From: hallam@ai.mit.edu
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 12:43:14 -0800 (PST)
To: sandfort@crl.com
Subject: Re: Dr. Vulis
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.961105120912.17274B-100000@crl.crl.com>
Message-ID: <9611052049.AA09638@etna.ai.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>> 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.

>Unfortunately, both sentences, as originally written, DO NOT
>say the same thing.  They are recursive in the extreme.  

They are mutually recursive but the types of the relations are 
different.

Laws create rights	- argument in "is"
=> Should create good laws to protect valid rights.
			- argument in "ought"

Of course the two sentences don't say exactly the same thing, 
otherwise I would have written one.

If law did not have the potential to create rights there  would
not be the same duty of care for law creators.

>Maybe Phill should just say he misspoke himself rather then go
>through his elaborate back-and-fill charade.

I'll tell you what, ill admit that my original statement was
not of the clarity that I would ideally wish to achieve. But
I don't think that we need apply the criteria of a journal article
here. :-)

I don't think we have a problem with the statements conflicting,
there is an interaction. What a Hegelian would call dilectic. 
I prefer to use a different term for much the same reasons as
Sorros, the misuse of the term has created garbage that one
does not want to associate with (eg Historical materialism). 


		Phill