Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site ucbvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!ucbvax!faustus
From: faustus@ucbvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy, net.religion
Subject: Re: The Nature of Rights
Message-ID: <99@ucbvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7-Jul-83 15:41:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.99
Posted: Thu Jul  7 15:41:55 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Jul-83 01:46:15 EDT
References: <501@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Computer Science
Lines: 17

Liz seems to think that the right to property is the most
fundamental right one can possess, as the right to life is
derived from it (I have a right to live as my life is my
property).  I do not see where this fundamental right comes
from, or how it can be justified. Is the right to private
property the fundamental right which is given to us by God?
Or is it something which is an inherent right of all intelligent
life? If it is the latter than we cannot really say that fetuses
and comatose (vegetable) people possess it, as they are not
actively intelligent. (You could say that a fetus has potential
to become intelligent, but so does the food that its mother
eats during pregnancy.) Is the right to property purely a human
right? If we say this then we exclude all non-human intelligent
life.  I think that any such attempts to justify our actions by
means of a priori "rights" are doomed to failure.

	Wayne