On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Sunder wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, Jim Choate wrote: > > > A 'right' is an activity that any individual could engage in (at least in > > principle) while 'in a state of nature'. > > > > So what does 'in a state of nature' imply? It implies human activity a > > priori to the concept of 'civilization'. > > That don't work white boy. > > According to you, while in "a state of nature" anyone has the right to > grab the nearest rock and smash it over your head repeatedly (in > principle.) It's interesting you don't quote the following paras that addresses this exact point (ie isolation). Blipverts strike again. > That doesn't make it ethical or "right". Right != ability. 'right' has nothing to do with 'ability'. One has a right to speech even if one is deaf or dumb. 'right' is a function of existing and defending that existance against threat. > That you possess the ability to grab a loaded machine gun and shoot the > nearest cop does not mean that you legally may do so -- you don't have the > right to do so, though you have the physical ability to do so. Exactly my point... You agree with me, will wonders never cease? -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------