Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Principle of Non-interference
Message-ID: <1927@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 19-Oct-85 21:01:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1927
Posted: Sat Oct 19 21:01:34 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Oct-85 06:35:43 EDT
References: <588@mmintl.UUCP> <549@utastro.UUCP> <1241@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1543@pyuxd.UUCP> <133@oberon.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 15

>>You got it!  The most freedom availble while still protecting the interests
>>of all people from non-interference is, in fact, the minimal morality of
>>minimal necessary restrictions!  (Thank you!)

> Rich, how do derive that all people have a right to be protected?
> That is an active right, which others must work (read slave) supply,
> not a passive right, which only limits the behavior of others.

Pardon me, but where did I say ANYTHING about a right to be protected?
I was talking about the designation of rights in a minimal moralty, which
is the most freedom available while still protecting the interests of
others BY not allowing as "rights" acts of interference.
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr