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'. What are the limits of such activities? Isolation, sharing, and force. The concept of 'force' is required because not all individuals want to share. Isolation allows an individual to engage in any desired activity for the simple reason there is no potential interference. Sharing, such as in a family group, such that resources are distributed but at the same time have more persons active in its 'management' (I draw a distinction here becuase of such things as Clovis Point behaviour). And finaly, force. The ability of one individual to significantly impact anothers physical being directly. Why do people institute 'civilization'? Because we can't live in isolation. There are groups greater than families. And finaly, because not all individuals will use force in the same manner. The concept of 'right' is intimate and irremovable from the concept of 'coercion through physical force'. Why? Because one can't have a 'right' unless one also has the ability to use force to defend it. What does it take to use 'force'? Existance and motivation/desire, irrespective of whether we talk of 'a state of nature' or 'civilization'. One can not remove the concept of 'right' from 'force'. They are not seperate concepts or entities (similar to momentum). The only way to mitigate the use of 'force' is to mitigate 'desire'. The only way to mitigate 'desire' is to use 'force' (or at least make it clear that if a behaviour is engaged in force will ensue). To do this we institute a (hopefully) common system whereby the inter play between 'force' and 'desire' are hopefully balanced. Note that there is nothing in nature which implies that force and desire will be mitigated in and of themselves (so much for CACL philosophy). In fact, if one looks at game theory it becomes abundently clear, even given the utility of game theoretic concepts, that the best strategy is not to play by the rules given a choice (this helps explain why non-sentient biological activity conforms to game theory in many cases). This of course destroys any concept of 'utopia' where everyone plays by the same rules all the time without exception. -- ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
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.) That doesn't make it ethical or "right". Right != ability. 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. Unless you are redefining what nature means. While you're at it, you might want to redefine the meaning of "is." Better put some ice on that. Clues: (not that you'll listen, but at least it's amusing...) 1. Quit trying to define things. Your name ain't Merriam Webster, and your private redefinitions of words do not affect the common definitions that everyone else uses. 2. Quit attempting to play a lawyer. You aren't a member of that club, and you don't play one on TV. 3. Your posts are and have been illogical. Try to think before you post. 4. Your posts usually address what you wish reality were like instead of what reality is. This makes your arguements useless. The sky isn't bright orage, the air is not composed of 80% oxygen, the earth isn't flat. You may wish any of these to be so, but it just ain't so. Argue all you like, but the atmosphere does not contain 80% oxygen. 5. Get off this fictional CACL rantmachine. There is no on here that considers themselves to be a member of anything called "CACL." Last time you tried the "self appointed CACL leader" BS, I posted a simple request asking anyone who considers themselves to be a "CACL" to reply. No one did. You're barking up the wrong tree. You may as well be bitching about politics on Mars. No one gives a flying fuck about your imaginary conjectures. ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------
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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (3)
-
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate
-
Sunder