On Jul 26, 4:16 am, Bill C <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> You are grouping people based on the actions of a few ...
> and using that as an excuse to strip their rights and
> protections,....
>
> Needed that as a
> paralell to cyclists being screwed over.
It isn't a parallel. Bike racing is not a "right." The first reason
is that it is a matter of consent and contract. Living under a
guvmint regime is not a matter of consent or contract.
Even most things people call rights are not rights at all, but
powers. There is much confusion on the matter, thanks mostly to
muddleheaded morons in the legal profession, and "wise" legislators.
A right is a *negative* -- a freedom *from*. It is very narrow. A
"power" is an ability *to* do. So there is the "freedom from" and
"power to" distinction. An immunity is a right as it is a freedom
*from* someone interfering -- it imposes no necessary action upon
others. A privelege (or license) is a power and includes the
essential powered activity of interfering with the actions others.
Copy"right" is a power, not a right, as interferes with the actions of
others. It is a privelege/license.
Other examples: "a right to eat" or a "right to work" are not rights
at all, but powers, since they always impose *positive* (meaning acts
of power) behavior upon others.
I am free "to" fly like a bird. It is my right of independence that
no one can stop me. Whether I can actually do it or not depends upon
my personal *power*. Flying, speaking, eating, working, are all
powers, something someone can do. (Well maybe not flying, except if
you know The Yaqui Way of Knowledge.)
The only way I know to say the negative as a "to" is this: You have a
right to an *independent* life. Which means that no one can interfere
with you -- a negative -- and on the flip side, you cannot impose
duty upon others to keep you alive, as they have the same right of
independence. If everyone has an independent life, then the
*negative* (the inherent restraint involved in the social rule of
free conduct) means that no one is unjustly interfered with.
Ironically then, the entire _social_ concept of liberty/freedom/right
is effectively a matter of restraint rather than the cartoon version
of freedom which is represented as "I can do whatever I want." That
isn't what it means, as we are speaking in a social context. Besides,
"doing" is a matter of power anyway.
