Wim, 3WD, all
3WD said:
Maybe I would have been better understood had I said, " I'm leary of the
proliferation of laws written in the 'rights' format."
DMB says:
OK. If you're against the abuse and distortion of the meaning of rights,
then I'm with you 100%. But I dare say the "proliferation of laws" is a
different topic entirely. Rights are not identical to laws. They are a
special class of laws, laws that regulate all other laws. Rights are the
highest laws and create a standard by which all other laws are judged. It is
a big deal. If you wanted to "make a federal case of it", that would be
quite appropriate.
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'.
3WD said:
The definition was not "mine" per se but straight out of a dictionary.
I am not sure what the relevance anyone being subscriber to
this idea has to do with the MoQ, but I think wrapped up in the term
"egalitarian" are a couple of meaningful questions which bears on this
"human rights" thread:
1) Does the MoQ advocate or support egalitarianism?
2) How does this support, or lack of, tie into the idea of "human rights.?"
My simple answer to number 1 is. NO.
DMB says:
Now you're defying the dictionary? Very courageous. Maybe you'd take another
look at that definition? To ask how Egalitarianism is tied into the idea of
human rights only demonstrates a pretty big misunderstanding on your part.
There is no question. Egalitarianism is a postion about rights. You can NOT
determine whether or not the MOQ supposts it until you understand what it
is.
3WD said:
First "political, social, and economic rights" all pertain to the social
level. So unlike the MoQ, an egalitarian seems to advocate or support a
system which privileges social values over all others.
DMB says:
No. Rights protect individuals from political, social and economic forces.
In MOQ terms, Rights protect the intellect from social level forces. Now
you're defying the dictionary AND the MOQ? Are you kidding or what? Reminds
of the boy who was born without a body, but was a dancin' fool nonetheless.
(Tom Waits)
3WD said:
Second is the term that is often breezed bye: "EQUAL", as in
"EQUAL....fill in the blank.... RIGHTS". Determining "equal" requires a
value judgement and under the MoQ we read:
"The reason there is a difference between individidual evaluations of
quality is that although Dynamic Quality is constant, these static
patterns are different for everyone because each person has a different
static pattern of life history. Both the Dynamic Quality and the static
patterns influence his final judgement. That is why their is some
uniformity among individual value judgements but not complete
uniformity." SODV pp 12-13
"Some uniformity" is not "equal". "Equal" is "complete uniformity."
DMB says:
Too fancy by half. The introduction of Pirsig on the topic of "evaluations
of quality". The "equal" in equal rights simply indicates the eqalitarian
position. It doesn't mean that we are judgeing or evaluating the relative
value of certain rights as opposed to others. It means that those rights are
to be applied to every individual equally. You know, as in equality before
the law. The right of free speech, even for those who say unpleasant things.
The eqalitarian position holds that this universal application is inherent
in the very meaning of the concept. In this case, "complete uniformity" is a
good thing. It refers to complete uniformity in the application of the law.
Thus the meaning of the phrase, "justice is blind".
3WD said:
.......... in conjuction with the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East, I
previously posted a quote by an Israeli settler in which he claimed that
it is his "birth-RIGHT" to live in
Israel. ie BECAUSE HE WAS BORN A JEW, HE HAS THIS RIGHT. This right
presumably extends to any person of the Jewish faith. In other words if
I were to honestly convert to Judeaism I have the RIGHT to move to
Israel, settle anywhere I might, and if necessary take up arms, and KILL
anyone who would try to remove me, and be morally RIGHT in doing so.
These are the "rights" of which I speak Is this not a rightful appeal of
social based (religious) 'right' over say an Arab's physical and
biological 'right' to a place to live and grow some olives, even if he
was there prior to my arrival?. Are you both claiming I have this
RIGHT? Could both of you please explain to me, preferably using direct
quotes from either Lila or ZMM, how the MoQ definitively supports this
claim?
DMB says:
This is good example of what a right is NOT. His so called birth-right can't
be applied universally. It excludes people. It is a right that can only be
achieved at the expense of another. His form of justice picks and choose
certain kinds of people over another and so its a justice that is applied
unequally. He is merely asserting social level values and falsely making
legal claims about them.
Thanks for your time,
DMB
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 - 16:02:16 BST