From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Jan 05 2004 - 12:47:04 GMT
Hi Steve,
> Platt said (a while back at the start of this thread):
>
> >>From the Declaration we read, "We hold these
> >> truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
> >> endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among
> >> these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
>
> Steve:
> With respect to the rights to Life and Liberty we can read "human rights"
> while Pursuit of Happiness can be read "property rights." As historians
> continue to do, we can disagree about what Jefferson was talking about when
> he said we have a right to the pursuit of happiness. In East Meets West,
> Northrop claims that Locke is the most influential philosopher behind
> American democracy and freedom and makes the case for the centrality of
> property in American style democracy based on Locke's philosophy. (He shows
> how freedom and democracy follow from SOM.)
>
> At any rate, I'd like to suggest that the conflict between socialism and
> capitalism is a matter of balancing human rights and property rights. For
> example, my right to own all the good farming land in Chile may interfere
> with another's right to eat. Also, other's rights to education and health
> care may interfere with my right to benefit from the fruits of my own
> labor.
You raise a number of interesting issues that are controversial and
perhaps should be discussed in a separate thread. For example, your
presumption of rights to education and health care are not what Pirsig
means by human rights which he describes as"usually the moral code of
intellect vs. society, the moral right of intellect to be free of social
control." (Lila, 24)
> Its really a question of the mix in a mixed economy rather than a
> difference in fundamental ideology. The terms capitalist and socialist
> with respect to the US and Europe do not refer to the extreme utopian
> ideals of each but rather the balance that each has struck between human
> rights and property rights.
>
> Both American capitalists and European socialists have rights to property.
> Both have governments that will take one person's property and give it to
> others. These two statements seem mutually exclusive, depending on what is
> meant by "right." Perhaps they can make sense if you think of rights as
> context dependent rather than absolute.
>
> How would you define "right"? I included Rick in the address line because
> he might have some legal background to help clear this up.
I would argue that your distinction between property and human rights is a
false dichotomy for the simple reason that mind/body, subject/object are
false splits. There can be no human rights without property rights. Only a
slave works with no right to the product of his effort.
In any case, how to define "right" is a deeply interesting question for it
defines the relationship between individuals and society, between the
intellectual and social levels. So I hope you question triggers a new
thread with many contributors offering their views based on their
understanding of the MOQ.
On second thought, maybe you've hit on the essential question in the
battle of values between European secular socialism and American Judeo-
Christian capitalism, i.e. human rights vs individual rights. Let me think
on this some more.
Best,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 05 2004 - 12:45:28 GMT