On 2005/05/28, at 21:00, Phil Enns wrote: > No, it means what I said it means. I can translate 'have no right to' > into 'do not have the power to' with no semantic loss and certainly no > need to start going on about rights. Interesting. To me there is a clear and rather ordinary difference between, for example, "the Gestapo have the power to break down your door" and "the Gestapo have the right to break down your door." This does, of course, introduce a distinction between legality and legitimacy. Given, however, that this distinction is fundamental to every attempt to get unjust laws repealed or revised, the claim that "have no right to" is semantically equivalent to "have no power to" seems a callous reduction of right to might. I, for one, find that both forced and objectionable. John McCreery ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html