[Martin Taylor 2000.05.23 8:58 EST]
[From Richard Kennaway (2000.05.23.0908 BST)]
Instead, I'd like to ask this: can you give an analysis in terms of PCT of
the notion of the government "giving people a right" to do something?
I refer you to my posting [Martin Taylor 2000.04.13], which provides
the basis for such an analysis, but on which nobody but Norman Hovda
(he said it gave him much to think about, but never said what was the
result of that thought--in what I have been able to scan since my
return from a month away).
You should refer to my long posting for the basic argument, but the
gist of it is that all actions have side-effects which may disturb
other people. The affected people are likely to act to counter those
side effects. Some of those countering actions may oppose the control
actions that led to the side-effects, which sets up a conflict.
Inherently, some people are stronger than others, but contracting
groups of people acting together are likely to be stronger than
individuals. If the side-effects of an individual's actions are
opposed by a contracting group, the group is likely to win any
conflict that arises from that opposition.
Groups contracting to oppose the side-effects of one kind of action
are likely to act together in opposing other disturbing influences,
because acting together usually makes control easier; this implies
that individual reorganization within the members of the group leads
to control of a perception of group membership.
The group-forming process leads to the existence of "governments"
formed to aid the group members to control their individual
perceptions, even though this inherently involves the group acting to
reduce the ablity of some people to control some of their
perceptions. However, the strongest group may refrain from
inhibiting the attempts by individuals to control certain
perceptions. The allowed controlled perceptions are "rights" "given"
to "people" by "government."
Note: I think I would have asked the question differently. I would
have asked whether anyone could think of a PCT analysis showing that
any "rights" are inherent, as the US Declaration of Independence (I
think) claims. Are not all "rights" set up specifically to contrast
with the prohibitions and inhibitions of laws and regulations that
might otherwise be promulgated?
Please, before criticising the above on grounds that the argument is
incomplete, check my earlier posting for the underpinnings.
PS. Also please be tolerant about uncapitalized letters and missing
"i" characters--my keyboard has taken a distaste to the shift and the
and I don't always catch the typos in a quick rescan.