Surely, rights are defined in terms of particular ontologies and epistemologies, such that if there exists different ontologies (there does) and different epistempologies (there does), then one should expect there to be different conceptions of "rights" (there are). The debate over rights is a debate over ontologies, which, last time I checked, is a debate without definitive and and universal resolution. Thus, talk of rights -- for and against -- is political on all sides, and ultimately theoretically irresolvable. We may come to a consensus about whether such "rights" ought to recognized, but those decisions are going to based on political expediency and not on the correctness of a particular conception of "rights."
--- Justin Schwartz <jkschw at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >I believe if you're operating in the liberal rights
> system,
> >that food, water, and so forth cannot be a right,
> because
> >life itself is not a right.
>
> 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
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for Easter, Passover http://greetings.yahoo.com/