[lit-ideas] Re: Paying taxes for months on end
- From: "Phil Enns" <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 23:17:14 -0400
Robert Paul wrote:
"'The police have no right…' can be understood as meaning that the
police may not enter one's home without a search warrant, and this may
be all that needs to be said. However, by way of explanation of why they
may not one can appeal to the Bill of Rights."
There is no problem with 'The police have no right to .. ' because the
word/sign 'right' does not refer us to talk of rights. There is no need
to ask 'What right is in operation here?'. Instead, we ask 'What can or
can't the police do in ...'. The problem arises when we think that any
explanation must appeal to something other than the operation of
government, that '.. no right to .. ' must refer to something. This is
the same move that Wittgenstein rejected in TLP, namely, that a sign of
a function was confused with a sign of something real. I stand by my
earlier statement: Any talk of rights is incoherent.
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:
