Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ginosko!usc!aero!keith@pawl.rpi.edu
From: keith@pawl.rpi.edu (Keith D. Weiner)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Advocacy and What Is Advocated
Message-ID: <1989Oct16.000134.1218@rpi.edu>
Date: 16 Oct 89 00:01:34 GMT
References: <8910050250.AA14435@mimsy.UMD.EDU>
Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Lines: 36
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Status: RO


[Note: I have deleted most of the included text that Keith let in.  Please,
folks, include only the minimum quoted text you need in order to point
out what you're talking about.  -MHN]


Charlie Wingate writes:
>>In other words people have rights in inverse proportion to how "fortunate"
>>(wealthy? talented?) they are?
 
>Well, no.
>
>I've become more and more suspicious of talk of "rights" because, it seems
>to me, they have become more a tool of political rhetoric and less
>descriptive.  SO you shall have to forgive me if I do not speak of rights
>here.
>

hmm... In other words, Charlie, rights not only dont exist, they cant even be
defined in a non-"political-rhetoric" way?
Then, you speak of "advatages people are allowed..." This makes no distinction
between a mob boss who became rich by crime, and a businessman who became
rich by selling a better product at lower prices... and "deciding" means
"forcing". This is known as a tryanny of the majority. You would do well by
denying individual rights. 
"some policies reduce inequality"... at the expense of (individual rights?)
And how can one reduce a collective problem. One subset of the collective
may "benefit" and one may not. Who is to say which is "right"? The majority...

"An elective despotism is NOT what we fought this war for!" - T  Jefferson