Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[Matt Garrish]

"David Schwartz" <davids at webmaster.com> wrote in message 
news:djh3ue$otu$1 at nntp.webmaster.com...
>
> "Matt Garrish" <matthew.garrish at sympatico.ca> wrote in message 
> news:EVT6f.1507$ki7.59085 at news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>>>    A right is a scope of authority. That is, a sphere within which one's 
>>> decision is sovereign.
>
>> Then why were you claiming that a government can infringe on a person's 
>> rights if those rights are not codified or even accepted by those people? 
>> The idea of inalienable rights for anyone in a Western society only 
>> exists if you believe that the rights of Western societies are 
>> inalienable and should be respected everywhere. There is a huge arrogance 
>> in that assumption, though, and once you enter a jurisdiction that does 
>> not hold your rights to be inalienable they are no longer your rights.
>>
>> You can have generally agreed upon rights, but as you note, those rights 
>> can only be hoped for if the systems exist to enforce them. Once those 
>> systems erode, you no longer have rights only hopes. The more you allow 
>> those systems to be eroded, the less you can expect your rights to exist.
>
>    This would suggest that rogue governments can't infringe on the rights 
> of their people because those people have no rights since their societies 
> don't recognize any. This is another principle I reject at its roots. Your 
> rights exist whether or not others choose to respect them.
>

I'd say to that that you're confusing a belief with a right. A belief 
doesn't become a right until society acknowledges it as such and puts 
measures in place to ensure it. If people are perfectly happy living under 
communist rule, who are you to tell them they must have the right to own 
property? If that society later acknowledges that it wants the right to own 
property then the government (in an ideal society) should respond 
accordingly. If the society demands a right and governments denies it, only 
then are the people's rights being oppressed (which may be what you were 
originally saying now that I look back, but I read it at first as the 
citizen's not ackowledging the right either).

The counter-argument is that oppressive socities work to prevent their 
citizens from expressing their desire for rights or selectively apply them, 
which is all true. Without just laws and the instruments of justice to 
enforce them, however, you cannot correct the problem. There is still an 
acknowledgement on the part of society that things are wrong, and societal 
problems eventually come to a head when the time is right else we wouldn't 
be where we are and still not be where we need to go.

I'm not claiming that the world is an easy place to live in... : )

Matt