Can't be under any system. All men are mortal, as the major premise goesm and no one knwos theday or hour. WQhat can be a right is that you won't be deprived of life by humans without due process. But that is alraedy a right under the 5th & 14A. You can add a right to the _means of life_, which of course is not the same thing, and is I presume what you mean.
Liberal rights are dominated by
>property, and if property rights are to prevail, then they
>must prevail against, for example, the need to eat, since
>food is produced within the property system and a claim on
>food would violate the claims of property. But property is
>necessary to preserve the class system, which is the purpose
>of the State and hence of liberalism.
As a liberal (small l, not a Liberal Democrat a la NewDeal/Great Society, a liberal who supports constitutional democracy and civil liberties), I represent that remark. I oppose this and every other class system. I have never seen a persuasive argument from anyone, not you, not Marx, that liberal rights means that I am committed to the idea that some people should monopolize the means of production and exploit others. In fact, I think there is a right that workers have to control the means of production andenjoy the fruirs thereof. Is that consistent with a class system?
>If you want a system in which everyone can get enough to eat
>as a matter of the structure of society, you want tribalism
>or communism and their freedom, not liberalism and its
>rights.
Explain again why liberals, and in fact conservatives, can't guarantee "enough to eat." Milton Friedman used to advocate a guaranteed annual income that in 1970 was pretty generous, lift everyone over the poverty line. If that were enacted, it would be a legal right, what am I missing?
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com