Robert Paul wrote: "I don't find the sentence 'The police have no right to enter one's home without a search warrant,' incomprehensible. An Aristotelian account of why this makes sense (or not) would be welcome." The simplest account is all that is needed. "Two different symbols can therefore have the sign (the written sign or the sound sign) in common - they then signify in different ways. ... In the language of everyday life it very often happens that the same word signifies in two different ways - and therefore belongs to two different symbols - or that two words, which signify in different ways, are apparently applied in the same way in the proposition. ... Thus there easily arise the most fundamental confusions (of which the whole of philosophy is full)." (Wittgenstein, TLP, 3.321, 3.323, 3.324) There are the rights granted by a government and then there are inalienable rights. The former is an unfortunate yet comprehensible usage of the word while the latter is both unfortunate and incomprehensible. 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