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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (182174)	9/15/2001 6:26:06 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769668

From another thread: First, in what sense are men created equal? Second, what does it meant to say that society has no more rights than individuals?: seriously, it is not clear where that is coming from. Finally, how do the two premises relate to the conclusion that rights are fundamental to individuals? It may be that no one has natural rights, but that they are conventional. It may be that society is superior to individuals, since individuals are "facets" of the culture in which they were raised. It may be that men are unequal, and that classes are the natural order of things. (Aristotle argues, for example, that some people are born to servility, while others are fit to rule households). And even if you grant some sort of moral equality at birth, how does that translate into rights inhering in the individual, rather than being derived from society? These are examples of the weakness of the syllogism. According to Locke, the equality of men derives from the simple fact that no one person is so decisively superior in mental acuity or physical prowess that he can rule over others, because even a modest combination of antagonists can overthrow him, and even one person, by guile, can kill him. Thus, social classes would not exist were it not for the "permission" of society. (Of course, there are natural dependents, like small children and persons with mental defects, but those are set aside to make the main point). The sense in which all men are naturally equal, then, is that there are no natural social classes. This, of course, counters Aristotle's arguments about natural servility. The problem with such arguments is that it is one thing to say that people are fitted to different occupations or roles in society, and another to say that they are obliged to be ruled. The argument about inalienable rights derives from Hobbes. We make the social compact in order to secure our persons and property, and therefore it cannot intrinsically be a suicide pact, that is, agreeing to live under the sovereign is not the same as accepting tyranny. Therefore, it is irrational and inherently impossible to give away our fundamental rights to defend ourselves and our homes against aggression. We can give away most of the freedom enjoyed in the "state of nature", but not the essentials. Both arguments are pretty good, and I offer them for your consideration.