Platt, all
> I prefer your list to Pirsig's, but beyond either one I would not
> go except to add the specific right to property which someone (Marco?)
> has already suggested, the right of religious freedom and the right to
> bear arms "to return the favor" as you put it.
I prefer the four stated in the Declaration of Independence rather than
Pirsig's because all that he noted will fit under one or more of those
catagories but not all Pirsig's in my mind rise to "unalienable" status
in all circumstances.
Take freedom of speech, it is rightly abridged, it the classic yelling
"Fire" in a crowded theatre case and others. Or property. While
undeniably important, the "right" to personal property such as clothes,
eating utencils, tools etc is easily covered by the first three. If
someone denies or takes these things from you it reasonable to say they
have violated your "rights" to life, liberty, or happiness. Real
property the same. But if the right to real property (ie land) is
"unalienable" it would seem to me that the second you're born you "have
the unalienable right" to claim a piece of dirt somewhere on the face of
this globe as yours. This would be untenable. Another way to see this
is to ask; Could you fullfil these four rights without owning "real
property"? I think the answer is yes, many people do it all the time.
This does not mean that I'm opposed to the concept of private ownership
of property. In general it has been shown to be a good practice, and
under the fourth "right" people can form governments with laws to
provided for, and protect private and real property. I just think it is
not "unalienable" in the same sense as these four.
3WD
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:52 BST