gauchecritic
When there are grey skies
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2002
- Posts
- 7,076
shereads said:
What she said.
Gauche
What limits would you place on freedom?
- Thread starter shereads
- Start date
What she said.
Gauche
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Being otherwise engaged for a few days...if apology is needed, then be it tendered....
Pure...
"Among the usual amicus muddle, I do see one small good point. I think society HAS benefited by there being (recognized) a very strong right to one's own body. In the US, this seems to have been a consequence of the concept of privacy, originally applied to one's home/castle, being extended to the body. (Note to amicus; this extension is due to the Supreme Ct., an unelected body.) Abortion rights follow.
I don't think a strong 'right to one's body' (not to be used or invaded) gives rise to strong *property rights*, however. (As amicus suggests.) Property being some tangible fruits of one's labor, including 'working the land', or of exchanges of value.
The 'fruits of one's labor' are too conditioned by the social context and support. For instance, if you build your log cabin, you probably use some public roads to carry stuff in. As you build, you use the police to stop theft of building materials. So, unlike amicus, I see nothing wrong with the concept that all 'products' or land are owned by the state (king), IN THEORY, and are parcelled out to people (fee simple). Hence a right of eminent domain; i.e., to reclaim for the state's use and benefit, a piece of land).
In short, you're going to owe taxes on your cabin, and the state can grab it if you don't pay. Seems fair, for the state facilitated your cabin building. No, this isn't socialism, it's capitalism, just not the *ideal* and never-realized, pie-in-the-sky form advocated by Rand.
Of course even the right to one's body is qualified in extremity. I support conscription in national emergency. Citizens' bodies are put 'on the line'. The same argument as above, applies. You owe your security of body, in part, to the state. If the state fails to protect its territory and power, your body may be destroyed(nazi style) or enslaved (Roman style) or whatever. So the legitimate state, to protect its existence in an extremity, may, in a fair way, make incursions on the 'right to one's own body.'
My three cents.
Last edited by Pure on 08-08-2004 at 08:57 AM
"Among the usual amicus muddle, I do see one small good point. I think society HAS benefited by there being (recognized) a very strong right to one's own body."
"Among the usual amicus muddle..." how nice to be appreciated...but..as usual...you missed the point...
"A right to one's own body..." is presented as a 'self evident' , 'aximomatic' concept as a foundation upon which to build an ethical system that provides mankind with a means of constructing the 'laws' of the society in which he lives.
It does not give you the right to kill a baby in your womb because it is 'inconvenient' to your social style of life.
I never said, implied or left room for the inference that the construction of a moral and ethical system for human conduct was easy.
It is not.
But, my friends, with the acknowledgement, that your body, your existence is indeed owned by you, and the means to continue that existence exists as a corollary right; does in fact, establish that foundation for an 'absolute' system of ethics, morals and values....
And gee, it only took like three months to make that small point. I should be so lucky....
amicus
Pure...
"Among the usual amicus muddle, I do see one small good point. I think society HAS benefited by there being (recognized) a very strong right to one's own body. In the US, this seems to have been a consequence of the concept of privacy, originally applied to one's home/castle, being extended to the body. (Note to amicus; this extension is due to the Supreme Ct., an unelected body.) Abortion rights follow.
I don't think a strong 'right to one's body' (not to be used or invaded) gives rise to strong *property rights*, however. (As amicus suggests.) Property being some tangible fruits of one's labor, including 'working the land', or of exchanges of value.
The 'fruits of one's labor' are too conditioned by the social context and support. For instance, if you build your log cabin, you probably use some public roads to carry stuff in. As you build, you use the police to stop theft of building materials. So, unlike amicus, I see nothing wrong with the concept that all 'products' or land are owned by the state (king), IN THEORY, and are parcelled out to people (fee simple). Hence a right of eminent domain; i.e., to reclaim for the state's use and benefit, a piece of land).
In short, you're going to owe taxes on your cabin, and the state can grab it if you don't pay. Seems fair, for the state facilitated your cabin building. No, this isn't socialism, it's capitalism, just not the *ideal* and never-realized, pie-in-the-sky form advocated by Rand.
Of course even the right to one's body is qualified in extremity. I support conscription in national emergency. Citizens' bodies are put 'on the line'. The same argument as above, applies. You owe your security of body, in part, to the state. If the state fails to protect its territory and power, your body may be destroyed(nazi style) or enslaved (Roman style) or whatever. So the legitimate state, to protect its existence in an extremity, may, in a fair way, make incursions on the 'right to one's own body.'
My three cents.
Last edited by Pure on 08-08-2004 at 08:57 AM
"Among the usual amicus muddle, I do see one small good point. I think society HAS benefited by there being (recognized) a very strong right to one's own body."
"Among the usual amicus muddle..." how nice to be appreciated...but..as usual...you missed the point...
"A right to one's own body..." is presented as a 'self evident' , 'aximomatic' concept as a foundation upon which to build an ethical system that provides mankind with a means of constructing the 'laws' of the society in which he lives.
It does not give you the right to kill a baby in your womb because it is 'inconvenient' to your social style of life.
I never said, implied or left room for the inference that the construction of a moral and ethical system for human conduct was easy.
It is not.
But, my friends, with the acknowledgement, that your body, your existence is indeed owned by you, and the means to continue that existence exists as a corollary right; does in fact, establish that foundation for an 'absolute' system of ethics, morals and values....
And gee, it only took like three months to make that small point. I should be so lucky....
amicus
Similar threads
