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