Without responsibility rights are meaningless. I don't think you even
understand what freedom is if you
"accept" it doesn't exist. I think understand you much better than you
will ever understand me, but then you
are already a slave.
Bob W wrote:
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.
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
