Dear David B.,
You replied 15/6 15:15 -0600 to my 'examples of [exercising] rights
infringing on rights' with:
'Rights are a legal principle, not a code of behavior.'
I'm afraid that I am not clear how to distinguish between 'legal principles'
and 'codes of behavior'. Does it involve different ways of inhibiting me
from doing something?!? What is the difference between infringements in the
legal sense and not in the legal sense?!? Maybe I don't understand because
I'm not legally schooled.
Arresting me for insulting the Dutch queen or making it impossible for me to
make myself heard when I am insulting her both make my right to free speech
meaningless. Forbidding me to demonstrate because of what I am demonstrating
for/against or forbidding me to demonstrate in order to prevent a riot both
make my right to assemble meaningless. Denying me a driving license for
discriminatory reasons or not building enough roads and thus causing traffic
jams both deny my right to travel by car.
Maybe you are right that exercising one's rights cannot infringe on someone
else's rights if you define rights in the right way. You just referred me
19/5 19:34 -0600 to dictionary definitions of 'rights' however and that
didn't help me to distinguish between rights as 'legal principles', as
'codes of behavior', as 'just claims' (the definition my dictionary gives)
or whatever. Please enlighten me further.
My 12/6 0:02 +0200 posting contained not only examples of 'examples of
[exercising] rights infringing on rights'. Could you reflect on the rest
too?
E.g. how does your 'rights as a legal principle' relate to my description of
'a right' (when it '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)'?
How do you exercise or not exercise 'rights as a legal principle'? If I can
only exercise rights (being a 'legal principle') by going to court, your
19/5 19:34 -0600 statement, 'If you don't exercise your rights, you might as
well not have them', implies that a lot of people might as well not have
them. (You will understand that going to court is a less common pastime
among Dutch than it seems to be among Americans.) I hope you come up with a
better answer, for otherwise I think I prefer interpreting 'rights' as a
'code of behavior' (with going to court only as a last resort if people
misbehave) to interpreting them as 'a legal principle'.
Do you agree (after my 12/6 0:02 +0200 explanation) that the 'right to be
able to influence social patterns of values' is a useful interpretation of
the 'right to freedom'?
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