cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-11-06 - Re: Dr. Vulis

Header Data

From: hallam@ai.mit.edu
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 5177850389c3dec50259b9e593d0f28f9ccc1f0960839af29ab851ec696bf459
Message ID: <9611061758.AA10058@etna.ai.mit.edu>
Reply To: <961106.070903.3l3.rnr.w165w@sendai.scytale.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-11-06 17:52:46 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 09:52:46 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: hallam@ai.mit.edu
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 09:52:46 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Dr. Vulis
In-Reply-To: <961106.070903.3l3.rnr.w165w@sendai.scytale.com>
Message-ID: <9611061758.AA10058@etna.ai.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>> Laws create rights      - argument in "is"
>
>This is way too broad.  The only "rights" laws can _create_ are the
>zero-sum rights of entitlement that impose a corresponding
>responsibility on others.  Natural rights can't be created by fiat.

If you look at the original argument you will see that I'm explicitly
denying the existence of Natural law. It has been recognised as a
bankrupt philosophical position for at least two centuries.

Its not even the basis for Libertarian argument which is principaly
contractarian. 

The change in the wording of the declaration of Independence from
"God Given" to "Self Evident" reflects the wider philosophical
movement of the time. After Rousseau there was no need to depend on
superstition as the foundation of ethics.

If you argue from "natural law" you are simply parrotting the
predjudices of society. It isn't philosophy, its more akin to the
religious bigotry popular in the US South and Afghanistan. 


		Phill

Thread