Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!XEROX.COM!Hibbert.pa
From: Hibbert.pa@XEROX.COM
Newsgroups: mod.politics
Subject: "conflicting" rights
Message-ID: <12230589408.47.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Wed, 13-Aug-86 19:54:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: RED.12230589408.47.MCGREW
Posted: Wed Aug 13 19:54:12 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 14-Aug-86 00:08:31 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 37
Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu


Joe Testa said:
"The reason that most of law is complicated (probably more complicated
than it needs to be, of course) is that there are conflicts between
laws, and conflicts between rights.  Personal rights are not mutually
exclusive.  I have the right to use a gun.  I have the right to not be
shot by someone else."

I do not agree that rights can conflict.  According to my
understanding of the term, a right is something that a person can
claim absolutely.  In this particular case, you have a right to own a
gun, and you have the right to use it safely.  You have another right,
which is the right not to be aggressed against.  These rights do not
conflict.  There isn't a case where you have to decide which one is
more important than the other.  You can do whatever you like with your
gun that doesn't involve aggression.

(I hope you understand the distinction I draw between natural or
inalienable rights, and legal rights.  I speak here of the former.  If
you intended the latter, then you can take this as only pointing out
that a distinction is meaningful and useful.)

The reason this question is a hot topic for me, is that I see the
concept of rights being watered-down by the invention of new rights
that do conflict with the rights that I believe in.  The right to a
job, or the right to a decent education are two examples of "invented"
rights that conflict with the right to own and control property, and
the right not be aggressed against.  In order for some to claim a
right to a job, someone else has to be forced to pay them.  Any time
people suggest they have a right to something, the correct question to
ask is "at who's expense?"  Real rights don't come at someone else's
expense.  Ersatz rights require that something be coerced from someone
for their fulfillment.

Chris

-------