From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Aug 15 2004 - 00:47:42 BST
Platt and all:
In chapter 24, Pirsig asserts that the MOQ...
> "..says that what is meant by 'human rights' is usually the moral code of
> intellect-vs-society, the moral right of intellect to be free of social
> control. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, of travel; trail by jury;
> habeas corpus; government by consent - these 'human rights' are all
> intellectual-vs-society issues. According to the MOQ these 'human rights'
> have not just a sentimental basis, but a ratonal metaphysical basis. They
> are essential to the evolution of a higher form of life from a lower form
> of life."
>
> dmb had said:
> The list of rights here obviously refers to the Bill of Rights in the U.S.
> Constitution, where the doctrine of equality was enshrined in the highest
> laws.
Platt expressed his main objection several times:
The notion that "freedom from social hierarchy" is somehow an intellectual
principle is a figment of DMB's fertile imagination....
There's absolutely nothing in the Bill of Rights about equality. The word is
nowhere to be found in that document. There's no such "doctrine" there....
There's nothing in quote #2 that says equality is a "right." ...
A faulty conclusion based on a false bundling of "rights and equality," as
pointed out above.
dmb says:
Let me try this again. There is a very good reason for the "bundling" of
rights and equality and it is to be found in this nation's founding
documents, not my imagination. The Declaration of Independence says, "We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The phrase
Pirsig uses is taken from this sentence and that sentence is so central to
American political thought and belief, that I just assumed you knew that.
This is where the "bundling" comes in. The idea here is that everyone is
equal in the sense of having this rights. It doesn't mean we all earn the
same income or like the same kind of music or anything else. Its all about
rights. It says that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are AMONG
these rights. And then, of course, the Constitution's Bill Rights is a more
specific version of this same assertion. The list of rights in Pirsig's
quote is a direct reference to the bill of rights and these rights belong to
everyone equally. This is what is meant by equality. This is what is meant
by rights. Its really only one idea, so nothing has been falsely bundled.
Its not that equality is a right, the idea is that we can't have rights
without equality or equality without rights. Asserted one without the other
only leads to incoherence or hypocracy. Try to imagine how meaningless
rights would be if they only applied to SOME people, but not you. Try to
imagine equality in a world where some people have rights and others do not.
That defies the meaning of the world "equal" and so it becomes an absurdity.
That fact is that the two words are inextricably linked in a single concept.
Without equality, rights are merely priviledges.
This understanding of the concept is what makes one a liberal and I suspect
that Platt isn't the only conservative in the world who doesn't get it.
Thanks,
dmb
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 15 2004 - 00:50:05 BST