[lit-ideas] Re: Paying taxes for months on end
- From: John McCreery <mccreery@xxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 21:36:22 +0900
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every attempt to get unjust laws repealed or revised, the claim that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
Other related posts:
