Sampo Syreeni writes:
Actually I s ub scribe to neither view. I see rights as something that do not naturally exist, but are purely a societal product, subject to change through redefinition. Whether this happens because the government effects it or if the people start to view something as an inherent right is, to me, immaterial.
At heart, the notion of a right is a moral one; it is closely tied to the moral concepts of good and evil. These concepts are known and understood universally among members of our species. Some view them as attributes of their religious belief, but even those who aren't religious and don't think in terms of "sin" recognize the concepts. The idea of right versus wrong is clearly both natural and universal to humankind. While individuals' beliefs as to exactly which "natural rights" exist may differ, all people (save some tiny few sociopaths who must be considered "abnormal") agree on some of them. For example, if you did a poll, you'd find that pretty near 100% of people believe at some level that they have a right to protect their own lives and the lives of their family members. The limits or boundaries of that right would of course be the subject of considerable dispute. A frequent critique of libertarianism (and anarcho-capitalism) is that it advocates a law-of-the-jungle, winner-take-all society: that the strong, the wealthy and the powerful prosper while the weak, the poor and the powerless are doomed to suffering, exploitation and oppression. However, it is this idea that natural rights do not exist, that any right you have is something that can simply be taken away by "society" (in practice of course that means the government), that is the real law-of-the-jungle situation. It is saying, in effect: you have no rights except those "we" (variously defined as society or government, but it always boils down to the Men With Guns from the government) allow you. "And don't complain too loudly or we might have to take those away too" (for the chiiiiiildren, perhaps). I and most others on this list utterly reject that crap. As James Donald's .sig used to say (and maybe still does): "We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are." You can't take away my right to defend myself by simply "redefining" it. And anyone who tries to do so has marked himself as one worth careful watching, or even perhaps, as Tim so often suggests, killing. - GH _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.