Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fortune.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!ihnp4!fortune!rcb
From: rcb@fortune.UUCP (Robert Binstock)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: "Rights"
Message-ID: <3345@fortune.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-May-84 12:02:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: fortune.3345
Posted: Fri May 18 12:02:52 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 19-May-84 01:39:13 EDT
References: <140@oliven.UUCP>, <3268@fortune.UUCP> <129@loral.UUCP>, <19513@wivax.UUCP>
Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA
Lines: 26

<>
>>Tell the drunk driver or the lightening bolt or the falling tree that
>>you have a right to life.  See if you suddenly become alive.  Tell the
>>dictator that you have a right to liberty.  See if you suddenly become
>>free.

>>We have very few inate rights (in fact I am having trouble thinking of
>>any).

Come now.  Most of us came long ago to the conclusion that nothing is 
certain, that there is no such thing as an absolute "right."  The 
question is: What rights do we as a society choose to ATTEMPT to bestow
on ourselves and each other?  In other words, why are we a city and
a state and a nation rather than just a bunch of isolated beings?  It
is obvious to any child of 12 that we can't guarantee anybody anything.
But what rights are worth trying to create, despite the lack of 
certainty?   

Perhaps all of us pro- and anti-rent control arguers shouldn't use
the word "right."  Maybe we should say "I feel that society
should attempt to protect people's ability to make money on their
property" or "I feel that society should attempt to keep housing
affordable."  But it isn't hard to understand what we're talking about,
even if our language hasn't been crystal-clear.  We're not stupid.

Bob (yes, I know this should be in net.politics) Binstock