[lit-ideas] Re: Paying taxes for months on end
- From: "Phil Enns" <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 14:16:26 -0400
Robert Paul suggests that one can have an inalienable right to something but
have no need for it. I can make no sense of this. Take for instance the
right to life as protection from violence. This right does not depend on
whether at any particular moment I need the police because the right
pertains to my personhood as opposed to any contingency. Inalienable rights
arise from who we are as persons, not from circumstances. It may be that
government grants rights, such as to healthcare and education, rights which
people like Melinda Gates have no need for, but these are not inalienable
rights and would be better off not being referred to as rights. If one
doesn't need a right, it can't be an inalienable right.
Robert: "One could reasonably say that I have a right to free speech even
though as a matter of fact nothing I say offends anybody or goes counter to
anyone else’s beliefs."
However, the right to free speech, which isn't an inalienable right, does
not depend on the content of one's speech. Rather, it is a right that
arises out of a particular politics which can only function when people are
largely free to say what they like, even when what they say is banal or
inane. While the right to free speech is not an inalienable right, it has
the form of one in that it is a right one has even if one doesn't bother
speaking out.
Robert: "I’m not even saying that everyone does have a right to an
education, although I would like to bring it about that something like that
were true."
But this is precisely the state of affairs that cannot be true of an
inalienable right. One has these rights regardless of what government is in
place or the state of that government. Inalienable rights derive from
personhood, not contingent circumstances. Inalienable rights do not depend
on whether one wants to exercise them or not because they are not dependent
on one's volition or desire. We do not ask whether potential victims want
to be harmed before stopping a potential murderer.
Robert: "I’m not talking about how it is or ought to be in other times and
places but about rights in the US only."
Fine. But if these rights are to be derived from the notion of an
inalienable right, then the issue is necessarily a universal one.
Robert: "I doubt [the conditions under which the government satisfies its
duty to the right of maintenance of life]can be decided by sitting in a room
with the shades drawn."
And what do you suppose the Supremes are doing when they decide? Of course
'sitting in a room with the shades drawn' is an important part of working
these issues out, though not all that is needed.
Robert: "That a right is universal, absolute, or inalienable doesn’t mean
that it applies only to goods and conditions that cannot be described, lest
the right suddenly become itself contingent."
Of course not. What makes it contingent is its application. How does one
determine that a right bears on a situation without reference to goods?
As always, thanks to Robert for his responses.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Toronto, ON
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
