Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[David Schwartz]

"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.

    DS