Thus spake Marcus Daniels circa 10-02-15 01:44 PM: > To me -- to the extent the concept of `rights' is meaningful -- `rights' > are the just kind of entitlements that when restricted, either 1) result > in the granters of the entitlements being removed from power, or 2) > increasingly strict controls on privilege being imposed such that no > competing groups can gain power. If there are no rights, there can be > no perception of legitimate power...
That makes alot of sense. However, the concept of "legitimate power" is, at best, shaky or, at worst, self-contradictory. Either the power is there, or it's not. And if it is there, it's not the power that riles us; it's the actions of the powerful. E.g. many of us have the power to take another's life. But having the power to do so isn't wrong. Exercising the power is wrong (in some cases). (1) is not a concept of power, either. It is a concept of actions and their consequences. Those "in power" can take certain actions with a lessened or different set of consequences than those "out of power". But a "rights" document, like the 1st 10 amendments to the constitution don't talk about or provide the consequences for actions taken by the powerful. Rather, they provide the basis for a byzantine edifice of very complicated rules. Those rules can only be interpreted by those privileged enough to interpret them. So if the interpretation favors those in power, they stay in power. And even if the interpretation does not favor those in power, they often stay in power because the consequences are also all tied up in the complicated rule set. So, those in power can remain in power in spite of "rights" abuses, as long as they are privileged _enough_ to successfully navigate the both the interpretation of the rules and the execution of consequences. Hence, a delineation of "rights" doesn't really make that much difference w.r.t. (1). There are _other_ bases for removing people we don't like from power. Re: (2), I think a good case can be made that a delineation of "rights" doesn't help there, either. All the powerful need do is embed overly complicated hoops in the grouping mechanisms so that the groups they don't want to form will not form. And even if they do form, the complicated rules will help the powerful to disassemble or knead those groups over time. In the end, those with power will retain power regardless of a delineation of "rights". There will be groups (e.g. Google) that _look_ competitive to the reigning groups (e.g. Microsoft); but, in reality, they are of the same kind and don't really compete at all. Why is it, again, that so many small businesses fail? [grin] The triggers and mechanisms for doing (1) and preventing (2) are much more practical and earthy. Hence, any effective "rights" declaration will be more practical and earthy. In fact, an effective "rights" declaration probably wouldn't mention an albatross concept like "rights" at all. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
