It is a lousy construction, but it was deliberate. The right to freedom is different from the right not to be enslaved. Most of us in fact accept that there is no right to freedom - we accept that if we break certain laws we may be imprisoned. But we do not accept that we can be kidnapped arbitrarily, forced to act against our will without just cause, or bought and sold in a marketplace. I'd be interested to know what responsibilities we could possibly neglect that would justify our enslavement.
I say that rights have no entailments; I do not say that we have no responsibilities - simply that rights and responsibilities are separate, independent, and one does not imply the other. Consider the situation of infants and small children. Most of us accord them certain rights, such as the right to be clothed, fed and cared for. What responsibilities do infants have? If they fail to live up to their responsibilities, will you stop feeding them and caring for them? I say, and I'm sure most people agree, that infants have no responsibilities, and there are no circumstances which could justify taking away their rights. -- Cheers, Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: P. J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 11 December 2005 07:11 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Update: The fur fellow's feet > > If you have the right to not be enslaved, (which is a lousy > construction, I would prefer to use the right to liberty), > you have the responsibility to respect and defend your > neighbors right to liberty as well. That right and > responsibility pairing is easy to understand and if you fail > to do so I feel sorry for your neighbors. > > I'm not even going to begin on the truly fuzzy logic that > assumes animal rights. >
