Water must be in large supply then. If they can “waste” all that water and still turn a profit what’s the problem? Are customers having a problem getting water or service?
**
They are in business to make profit. However most companies I deal with attempt to keep me satisfied. If they don’t keep their customers satisfied then they won’t make a very good profit. Funny how that works.
**
Yes, nevermind about the long term cost to everyone.
Personally I think the govt. is suppose to protect individual rights and everything else is gravy.
I would elaborate on the OP by pointing out that material benefits are finite and might simply be exhausted in the face of potentially infinite human demand. The intangible rights such as speech and religion are as limitless as the air that we breathe. A couple of years ago there was a ballot initiative in Minnesota proposing an amendment to the state constitution guarenteeing the right to hunt and fish. But if the population of a given game species ever dwindled to the point of being threatened, the right to take them must be rescinded, possibly forever. It was also pointed out that, since we indeed do not guarentee a right to housing, employment, etc., it is highly inappropriate to guarentee a right to a recreational activity.
As for the philosophical question as to the source of what we call our rights, I’d say there are two schools of thought: It may be that out rights are delivered by the government, since it articulates them and only it has the power to protect you from those who would deprive you of them, either through law enforcement of the courts. Without that, how can you say you have rights?
On the other hand, perhaps rights are indeed natural or even instinctive. In the animal kingdom, creatures of the same species tend to be very co-operative with one another and seldom kill each other. So in human civilization, if you’re being unjustly deprived of your liberty or killed, you get this feeling like, “hey, you’re not supposed to be able to do this to me.” So even if you live in an oppressive society, the rights are there, but you’re being unjustly deprived of them.
I disagree that there are 2 schools. I am not sure that those who believe in inherent rights can be grouped together in a manner that is not arbitrary. How can a person reasonably make generalizations about a group that agrees that rights are absolute and unchangeable but disagrees on exactly what those rights are?
Putting aside those reservations for a moment, I would guess that you are a believer in inherent rights. I base this assumption on the fact that your post does not demonstrate an understanding of the belief that rights are relative. The members of your first school of thought ( at least those whose opinions I have read in this thread ) do not believe that rights are derived from government. Societies decide what rights their members have. A society is the sum of all of its members, not just those who happen to be running the governmental apparatus.
Some of you seem to think of rights as some sort of “permissions”. That is, you may do so-and-so because you are allowed to by a concensus of the majority, or by a minority with political clout, or by scribbles in ancient documents. These things you are allowed to do are your rights, it seems.
Why then, I ask you, does an abused child have the right to be rescued, since his abuser has decided what rights he has? Or do rights as you see them accrue to the most powerful? That is, does might make rights? Are rights whatever the most powerful say they are, just like in anarchy? Would there be a right to rape if the scribbles or the men in power said so?
Actually, there is law called “every man’s right” here in Finland, which basically gives everyone the right to enjoy nature’s offerings.
You can pick berries, mushrooms or flowers, go (pole) fishing or camp in the wilderness, even if it’s on private property (uninhabited and uncultivated, so you can’t go trespassing on someone’s backyard or steal their crops).
Any damage to the environment will get you a fine.
Personally, I think it’s a great idea.
I think we can pretty much be sure rights aren’t instinctive. Instict forms a very small part of human behaviour, and any attempts of constructing rights from that would be hopelessly lacking.
At most you could observe a pattern required for survival, but it would be limited to something like “avoid harm to self”.
History should also show that morals (including rights) don’t have any fixed standard, just as long as they work in real life (eg. Indian tribes that had no concept comparable to modern property rights).
Any external natural influence would have to be observable like all physical phenomena.
Libertarian, in a conflict situation the one with the might will indeed be the one deciding what’s right.
I really don’t see the point in trying to deny this fact, I’d prefer people instead worked towards a compromise acceptable to all parties involved.
So yes, there could be a right to rape, but it doesn’t mean you have to like it.
I believe the relevant question is whether it’s viable or not. In the present day society it most likely wouldn’t be.
One has the right to do anything. Your “rights” are infinite by means of your mere existence and your posession of free will. Were you the only person on the planet, you would have infinite rights.
Society and government don’t grant any rights at all. What they do is take away the ones they do not want you to excercise.
Indeed, we have handed over our freedom to the government in exchange for safety and comfort.
I would semi agree but with some clarifications. What society has done, and I’m talking about capitalist democratic society here, the stuff that happened after all them revoutions. Is taken traditional rights and codified them. Taken certain things that were taken for granted and made them specific laws.