Maybe better to go with freedom of expression as defining right, in place of right to property .... for a couple of reasons at least - one, with property you're going up right off against all the tired old -isms, property has been fought about by infinite longwinded demagogues, shades of Proudhon, too much contentious baggage maybe .... two, property brings into it the question of how much you start from a base that uses all the old kleptocratic acquisition of the past ... pretty hard to decide what is just in land tenure in many places, for instance, thinking here of much of these Americas, it's not like all current holders got theirs out of free enterprise and productive work
Anyway, it can be argued that your core property is your mind, and that your right to it depends on its inalienable right to receive and transmit without hindrance, so then you're back to freedom of expression ... both ways, incoming and outgoing, in all media, 'the state shall make no law ...'
Cubanos are not permitted on this net, either to lurk freely or to post, even to receive uncensored email, therefore they are not free .... there's another advantage to using expression as defining freedom, it is a quick and easy measure - when you see posters from a place typing at you, it's free, they're in [China's still out by this standard] ..... and they'll get other freedoms once they've hollered enough, heh heh |
