[ExI] your big chance
danust2012 at gmail.com
Fri Jan 24 05:09:24 UTC 2020
Well, in order to apply rights in a real world situation -- have them respected -- the problem would be convincing others. Therein lies the problem. (A problem not limited to advocates of rights or to libertarians. It's a general problem with agreement among enough people to a given social practice. I don't think it insurmountable. If I did, I'd probably leave it as a theoretical concern -- a la, "Wouldn't it be nice if enough people agreed on X, but that's not going to happen, so let's move along to other topics.":)) You could bounce this as "What difference does it make then?" I believe Roderick Long came up with a decent response to this:
Note his distinction between normative, legal, and de facto rights.
Let me step back for a second too. My claim that no one has a right to rule anyone else -- and no one has a duty to obey anyone else -- isn't an argument that each person gets to define what rights are -- no more than each of us speaking a natural language gets to define what's grammatical. Instead, it simply means no one has authority over anyone else and no one has a duty to anyone else as an authority. This is another of saying no one owes obedience to someone else's dictates -- that no individual creates rights or duties in any godlike fashion. Instead, these arise -- in Long's view -- from what persons are and how they live and interact. The idea here isn't "No one has a right to tell me what to do, so I can make up shit about how far I can swing my fist."
Sample my Kindle books at:
On Saturday, January 18, 2020, 04:27:12 PM PST, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
That may not have been how it originated, but what I was pointing out was how, in your post, it seemed to be sliding toward entirely self-defined "rights". As you rightly point out here, that slide is problematic.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat