Predictable response

In article , Rich the Philosophizer wrote: [...]

Is that guy Will in jail again?

Many people would not define "free will" as a right. "free will" can be seen as a property of humans that in some cases causes them to act in ways that they don't have a right to.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge

In article , Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote: [....]

Absolutely not! Rights do not conflict. You have the right to stretch out your arm to a certain point. That point is short of another persons nose.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge

So, then, how do you recommend responding to someone who's out there in your yard setting fire to your house?

Thanks, Rich

Heh.

No, if a being overrides another being's Free Will, then the overriding being has not been acting on Free Will, but some denial thereof.

Thanks, Rich

--
For more information, please feel free to visit http://www.godchannel.com

The question wasn't addressed to you. Bu since you've joined in, please explain what you mean by 'liberty', and why 'happiness' isn't a right per se; one has only a 'right to pursue' it.

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2.
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

In article , Rich the Philosophizer wrote: [.....]

You obviously are using a definition of "feel will" or "acting on" that I don't. I say that when a being chooses an action (ie: does not have one imposed) that being is acting on its own "free will". I consider the issue of whether the being had the right to make that action a seperate issue.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge

In article , John Woodgate wrote: [..Rich the Dreaded..]

I may as well jump in here on the "happiness" issue.

The right to pursue happiness allows one to undertake those actions which lead to the state of happiness. I think the writers were concerned with what actions were allowed more than what states were obtained. They were writing an explaination of the reasons for limits on government actions.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge

When a person is violating rights by their actions, they can be prevented from acting by whatever means is needed. Since they don't have the right to burn your house, you can stop them from doing so. If you can stop them by shining a flashlight in their eyes and saying "get the hell out of my yard", you don't have the right to kill them.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge

I'd just quote the dictionary definition of "Liberty", probably something like freedom, self-determination; "permission", if you will, to operate your own life in the manner you see fit. That sort of thing.

About happiness, when they wrote that "pursuit" clause, it'd have been the height of folly to try to invoke a "right to happiness", because nobody can guarantee the results of your pursuit of it. You're allowed to pursue it, but if you fail at achieving it, well, you're free to pursue it some more. :-)

Hope This Helps! Rich

In message , dated Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Ken Smith writes

Like eliminating the opposition in a drive-by? OK, it's extreme, but isn't that part of the problem with such sweeping statements; there is a lot of qualifying sub-text.

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2.
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

In message , dated Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian writes

I don't trust dictionaries in debate; the definitions weren't written in the present context.

Including making money by selling drugs to kids?

--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk
There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2.
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK

That depends - why are the kids looking for drugs in the first place?

Thanks, Rich

Real men dress in girls undies? Comming from a Cannuckistani, I guess that sort of attitude is to be expected.

I should hope not! That was a more powerful dick-shriveler than

32F (that's 0C for you Cnnuckistanis) water. I just about lost my Superbowl party on the spot!

pain.

In your case, I think you mean "scum". I can only imagine how painful it was, Homie. BTW, pain sport.

--
  Keith

Ah, yes. Their heads are up there.

--
  Keith

Yes, the Mexicans are, but I see no reason to move to that hell- hole. Just shoot 'em as they come across, like any other invader.

--
  Keith

The only good Republican is a dead Republican?

Do some research. Scrum it is. I leave all knowledge of scum to you.

Yes, "it won't fit on a bumper sticker". The basic rule that I place in front of all rules about absolute rights is that they do not conflict with each other. If it appears that absolute rights are in conflict, I assume that it means that I haven't correctly defined one of the rights under consideration.

We often find ourselves back at the old saw about outstretching ones arm. It is a good example of where a right ends along some sort of funny curved boundary so it is a handy one to refer back to.

The US's founding forepersons, had to keep the text simple and short enough to have the intended reader still be awake when they got to the end.

They had to shorten "We the white, male, land owning people" to make it fit.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge

"Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@doubleclick.net...

Drugs solve all problems. Don't you watch TV ads?