Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site digi-g.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!digi-g!brian
From: brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Problems with libertarianism.
Message-ID: <587@digi-g.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 7-May-85 11:29:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: digi-g.587
Posted: Tue May  7 11:29:50 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 8-May-85 06:19:44 EDT
References: <485@cybvax0.UUCP> <6438@ucbvax.ARPA> <509@cybvax0.UUCP> <6592@ucbvax.ARPA>
Reply-To: brian@digi-g.UUCP (brian)
Organization: Digigraphic Systems Corp., Mpls, MN
Lines: 19
Summary: 

<I hope this is not out of context...:->

Barry Fagin writes:
>...I believe that natural rights do exist; you [Mike Huybensz] do not.  I
>cannot "prove" that these rights exist.

    This is the point!  If "natural rights" exist, but you can't offer any
proof of what they are, order of priority, etc, or someone else says that
natural rights exist but has an entirely different list of rights, then
in what way do these rights "exist"??  This is just a religious argument,
dogmatically stating "These are our rights - blah1, blah2, blah2.1...".

    However, if you want to try to convince people through rational
arguments that xxx should be a right (for whatever reasons), then I think
you got something.

Merlyn Leroy
Exercising his RIGHT
				...brain