undermining that wich makes them rights. A right is that wich is
owed to an individual. Thus, a human right is that wich is owed to
a human being. If a right was just a claim by a person then they
would truely be meaningless and we might as well live under
despotism.
I have never seen a credible reference refer to rights as 'just
claims by persons.' That of course does not mean on does not exhist,
but it can not be assumed to exhist on no grounds.
The circularity of Human and Person comes from the maner in wich the
English language was fabricated from German, Gaelic, Latin, Norse
and French, not an inate propertey of fundemental terms to circular
and thus inatley confusing. I can't explain this specific case in a
highly logical way as I am Slavic linguist not an English linguist
(no surprises there).
Now, that legal definition matters, my definition is not to be
contrary to your legal definition but to clerify it, to adress more
specificly what it refers to, that is, to explain that Human's and
other entities granted legal rights are persons and thus are that
wich have rights an duties.
Your definition is actualy dangerously broad, to claim it is 'that
wich can have rights' could lead us down the road of ok it can have
rights, but does it have rights? While legal rights are often
granted in various ways, human rights are not granted but are
direved from personhood, ie the state of being an individual of the
genus Homo. To imply it can have rights but does not is contrary to
the meaning of rights wich is that wich is owed, not that wich could
be given.
I hope that was lucid enough for some...
--- In [email protected], Jon Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> What matters in law is the legal definition, which is "that which
can have rights
> and duties". A somewhat circular definition, since "rights"
are "just claims by
> persons", and "duties" are "obligations of persons". But
foundational terms tend
> to be circular that way.
>
> uncoolrabbit wrote:
> > per·son·hood n.
> > The state or condition of being a person, especially having
those
> > qualities that confer distinct individuality.
> >
> > This definition requires a clear definition of person.
> >
> > per·son n.
> >
> > 1) A human being.
> >
> > (Secondly, additionaly and subordinately:
> >
> > 2) A non human entity with legal rights.)
>
>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Our efforts depend on donations from people like you. Directions
> for donors are at http://www.constitution.org/whatucando.htm
> Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757
> 512/374-9585 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Get your free digital certificate from http://www.thawte.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
SPONSORED LINKS
| Libertarian | English language | Political parties |
| Online dictionary | American politics |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
