Sampo A Syreeni <ssyreeni@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
Then, too bad. They haven't *done* anything to you.
A distinction without a difference, I say.
Not at all. The distinction is in the same vein as the distinction between talking about something and actually doing it.
anarchy, injustice and immorality as long as the particular set of rules leading to them is the one you approve of. This doesn't lead anywhere.
You can't draw this parallel, though. You see, he is only proposing the _lack_ of certain forces compelling you to do something. This is not advocating "anarchy, injustice, and immorality," but simply rejecting regulations on how one should associate with the rest of society. Further, setting a precedent whereby it is acceptable to legislate "proper behavior" is obviously flawed, because you can't provide a valid distinction between nice fuzzy laws compelling you to behave in a certain way and the laws of an Orwellian nightmare as you'd certainly like to. On the other hand, making a distinction between laws that compel behavior of one sort and laws that simply prevent certain behaviors is perfectly acceptable, and necessary. The argument is really, I think, about laws which limit positive actions (shooting someone) versus laws which limit negative actions (not associating with someone). The latter are, for Gil, for me, and for most people on this list, unacceptable.
The dictionary definition is simply one end of a whole spectrum. Besides, if I wanted to nitpick, the Webster definition, 'Exempt from subjection to the will of others' strictly interpreted sort of rules out shunning and other forms of extortion.
Please admit that you just used a squirrel definition so we can kill the worms in this can quickly. Restrictions on the negative liberty in question (that is, _not_ to associate with someone) are obviously more intrusive than laws that limit positive liberties (e.g. the liberty to kill your neighbor).
Who said you had any in the first place? That is something you have to justify separately.
This statement tells me that there is no common ground between you and Gil, or between you and me. Gil and I start from the assumption that you have liberties that the government cannot take away, while you seem to be coming from the perspective that the government gives its people certain liberties, but that liberty comes from nowhere else but government. Perhaps it's not even worth it to argue any more.
But if you acknowledge the existence of shared resources, you will have to explain why, for instance, food, services, whatever really, aren't shared but private.
I put forth this explanation: shared resources are those resources to which it is impossible to restrict access. A lighthouse built on the coast and the radio spectrum are both examples of shared resources. Food is not. I can keep you from eating my food without too much trouble--I can lock it in a safe or I can eat it. I can discriminate as to whom I will provide services, et cetera.
Explain. This simply does not follow from the above. In the above situation the existence of a right demands less than in your ideal universe.
No, not at all. A shopkeeper who owns a private shop has the right to sell only to certain people and not to others, and the distinction the shop owner makes between those he will sell to and those he will not is his alone to make.
No. I mean what I say - the specific set of behaviors which have to be tolerated even though they infringe on your rights is to a degree arbitrary and subject to change. It's a gray area and should be left as such. There will always be such a gray area, though. E.g. you cannot expect to shut people up based on the acoustics of their speech violating your right to be left alone. Not even when you have no way to escape the sound.
But why not? Why is this different from forcing a shop owner to sell to people he would not otherwise serve? It seems that if I cannot limit your right to speak, even if I can't escape the sound of your voice, you can't limit my right not to sell food to you even if it means you will starve.
A hypothetical: I own everything around you for some 100 miles. Let's say that 100 miles happens to be desert. Your failure to comply with my wish of transportation the hell out of there or sustain me is equivalent to killing me. I call such incompliance oppression. Webster for oppression: 'To impose excessive burdens upon; to overload; hence, to treat with unjust rigor or with cruelty'.
Neither Gil nor anyone else is your caretaker; thus, you are imposing upon him by asking him to transport you out of there. This is again a distinction between positive and negative action. You say his _in_action is an undue burden on you. I say that your request for his action is an undue burden on him.
Webster for 'exploit': 'To utilize; to make available; to get the value or usefulness out of; as, to exploit a mine or agricultural lands; to exploit public opinion'. I'm not talking about satisfying whims, but basic needs. If you have in your power to fulfill such a need, I cannot myself, and I will be rid of a fundamental right (like the right to life) otherwise, you should satisfy the need. If you take this as a premise, as I try to, not complying fits the above description.
You have a right to life. You do not have the right not to die. There is a difference. Neither I nor anyone else have to sustain your life; all that is required of our respecting your right not to die is that we don't kill you. -- Riad Wahby rsw@mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002 5105