Dear David B.,
You replied 19/5 19:34 -0600 to my 'Only the appeal to a right can infringe
on someone else's rights.' with:
'If you don't exercise your rights, you might as well not have them ... If
rights are equal and inalienable, then how can infringement by their
exercise ... be possible. Based on the
dictionary definition of these words, such a scenario is logically
impossible ... Why not simply start with the rights that are widely
recognized in the West?'
O.k. Let's take Pirsig's 'moral right of intellect to be free of social
control' ('Lila' ch. 24) which supposedly gives 'a rational, metaphysical
basis' to the rights to
1 freedom of speech
2 freedom of assembly
3 freedom of travel
4 trial by jury
5 habeas corpus
6 government by consent
If I speak too much or too abusive, that may infringe on someone else's
freedom of speech: he/she will not be heard.
If a group of right-wing demonstrators wish to assemble on a certain spot,
that may infringe on the freedom of a lift-wing counter demonstration on
that same spot.
If everyone in the Netherlands wants to travel by car, quite a lot of them
are bound to have their freedom limited by traffic-jams.
The rights to trial by jury (which incidentally we don't have and don't miss
in the Netherlands) and to habeas corpus are too specific to easily lead to
infringement on someone else's rights.
Unless you give the right to 'government by consent' a very restricted and
specific or only a collective meaning, my individual right to veto the
coalition of right-wing political parties that is presently forming a new
government in the Netherlands (with the party of the late Pim Fortuyn in a
prominent role...) infringes on the right of the voters on those parties to
have a government which they can consent to.
Cross-infringements are also possible of course: e.g. assemblies inhibiting
other people's freedom to travel.
If you include 'widely recognized' (in the USA at least) rights like those
Platt mentioned 18/2 16:34 -0500:
1 right to property
2 right to religious freedom
3 right to bear (and use) arms
excercition of rights infringing on other rights are even more likely.
What dictionary definitions lead you to conclude that exercition of rights
cannot logically infringe on other rights??? My dictionary defines 'right'
simply as 'just claim' and contradictory claims believed to be just by the
respective claimants are only to be expected. Rights are not by definition
equal or unalienable as far as I know (even if I agree that a right that
isn't could better be called a 'privilege' instead of a 'right'). Only the
absolute dominance of an intellectual pattern of values with an indisputable
core containing a set of all rights and definitions of justice and injustice
can prevent infringements on other people's rights by my exercition of
rights.
I see a right that is more or less generally accepted as an intellectual
limit on the operation of social patterns of values (e.g. in creating too
much inequality).
If I am living under a dictatorship, I can exercise my right to government
by consent (if necessary by invoking the international legal order). If I
happen to agree with the dictator's decrees, I may not need to exercise that
right.
Why not start with widely accepted rights when discussing with 3WDave?
Obviously because he stated 10/5 21:22 -0500 because he didn't like rights
that -when exercised by others- might infringe upon his rights. I tried to
formulate rights that don't infringe on other people's rights when exercised
and that are less empty or multi-interpretable than the 'basic self-evident
unalienable' rights to life, liberty and happiness that he mentioned himself
18/2 8:14 -0600. (His fourth right, the right to alter, abolish and
institute governments to secure these other rights, can only be understood
as an collective right. It is therefore less meaningful in this context.)
You also rhetorically asked 19/5 19:34 -0600:
'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.'
It is not the word 'right' that is being 'distorted' beyond your
recognition, but the word 'reality'. In a MoQ context it means (stable
patterns of) values and in the context in which Roger and I were discussing
the 'right to be able to influence reality' it meant social patterns of
values. Yes, it IS possible NOT to be able to influence that reality.
Otherwise these patterns of values could not be called stable. It is simply
a general formulation that is equivalent to for instance the right to
government by consent when applied to the social patterns of values
operating in politics.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 - 16:02:19 BST