PLATT, 3WDave, Jonathan
Platt (to 3wd):
You may have noticed I have attempted on several occasions
to draw out from our liberal friends exactly what they mean when they,
like in Pirsig's famous "sentimental soup of sentiments" scene, cheer
for human rights. Marco did not hesitate to respond that he meant the
specific rights Pirsig enumerated--freedom of speech; freedom of
assembly, of travel; trial by jury; habeas corpus; government by
consent. 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.
M:
Yes Platt, it was me suggesting private property. But let me know I'm not
very convinced anymore. Dave has a point about inalienable rights.
So you'd just add the right to bear arms and private property (religious
freedom it is not really an add, as it is IMO implicit in the freedom of
speech and assembly). But, tell me. Isn't the right to bear arms "to return
the favor" directly derived from the right to life?
[as well as, by the way, the right to clean air. Even pollution kills. Think
of Bhopal. Those who are fighting for environmental rights are worried about
their biological life just like those who bear arms. Only, they fight their
battle on a social/intellectual level, while arms are IMO more on the
biological/social level.... ].
The right to return the favor and defend your life IMO falls in the
biological realm. Weapons are an expansion of our biological tools. A
gazelle is not able to shoot the lion, but be sure she would be glad to use
the rifle, instead of just running away! In few words, in a society where
the right to a safe life would be granted, there would be no reason to bear
arms. And it would be IMO a moral evolution from the law of jungle to the
Law. Sadly few societies can grant this right to safeness. And there are
many countries, USA especially, where the social law, according to the
market logic of guns firms, has decided to let the citizens the great part
of the biological pleasure to defend their own lives.
Anyway, I can't see it on the same level of the freedom of speech.
And probably the same goes for property. It depends on the society you live
within. Ancient philosophers and artists were not "owners"... they were
simply hosted by some tyrant or pope... The intellectual hardships of
communism has been more due to the lack of freedom of speech and assembly...
but the huger and basic *social* disaster has been caused by the lack of
right to property.
So, let's stick with Pirsig for the moment.
Ciao,
Marco
p.s.
Jonathan, I like your "right to dignity". Thanks.
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