Dan McGrath has defined a right as what you can do alone unaided and says it is not a right if it involves someone else having to do something. This libertarian concept of what a right is is grossly inadequate, To take Dan McGrath's example of practicing free speech alone in the forest, with few exceptions,most people would not want to practice this right in these circumstances. There are a few exceptions such as practicing a speech or trying to formulate your thoughts. But in most cases free speech does not have much meaning unless you can practice it where other people can hear you without having to worry about the government arresting you or imposing some other legal penalty. You had the freedom to go into the depths of the Black Forest in Nazi Germany and say "Hitler should be overthrown!", but you would want to be certain that no one could overhear you. If the right of free speech is to have much meaning,you must be able to say that without fearing legal consequences. Secondly, the right of free speech requires that the law defend you by taking action against anyone who is so offended by what you say that they threatened to do illegal acts to you or actually attempt to do or do such acts to you. The freedom to say that African Americans should have equal rights with whites will not mean much in the American south of the 1950's unless you can be confident that the police will defend you from a night time visit by the Ku Klux Klan. The right to be meaningfull requires that some one else, the people in law enforcement, do certain positive acts to aid you in exercising that right. If we imagine ourselves as 382,000 people who have not previously been part of any society coming together in the territory of Minneapolis and deciding how we can best live together and manage our affairs, it will obviously be in our best interests to include in the contract we agree to a provision that anyone can say anthing with the exception of advocating illegal acts against a certain person, threatening to actually do such acts and making false claims while selling merchandise, etc. And if we are coming together de novo without the baggage of the freemarket prejudices our actual society has inculcated in us, we will decided it is less expensive for all of us to ensure public transportation as a right and thereby avoid clogged streets extending the time it takes to go anywhere and the harmfull health effects of polluted air. Similarly, since even wealthy people cannot know for certain that some unforseen circumstance will not pauperize them -- even Bill Gates could lose all his money and become unable to pay for the health care necessary to save his life -- we would find it in our best interests to make health care a right also, Robert Halfhill Loring Park http://halfhillviews.greatnow.com (SITE NOW BANNED ON AOL)
http://www.thepen.us -- "Dan McGrath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Robert Halfhill wrote: "Access to adequate public transportation is a right. If you think of it in collective terms, we can either collectively provide for adequate transportation for the people living in this city or do it the way we do now, with most people providing for their transportation individually and clogging the streets and polluting the air with a plethora of private automobiles." How can anything which requires the participation of another individual (or a group of people) be a "right?" Rights are inalienable. That means you possess the same rights whether you are alone in the wilderness, or in the urban core. They don't change with circumstance, and you cannot demand someone else do something to make your rights possible. It can't be a right if you can't do it! It can't be a right if you can't do it yourself! Rights are concepts like freedom of speech, freedom of motion (within your capabilities - you cannot have the right to fly like a bird, for example), freedom to defend ones-self, freedom to choose with whom you associate (that doesn't mean the individuals you choose have to associate with you!). Freedom to make a living, to make transactions with another willing person, etc. Public accomodations cannot be a right. They can't be enjoyed alone in the wilderness. If you go hiking in the mountains, and get tired, and want to catch a train back home, are your rights violated because the national park isn't cris-crossed with tracks? The idea that public transportation is a right is as ridiculous as the notion that I have the right to my neighbor driving me where ever I wish to go! Dan McGrath Longfellow http://www.shegstad.us ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 10:01 PM Subject: Re: [Mpls] Justice Du Jour REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
