Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!princeton!phoenix!roger
From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Phil Ronzone's stereo
Message-ID: <13103@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 19 Jan 90 16:56:48 GMT
References: <2310@odin.SGI.COM> <12569@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <2356@odin.SGI.COM> <1990Jan13.090428.25775@agate.berkeley.edu> <2818@odin.SGI.COM> <8ZggXmy00W0TM96LF=@andrew.cmu.edu> <2847@odin.SGI.COM> <13022@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <2946@odin.SGI.COM>
Reply-To: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Lines: 69

In article <2946@odin.SGI.COM> pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <13022@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>So let's say I DON'T have the right to steal food to save my life when
>>I'm in extremis, or to use a vehicle without permission to get an
>>emergency case to the hospital.  

>>Will you fault me for doing so anyway?  

>Congratulations! The first small step to maybe understanding what it is about.

I don't think so.  

I'm waiting for YOU to acknowledge a right to life.

>No, I wouldn't fault you. I'd expect you to make recompense where needed.
>I am morally allowed to use whatever force is necessary to prevent you
>from violating my property, if I so desire. If you needed by car
>to get to the hospital, sure, I'd lend it to you. If you "borrowed" it
>without my permission, I'd understand.

Bully for you.  

What if your mindset were different?  Do you r property rights supersede
my right to life?

>If you wanted to all the food I had because you were starving, I'd
>help out. If you wanted all my food all the time, you'd better be
>prepared to die.

So?  

>Your NEED is NO CLAIM on anybody else!

Even my need to live?  Even when the need is specifically and uniquely
remediable?

>Even if your life depended on it!

>A poor starving wretch in India could live 20-40 years longer, if that person
>could have half my yearly salary each year. Buying imporved food (or even
>just the food), better (or any) medical service, housing, clothing, ...

>If you took ALL my $$$, maybe 2 or 3 people could live where they otherwise
>die.

>Or, maybe if we just took all my $$$ and gave to the poor in America, maybe
>we could add 10 years to the lives of a dozen homeless.

>And so on.

>I wasn't born rich. Too bad.
>I wasn't born extremely poor. Thank [local gods name here].

>I need or want things. You need or want things. That does NOT give us a
>claim on anybody else.

I'm not making a claim on you.  Only on some minimal amount of your
property and your assistance.

Tell me: "rights" in the vacuum can be dealt with this way.  How do you
suppose there can be any realistic IMPLEMENTATION of rights if we do not
protect those of others, not least their right to life?

If you do not protect the rights of those less able to do so than you,
then rights in general -- AS IMPLEMENTED -- are everywhere jeopardized.

How rational an animal are you if you look out for your rights alone?

Roger