I can follow a logical argument. It's apparent that you still have some way to go before you can. For instance, I did not say that freedom does not exist. If you can't make the effort even to read the other person's statements correctly, or repeat them accurately, then there is no point in having a discussion with you.
-- Cheers, Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: P. J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 11 December 2005 17:00 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Update: The fur fellow's feet > > 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.
