From: hallam@ai.mit.edu
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 10:49:08 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Dr. Vulis
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.961105090921.9423B-100000@crl.crl.com>
Message-ID: <9611051854.AA09590@etna.ai.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>> ...as Mills observes [rights] are a product of law.  Society
>> finds it necessary to enact laws to protect rights...

>Logically, you can't have it both ways.  Which is it?

Both sentences say the same thing. Society enacts laws which
provide protections to the individual. As a result of these
protections the individual has rights.

The decision to enact laws may be affected by a consensus 
in society concerning which rights are desirable. But this
does not affect the fact that the realisation of rights is
a through society and law.

If you like you could replace the word "protect" with "create"
but most laws enacted don't create rights, rather they continue
to preserve previously granted rights which are under threat.


And then you get the type of laws which Bod Dole so ardently 
fought for such as special favours to Archer Daniel Midlands,
the Kansas Argi-business which recently paid a $100 million
corruption fine. Of course power can be exercised in a corrupt
fashion.

If you admit that rights are simply abstract conclusions from
a wider arguement based in more fundamental principles then
there is some purpose to the discussion. Otherwise the argument
is simply a stale restatement of the axioms as the conclusion.


If we return to the original basis on which Mill opposed censorship
its not hard to find out why Dimitri is denied his support. The
argument is based on the need to keep alive debate. Dimitri wants
to prevent debate, he does not wish to meet with the argument,
he merely wishes to indulge in character assasinations and insults.


		Phill