DMB says to all:
This one is a tad long, but it's relatively focused and specific. If you're
interested in the issue of rights, you might enjoy it. At least I hope so.
Wim said:
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.
DMB says:
The difference between violating a person's rights in the legal sense and
interfering with someone's rights in a behavioral sense is the difference
between committing a crime and being rude. One is protected by the force of
law and the other is defended only by the offended party. In other words, no
one is likely to be arrested for shouting you down or telling you to shut
up, but if the authorities try to shut down your demonstration, stop the
presses, chain the art gallery or otherwise take measures to silence your
right to free expression, then you can turn to the courts for relief. If
some jerk tries to get in your face all you can do is try to speak even
louder, because the jerk has his rights too. He has the right to be rude and
talk back and such. This is why the right to speak is not a right to be
heard. Some of the responsibility for getting our ideas out there falls upon
us as individuals and can't be garanteed by force of law. We can't force
people to listen or to be polite because it would very likely violate their
rights. If there was a right to go through life without being offended by
loud and rude people, what a dull world this would be.
Wim said:
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.
DMB says:
Arresting you would be a crime for insulting the Queen would be a crime. But
Arresting you for threatening the Queen's life is right and proper.
Arresting you for trying to demonstrate would be a crime. Starting a riot
would be a crime. Denying you a driver's lisence for no good reason is
probably a crime. But failing to build enough roads to suit your
convienience is merely a drag and not a crime. The right to travel is not
the same as the right to get there easily and in a hurry. There is no such
right, as far as I know. If some unauthorized person tries to block the
road, that's a crime. But that's not a matter of rights, but of public
saftey.
Wim said:
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.
DMB says:
OK. Your dictionary defined a right as "just claims". That's quite true and
accurate enough, but for the purposes of a philosophical discussion it's
probably not elaborate enough. Maybe a better dictionary or a legal
dictionary would do better. In any case, "just" refers to legal justice.
Even a slight improvement in the definition would help, as in rights are
"just legal claims". And this is what I originally meant to say. Properly
defined rights have boundries so as to exclude the possiblity that one
person's rights DO NOT extend into another's. Your right to swing your arm
ends at the tip of my nose because you're allowed to dance, but not to punch
me in the face. (And I have the right to make fun of you when you dance,
which is why you took a swing at me. Sorry, but those wooden shoes crack me
up. Just kidding.)
Wim said:
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)'?
DMB says:
Pirsig adds clarity. Rights protect intellectual values from being
prosecuted or persecuted by the government and other institutions that might
have power and authority. And rights can at least moderate inequality in a
society because they are, by definition, extended to every individual
univerally and without regard for religion, creed, class, race, gender or
any other irrelevant aspect of those individuals. The biological and social
features of a person have no bearing on their claims to equal justice and
equal rights. This helps to prevent any kind of priviledged class from
making gains at the expense of minority groups. Again, because one person's
right to swing their arm ends at the tip of the other guys nose.
Wim said:
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'.
DMB says:
One need not go to the courts to exercise rights, but to prosecute the
criminal who has violated your rights. Big difference. To exercise your
rights is a simple matter of will. Just do it. Speak out. Travel. Assemble
to protest. And you only need to turn to the courts when the authorities
arrest you for it. This is a case of the cops committing crimes. And if a
judge violates your rights, you can make an appeal to a higher court. (There
really are cases where people go to court for trivial reasons, but for the
most part the complaints we hear so often in this country come from people
who have no respect for rights. So-called "tort reform", which is allegedly
supposed to end "frivolous lawsuits" is actually aimed at protecting
corporations from people who've been injured, poisoned, discriminated
against or bankrupted by corporate entities. There are even cases where
companies will do a cost/benefit analysis and determine that is cheaper to
harm a certain number of people and pay the cost of being sued. They decide
that making a harmful product just costs less and that its "better" to just
go ahead and hurt people. Corporations have a great deal of power, but very
little accountability. Don't be fooled. These so-called "frivolous lawsuits"
are often the only way to seek justice.)
Wim said:
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'?
DMB says:
I see. OK. Yes. People have the right to TRY to change society. I'd even go
further and say that to the extent that there is cruelty and injustice we
all have an obligation to try to change society.
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