4 ms·

>> You're presupposing that there's such a thing as a "right" outside of a given social framework. I absolutely am. I'm with the framers of the US Constitution

>> You're presupposing that there's such a thing as a "right" outside of a given social framework. I absolutely am. I'm with the framers of the US Constitution in saying that government and society do not create rights, they merely recognize them. I have a right not to be murdered, for example, even if I happen to live in a society where murdering people like me is allowed. But I base that statement on my theology, not my economics. >> You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. It's equally true that "the rest of us" drive around on roads that the factory owner paid for - possibly more true, assuming he/she pays proportionally. Why does this matter?

dctoedt 13y ago
> I have a right not to be murdered .... But I base that statement on my theology, not my economics .... Glad you recognize that. Pragmatically, a "right" exists only to the extent that others accept it, voluntarily or otherwise. I can also claim the right not to be murdered. But if I, an American, were to find myself in the hands of certain factions of the Taliban, then that so-called right might be of little efficacy. There's a legal maxim -- OK, technically it's an equitable maxim -- ubi jus ibi remedium: Where there is a right, there must be a remedy. That is, once the courts recognize that a right exists, they will somehow fashion a remedy to vindicate a breach of that right. But there's a corollary: If there simply is no remedy that can be enforced, then neither is there a right.