On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 02:09:40PM +1000, Russell Chapman wrote: > Haven't we been removing rights from people for the convenience of the > community since civilisation began. Isn't that what a speed limit, or > anti-pollution law, or even a one-way laneway is?
Some things are more basic than others. And you need to consider how things conflict with each other. Since resources are limited, it usually isn't practical to talk about "rights" to have some resource or fraction of a resource. (Extreme example: there is no inalienable right to all-you-can-take medical care) Government (or community) is simply incapable of providing some things to everyone. But government (or community) can ALWAYS refrain from prohibiting something. Those are the sorts of things that can practically and philosophically be defined as rights: ....certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.... In other words, there is a right not to have your life taken away, a right not to have your liberty taken away, and a right not to have your _pursuit_ of happiness taken away. Note, by the way, that it is not a right to HAPPINESS, which would be impractical, but rather its PURSUIT. Of course, there will be conflicts. Extreme example: the right of people to breathe (to life) overrides the "right" of people to fill the air in a public place with poison gas. Ambiguous example: the "right" of people to burn fossil fuels vs. the "right" of people to have air free of fossil fuels emissions. While it is inevitable that there will be conflicts, it is practical define the least conflicting, or least interacting, freedoms as rights. For example, a person's right not to be killed rarely conflicts with other rights. That is very basic. And nearly as basic, is a person's right not to be prevented from expressing themselves, because again, this rarely abridges other rights. If you try to imagine "rights" that this conflicts with, you will find that those "rights" conflict with a lot of others, and therefore aren't basic rights. In summary, I'll agree with you that rights are not black and white. Many "rights" should probably be called privileges since they have so many conflicts they aren't really basic. But some rights ARE basic and virtually free of conflict, such as the right not to be killed and the right not to be prevented from expressing yourself freely. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/
