Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsstat.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!utcsstat!laura
From: laura@utcsstat.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: "By definition" ???
Message-ID: <875@utcsstat.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Aug-83 01:53:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsstat.875
Posted: Mon Aug 15 01:53:27 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 15-Aug-83 03:10:36 EDT
References: <1806@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Toronto, Canada
Lines: 18

"by definition there is no right to pollute". Hmm. I am talking
about converting a  morality into a legal system. My definition
of "pollute" and my definition of "right" are mutually exclusive.
This is not by LEGAL definition, but by LOGICAL definition.

I view freedom as a continuous quality, and rights as the discontinuous
pieces you can derive from freedom. There is no 'pollution' in my
definition of freedom, so there can be no 'right to pollute'.

this is akin to saying that by definition there is no such thing as
'the kindness of murdering innocent children', if you want an example
of another impossibility "by definition".

laura creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura

ps - to the curious - James' article is a very good example of an acceptable
	way to argue.