Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

This is a concise, well-written essay that ought to stimulate people's gray matter.

There are any number of ways this thread may branch out from the concepts Alan Bock presents, all of which are worthy of discussion.

I will only ask those who have other views to please be considerate of fellow FReepers who wish to discuss the article. Attack the message if you must, but not the messenger.

1 posted on 09/16/2002 11:56:43 AM PDT by logician2u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: logician2u
All those "Rights"...how about naming them various forms of property rights?

That might get a little closer to a "unified field theory"?

(With thanks to A.J.Galambos)

2 posted on 09/16/2002 12:02:51 PM PDT by AzJP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: logician2u; yall; Roscoe; Kevin Curry; Cultural Jihad; Texasforever; Boot Hill
Great article log2, thanks. -- I'll flag a few of FR's more active anti-constitutional libertarian haters, as they need to read some reason now & then.

Tho I doubt they will.
6 posted on 09/16/2002 12:29:40 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: logician2u
"For the libertarian, however, it is virtually impossible to construct a hierarchy of rights and freedoms."

All else aside, such an impossibility would promote the extensive use of force in settling conflicts in rights.

"Many would argue that political and social rights, especially freedom of speech and press, are the most important of liberties, the rights that most directly keep despotism at bay. "

Freedem of speech is a natural right inherent in a sentient being born with the ability to speak. Freedom of the press is at a minimum, derivateive of freedom of speech and contingent on the ability to construct or obtain a press or its equivilent. I offer that as a two level hierarchy to counter the impossibility argument noted above.

"You could even make an argument that if we do not own ourselves, if we do not assert complete control over our actions (subject to circumstances, limitations and exigencies of the human condition) we cannot be truly moral beings or be held accountable to a higher power."

If you can't transfer ownership of yourself can it be said that you truly own yourself?
11 posted on 09/16/2002 12:35:57 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: logician2u
BUMP!!

'Cause I, too, have"...an unusual proclivity for intellectual consistency"!!

14 posted on 09/16/2002 12:40:51 PM PDT by lucyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: logician2u
Bump for Alan Bock... and to read later! He's a treat to read, most times!
21 posted on 09/16/2002 8:04:01 PM PDT by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: logician2u
bump for later
22 posted on 09/16/2002 8:06:03 PM PDT by Fzob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: logician2u
Very good article. One of the best I've seen at FR. BUMP
24 posted on 09/17/2002 5:38:46 AM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson