On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Sunder wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
A 'right' is an activity that any individual could engage in (at least in principle) while 'in a state of nature'.
So what does 'in a state of nature' imply? It implies human activity a priori to the concept of 'civilization'.
That don't work white boy.
According to you, while in "a state of nature" anyone has the right to grab the nearest rock and smash it over your head repeatedly (in principle.)
It's interesting you don't quote the following paras that addresses this exact point (ie isolation). Blipverts strike again.
That doesn't make it ethical or "right". Right != ability.
'right' has nothing to do with 'ability'. One has a right to speech even if one is deaf or dumb. 'right' is a function of existing and defending that existance against threat.
That you possess the ability to grab a loaded machine gun and shoot the nearest cop does not mean that you legally may do so -- you don't have the right to do so, though you have the physical ability to do so.
Exactly my point... You agree with me, will wonders never cease? -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------