Rights exist and are granted by our creator. Thus the left's drive to
remove faith from society. If we cannot claim our rights are from
God...we
cannot claim we have rights. That is the left wings dream imho.
"George Dance" <georgedance@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0406120806.4bef1bf7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Do Rights Exist?
>
> Libertarians believe in universal, individual, human rights. But
> rights cannot be observed - we can't see, hear, touch, or smell them,
> or detect them with any kind of instruments. So how do we justify
> claiming that they are not just an idea, but actually exist?
>
> One reasonable answer would be: rights exist if there is evidence that
> they do, and no evidence that they don't. The only available evidence
> is testimonial - people speaking and acting as if rights exist - and
> it's not reasonable to believe that, if there's similar evidence to
> the contrary. If, however, there is no contrary evidence - if all the
> testimony is to the same effect - it is reasonable to believe the only
> conclusion sup****ted by evidence. And we can observe whether that is
> the case.
>
> First, though, we need to define what we're looking for; so what is a
> right? When is a statement like "John has a right to do F" true? We
> know for sure when it can't be true; when "It is wrong for John to do
> F" is true. So: John has a right to do F if and only if it is not
> wrong for John to do F. But that can mean either:
>
> a) "John has a 'liberty right' to F" (It's not wrong for John to do F,
> or wrong for anyone to interfere with John's F-ing, either.); or
>
> b) "John has a 'claim right' to F" (It's not wrong for John to do F,
> and it is wrong for anyone to interfere with John's F-ing.).
>
> In a hockey game, for example, every player has a 'liberty right' to
> score a goal - no one is penalized for trying to score or for
> preventing a goal, either. In contrast, there's no 'liberty right'
> to cross-check - cross-checking is wrong and does incur a penalty -
> which means that every player has a 'claim right' to skate without
> being cross-checked.
>
> Like hockey penalties, laws and moral rules restrict liberty rights by
> declaring some acts wrong. But no matter how restrictive, they are
> not evidence against liberty rights. Take a law that fined me for not
> voting. That law says nothing about how I tie my shoelaces, or
> countless other
> things; so it's no evidence that I do not have liberty rights at all.
> And the same law cannot also fine me for voting - it cannot deny my
> liberty right to not vote, without affirming my liberty right to vote.
> So each law is evidence for my having liberty rights.
>
> As well, every law or moral rule establishes a claim right. If I
> don't have a liberty right to do something to someone, it must be
> wrong for me to do that; in which case, that someone has a claim right
> against me (that I don't do that to him). And if no one has a liberty
> right to do an act X at all, each and every person has a claim right
> that X not be done.
>
> If laws exist, legal rights exist. If morality exists, moral rights
> exist. Since both laws and morality exist, rights exist; and everyone
> who believes laws or morality exist - who speaks or acts as if they
> exist - believes that rights exist.
>
> But what about the skeptic who insists that he does not recognize any
> laws or moral rules? Well, he's saying that nothing we do is wrong -
> so he's agreeing that we do have liberty rights. And he also must
> agree that's it not wrong for us to punish him if we think he does
> wrong - which is all
> we need to have claim rights against him.
>
> People can and do disagree on what our legal rights (what rights a law
> says we have) or moral rights (what rights we should have) are. But
> we cannot dispute that there are such rights, as we all agree that
> there are.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> from Libertarian Bulletin, Summer, 2004. Permission is granted to
> reprint, provided appropriate credit is given.
>
>
> - 30 -
|
