Wim, Roger, 3WD and you:
WIM said:
In your 10/5 21:22 -0500 definition I am definitely an egalitarian:
'an advocate or supporter of the belief that all people should have equal
political, social, and economic rights'.
DMB says:
Certainly! Why in the should some people have more rights than the others.
When rights are unequal you can't even call them rights. They then become
mere priviledges. I'm baffled by the idea that anyone besides kings and
dictators could NOT be an egalitarian.
WIM quotes 3WD:
You write that you are 'very leary of rights, particularly if they're yours
and they infringe on mine. Rights in my mind are absolute. They are also
extremely dangerous because they ARE absolute. In real human relations they
are often misappropriate, misunderstood, and misused as the ultimate
justification for morally questionable actions. Guess that would make me a
reverse-egalitarian.'
DMB says:
Oh, jeez. Were to begin? How do my rights infringe on yours? If I exercise
my free speech rights, does that somehow shut you up? If I have freedom of
association, does that infringe on yours? I double-dare you to come of with
a genuine example of such an infringment. I'd also point out that
"inalienable" is the better word to describe the principle, not "absolute".
Yea, rights really are often misunderstood. You've clearly proven that. But
I can't imagine anything in the world that is immune to misuse,
misappropriation and such. And since the same complaint can be leveled
against absolutely anything, that complaint is essentially meaningless.
Finally, its pretty clear to me that this "reverse-egalitarian" view is a
fine example of what I was expressing in today's post in the pragmatism
thread. You are speaking with the voice of the giant. To be against rights,
leary of rights is anti-intellectual. Its pre-modern. Its medieval.
WIM said:
I don't think someone's rights can IN THEMSELVES infringe on someone else's
rights. Only the appeal to a right can infringe on someone else's rights. I
don't have to appeal to my rights if I don't need to (rights don't directly
imply duties). I should not appeal to my rights if I don't need to and if
appealing to them would infringe on your rights.
The best sets of 'basic inalienable rights' are formulated in a way that
minimizes this risk of mutual infringement if they are appealed to. For me
the 'right to dignity' (Jonathan 20/2 0:25 +0200, myself 5/3 10:46 +0200) or
the 'right to be able to uphold your intellectual values' (my definition of
'right to dignity') is still a good starting point to formulate such a
high-quality set of basic inalienable rights.
DMB says:
Huh? Only the appeal to a right can infringe? What does that mean? I hope
you don't mean "exercise" or "use". If you don't exercise your rights, you
might as well not have them at all, no? If rights are equal and inalienable,
then how can infringement by their exercise even be possible. Based on the
dictionary definition of these words, such a sernario is logically
impossible, no? As to a good starting point, I think we need no
formulations. Why not simply start with the rights that are widely
recognized in the West? Or the ones listed in Lila? I mean, political
philosophers have been working on this stuff for hundreds of years and these
rights are already enshrined in our highest laws. Sure, there's room for
discussion and debate within those parameters, but if we're looking for a
place to start, I'd say that's a pretty damn good place.
WIM said:
Roger formulated 24/3 8:36 -0500 the 'right to freedom' (more or less) as
'the right to the ability to influence reality'. Given my upbringing (which
I described 4/4 23:00 +0200 in this context) I will always wonder whether my
right to 'freedom' doesn't imply the right to equal ability to influence
reality for others that share that same
reality. My claim to a specific ability to influence reality implies for me
a duty to grant others that same ability to influence that reality to the
extent that we share it. (It doesn't imply that those others should appeal
to that right, should use that ability and should thereby get the same
influence on reality as I have. They also have a right to be dumb and lazy.
DMB says:
Huh? The right to influence reality? Is it even possible NOT to influence
reality? I think the meaning of the word "right" is being distorted beyond
recognition in those kinds of statements. I mean, people who are less
influencial probably wish they were more influencial, but how is it a right?
Doesn't it all depend on one's skills, capabilities and ambitions? The right
to be dumb or lazy? My guess is everybody would like to be smart and full of
energy, but no one can be made to have those qualities. You are all free to
ignore these objections and questions, but please don't refer me to some
previous post. That's just lazy - and a little bit rude.
WIM said:
In short: a right never justifies a morally questionable action, an
infringement on someone else's right. If it seems to do so, the set of
rights of which it is a part needs reformulation. Rights are never absolute,
because they are part of a set of rights. Even sets of rights aren't
absolute, because they always need reformulation earlier or later when the
circumstances for which they were formulated change and the risk of wrong
interpretations and mutual infringements as a result of that grows.
DMB says:
Right on. To be leary of rights, or to worry that the rights of others'
somehow detracts from your own is to misunderstand the meaning of the word.
One good way to test an idea, law or policy is to ask what the effect would
be if that idea were applied to everybody. It if can't be applied
universally, its probably a pretty bad idea. Moving beyond your specific
points, I'd ask you all to think about the Bill of Rights in terms of the
MOQ. It seems that there are two distictly different kinds of protections.
One kind is about protecting your body, your home and your things from
violence and invasion. This are just as necessary as the other sort, but are
somehow less important. The second kind is the more important as they are
aimed at protecting your intellectual freedom; the right to free speech and
expression, the freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, that sort of
thing. The first kind are just as necessary because you can't very well
exercise the second kind if you are dead or destitude. And so the whole
thing is generally aimed at protecting your right to think and say what you
want. This is the proper aim because it protects the evolutionary process
itself. It protects the intellectual and the code of art. Just one more
point. I think its not enough to construe the Bill of Rights as a
prohibition of the government's ability to violate those rights. Rather I
think the government's most important function is to protect every
individual's rights from anyone who would violate them.
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 - 16:02:15 BST