Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (3578)	4/29/2000 4:19:00 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 9127

I think you and I think alike. I have thought a lot about whether rights- which imply respect- still exist if there is no one there to respect them. If you have the right to be heard- for example (I'm not saying there Is such a right, but let's assume there is)- and you are alone, and there is no one to hear you- do you still have the right? I'd say no- what you have is the idea of a right you would like to exercise if only you had the opportunity to do so. But it IS rather like arguing about the tree in the forest.

To: Lane3 who wrote (3578)	4/29/2000 5:26:00 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

<G> I thought about the 'tree in the forest' analogy too, but was afraid it would seem trite. :-) So, to continue my effort to pin you down, you are saying that all rights are conferred upon individuals by an authority more powerful than they? Or, if not more powerful, then at least with the ability to deny the exercise of (what would otherwise be) a right? [I'm afraid I might lose my train of thought if I wait for you to answer, <g> so I'll assume (with all that implies) that your response will be in the affirmative.] Which means, then, that you think there is no such thing as "rights" there are only certain things that are "permitted" by external authorities. That, I think, defines an essential difference between us. I'm of the belief that certain rights exist by nature; buck deer have a "right" to fight for dominance; females of virtually every species have a "right" to select a partner; and people have a number of "rights" by virtue of their mental processes, such as what they choose to believe and to communicate those beliefs to others. IMO (and I've been a philosopher for almost an hour now), those "rights" exist as a matter of the NATURE of the animal under consideration. They can be repressed or overcome, but they will always be continually tested until they CAN be exercised. Some of these, such as a "right" to self-defense (eg., keep and bear arms), or private property ownership (eg., secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects) are well-codified, over-codified actually, by our society and government. This may appear to be the granting of a privilege, when in fact it is only an acknowledgment of something that cannot be prevented. In sum, I don't agree with your willingness to grant such powers to a state, a religion, or any other entity that may wish to repress the exercise of those rights. That said, though, I like the way you present your ideas. You're a logical and thoughtful person. jim