On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 13:22 -0700, Martin Fick wrote: > A right is something someone should not be able to > prevent you from doing, not something that should be > provided to you. I believe that "you have the right > to be a space tourist if you want to be", but, of > course, that does not imply that I believe that you > should be able to become a space tourist for $10 > (unless someone offers it to you at this price > voluntarily). The right to do something and the > means to do it are two completely separate issues. > ... By this logic, a person living in a city has no right to food, and a person living in the country has no right to shelter. Both of these are more specific forms of the human right to life, much like the right to internet access is a more specific form of the human right to information and community. Your post-apocalyptic survivor would still enjoy this right, since the full extent of human information and community is their mind. > If you think that something is > a basic human right, perhaps you should reconsider > if it does not play well with this logic. And, yes > I do realize that this throws out many of the > commonly accepted "rights" that many people believe > should be "rights". Are you asserting that your logic is more sound than that of the "many people" you speak of, including ethicists, political scientists, etc.? That seems like a dangerous proposition to make. This is already basically off topic; if you want to continue this, consider doing it off-list.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part