phrase
"shared values" emphasizes this), and have an emotional immediacy and
reality, whereas using the term "rights" appeals to an external
reference that doesn't (to me) have a basis in reality.  You and I can
talk about where our values might conflict or agree, but we can't talk
about where our "rights" agree or disagree.  Rights are absolute and
external abstractions.  When the discussion gets to "rights", then a
human element is lost in the dueling abstractions.  We can no longer say
"I like this and you like that" and try to reason the best way to 
proceed.

You have used the notion of "rights" as the way that we guarantee the
safety of those in the minority.  But that really begs the issue, in my
view, because we don't respect the rights of those who think murder is
appropriate redress for an insult, for example.  The majority agrees
to defend the rights *it* selects -- the minority doesn't get to choose
which rights the majority will respect.  We (the majority) are especially
respectful of minority rights of a certain kind -- namely, rights involving
situations where an individual member of the majority might imagine
themselves in the minority someday.  A really expansive and enlightened
set of rights can only evolve (I theorize) out of a pluralistic
society, for this reason.

>
>The views of the majority are not the shared values of all the people and
>governments are commonly not elected by a majority of the people and don't
>really reflect the views of a majority of those who did vote for them so laws
>do not reflect shared values. The people need to know that they have some
>rights which are protected from the totalitarian power of the oligopoly which
>both the government of the USA and that of New Zealand appear to be.

Hmm.  I won't touch that :-)

>Helen Marsh

Kent
--
Kent Crispin				"No need to get excited",
kent@ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke....
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory	<Standard disclaimer>