[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Nature of Rights
Tim May wrote:
> At 5:09 AM 5/14/96, Allen Ethridge wrote:
> >And on another thread, if rights are simply restrictions on the
> >government and not attributes (inate, even) of the individual, then they
> >are meaningless.
> I presume you're speaking about my point....
Yes.
> This is generally not the place to have long debates about the nature of
> government and of civil rights, . . .
Yes.
> . . .
> As nearly every argument in this area points out, your right to free speech
> does not mean you get to use my newspaper, nor my public address system,
> nor my computer service.
> The so-called innate or intrinsic rights ("life, liberty, and the pursuit
> of happiness") are basically bromides. Philosophical arguing points for a
> view of government as being limited in scope.
> Converting a slogan like this to assume this means government will
> guarantee jobs for all, or will provide two cars in every driveway, or
> whatever, has been fraught with problems. Not the least of which are that
> such goals are inimical to the actual, enumerated rights.
Nice straw men, but not quite to the point. I was thinking more along
the lines of the often overlooked 9th and 10th Amendments. And, as you
mentioned in another post, I was discussing the way things should be,
not the way they are.
--
if not me, then who?
mailto:[email protected]
http://rampages.onramp.net/~ethridge/