Yes, it is another government monopoly. Someone sitting in a cell is a
prisoner, someone forced to work without pay against their will is a
slave. It is funny to me how changing the name of something is supposed
to make it different. Today someone taking a paying job away from
someone who needs the money is called a volunteer, we used to call them
scabs, for example.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Bob W wrote:
Don't you know the difference between slaves and convicted prisoners?
--
Cheers,
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10 December 2005 23:05
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Update: The fur fellow's feet
Well, if you think that there is a right not to be enslaved,
I suggest you go check out any prison industry. Here in NC
you can see that right violated on the highways. I assume
that people working under a gun are not employees. About the
only right that actually exists is the right to die
(freedoom), and most states have laws trying to eliminate that.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Bob W wrote:
First, rights do not entail responsibilities. A right is a
right. For
example, you have a right not to be enslaved. This right
comes with no
strings attached whatsoever. If you disagree with this, perhaps you
could tell me what responsibilities you might neglect that would
justify your enslavement.
Second, I suspect you have not really examined the question
of animal
rights. The phrase itself is unfortunately rather misleading. The
standard argument in favour of animal rights makes it quite
clear that
the rights in question are not the same as those accorded to people,
such as the right to vote. The crucial thing is the right to equal
consideration. If you accept that animals have interests and moral
status (and perhaps you don't accept this), then this
argument claims
that you should give equal moral weight to the comparable
interests of
animals and people unless there is a relevant difference
between them that justifies unequal consideration.
The Australian philosopher Peter Singer expressed this in his book
"Animal Liberation". There is a summary of the argument here:
http://www.utilitarian.org/texts/alm.html.
It is dated 1985, so the examples are out of date, but the argument
still holds. It is worth reading the essay all the way
through. For a
more detailed examination, read the book.
--
Cheers,
Bob
