<html>
<body>
Hi Joe,<br><br>
Thanks for this fine and clear exposition on our rights. It
demonstrates once again why for centuries people have turned to
philosophers as consultants on how to legislate properly. As a
historical precedent I note the cooperation of James Mill, Jeremy
Bentham, and J. S. Mill for English law in the 19th Century and the
synergy between John Locke, Edward Coke, and English Common Law in an
earlier century.<br><br>
Nick<br><br>
At 05:10 PM 11/10/2008, Glenn Schwaller wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Dr. Campbell - so taking this
one more step, should and would these "rights" be extended to
those who choose death with dignity? Does not the right to privacy
similarly ground the "right" to choose the timing of one's
death as well?<br><br>
Thank you for your reply<br><br>
GS<br><br>
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Campbell, Joseph
<<a href="mailto:josephc@wsu.edu">josephc@wsu.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
<dl><br>
<dd>Scott,<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>I've been reading your posts lately about the possible threat to the
2nd amendment given the recent Obama election and, although I find your
thoughts and arguments interesting, I am in firm disagreement with your
view. So I'd like to say what I think about the issues. I've made these
points before but I don't think I've made them all to you.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>First, you mention a lack of consistency between liberal views on
abortion rights and liberal views on gun rights. Some of the confusion
may be settled if, instead of talking about abortion "rights,"
we talked about the right to privacy, the right upon which the
"right" to abortion is founded. Granted the right to privacy is
not an explicit right, not explicitly noted in the bill of rights, for
instance. But the argument is that several of those rights would make no
sense were there not a prior right to privacy. We could talk about
whether this argument is good or bad at a later point but for now let's
just assume that there is a right to privacy that grounds the
"right" to abortion.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>No one thinks that we have an absolute right to privacy, one that
should not be infringed under any circumstance. In a court of law, for
instance, a lawyer might ask a defendant questions about his private life
that might be deemed inappropriate under normal circumstances. Yet the
defendant cannot, or cannot always, refuse to answer on the basis of his
right to privacy. A search warrant allows police to investigate the
drawers containing your undergarments. Similar examples abound.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Consider next the right to free speech. That right is not absolute
either. I do not have the right to slander you, to libel you, to tell
lies about you, or even (I would say) to insult you. I have a right to
speak freely and in so doing I might insult you but that does not mean
that I have a right to insult you. I looked up 'human rights' in an
on-line dictionary and got: "The basic rights and freedoms to which
all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and
liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the
law." I am entitled to speak freely but I'm not entitled to insult
you. Still, in an effort to ensure the former we might have to put up
with the instances of the latter.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>I would say the same about the "right" to abortion, which I
would not call a right at all. I have a right to privacy and what that
ensures is that the government cannot tell me when I should and when I
should not have a child. That is my decision. Provisions should be made
that allow me to make that decision on my own, without government
intrusion. That gives me limited access to abortion. The
"right" to abortion is founded on the right to privacy, and
since no one thinks that the right to privacy is unrestricted, no one
should be in favor of unrestricted abortion "rights," though as
in the case of free speech the initial right may be important enough to
allow for behaviors that others would deem offensive. Such is the price
of freedom.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>It is no mystery when rights should be restricted, for no one has the
right to deprive another of his right. My right to free speech cannot
restrict your right to privacy, so restrictions against, say, my
broadcasting your home address and phone number are appropriate. In
general, when my acts are likely to lead to harm to other persons, the
law may intervene. My rights go only so far. What counts as a harm? What
counts as a person? These questions complicate the matter but clear
answers in each case abound, and in those clear cases laws may be made
restricting certain behaviors, behaviors that would otherwise be
protected.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Thus, your view on gun rights seems to be far more extreme than what
I take to be the liberal view on abortion and speech and rights in
general. In the latter cases, we recognize restrictions all the time. In
fact, there are many restrictions to speech and abortion that are already
imbedded in the law. Few liberals want to do away with laws against
slander or laws against third trimester abortion since in those cases the
harms are clear. (In the latter case, I am not talking about the harm to
the fetus, I'm talking about the harm to society in general, which might
override the woman's right to what goes on in her own body once the fetus
has passed the point of viability. That is how I understand Roe v.
Wade.)<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Someone above – I can't remember if it was you or Dan or someone else
– talked about the right to bear arms extending to hunters and gun
collectors, as if we had rights to hunt or rights to collect as many and
as diverse a collection of toys as we individually deemed fit; that the
second amendment protected the collection of any gun by any person for
whatever reason. That is like saying that because I have a right to
privacy I'd have a right to your house were that the place that I felt
most private. The second amendment says nothing about hunting or
collecting. Nothing at all, for there are no such rights: not in the bill
of rights, not in heaven, not on earth. These are privileges at most, not
rights.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Nor is our right to bear arms unrestricted, as you seem to suggest.
If it were, why not allow citizens to obtain nuclear arms? The reason is
that the chance for abuse and harm is great. The implication is that in
such cases, the restriction of arms is justified. To think that nuclear
arms offer the only such case is absurd. Ergo, there is no unrestricted
right to bear arms. That is a myth.<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>I understand that Americans have a fascination with guns, just as
they have a fascination with privacy and with speech, and given those
fascinations a tolerance for pushing the bounds of those rights should be
respected by all parties: conservatives should appreciate the attempt
from liberals to push the boundaries of our rights to privacy and free
speech, and liberals should appreciate the attempt from conservatives to
push the boundaries of our rights to guns and free speech. (It seems that
free speech is a right of which we all agree, though how that right
should be manifested is something about which we don't always agree.)
Toward that end, I'll try to be more respectful of your attempts to keep
your toys. But not to the extent of affording easy access to nutcases
like the Moscow and Virginia Tech murderers. Clearly there is a problem
with current gun laws but one that we should be able to solve without
infringing on your right to protect yourself, or even your
"right" to have a little fun!<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Best,<br><br>
<dd>Joe Campbell<br><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>=======================================================<br>
<dd> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
<dd> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<dd>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
<dd>=======================================================<br><br>
</dl><br>
=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet, <br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net /" eudora="autourl">
http://www.fsr.net
</a> <br>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================</blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=2>"Truth is the summit of being; justice is the
application of it to human affairs."<br>
--Ralph Waldo Emerson<br><br>
"Abstract truth has no value unless it incarnates in human beings
who represent it, by proving their readiness to die for it."<br>
--Mohandas Gandhi<br><br>
"Modern physics has taught us that the nature of any system cannot
be discovered by dividing it into its component parts and studying each
part by itself. . . .We must keep our attention fixed on the whole and on
the interconnection between the parts. The same is true of our
intellectual life. It is impossible to make a clear cut between science,
religion, and art. The whole is never equal simply to the sum of its
various parts." --Ma</font><font size=1>x Planck<br><br>
</font>Nicholas F. Gier<br>
Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy, University of Idaho<br>
1037 Colt Rd., Moscow, ID 83843<br>
<a href="http://www.home.roadrunner.com/~nickgier/home.htm" eudora="autourl">
http://www.home.roadrunner.com/~nickgier/home.htm<br>
</a>208-882-9212/FAX 885-8950<br>
President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO<br>
<a href="http://www.roadrunner.com/~nickgier/ift.htm" eudora="autourl">
http://www.roadrunner.com/~nickgier/ift.htm<br><br>
</a></body>
</html>