Guest guest Posted October 16, 2007 Report Share Posted October 16, 2007 Yes Erica, I do understand why you used that term, completely!!! And ... these are terms of law with VERY specific meanings. " Civil rights " are given by government to serfs, which are quasi-property of either the state or the nobility. In contrast, " natural rights " are inherent simply by virtue of our existence; one might say (depending upon one's beliefs) that such rights are conferred upon us by divinity. And in the presence of such a conception, we can never be serfs, there can never be any nobility, and the state MUST be our servant, not vice versa. MUCH more could be said here (obviously). Just capturing a sharing moment. Best to all, Elchanan _____ rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of Erica Monday, October 15, 2007 4:42 PM rawfood [Raw Food] Re: Civil Rights vs. Natural Rights (very brief) > I suggest that you drop being a civil rights activist and instead become a > natural rights activist. That was a great translation, or clarification. Thank you. I used Civil Rights because it is the commonly understood term for the matter, whether appropriate or not. I like how natural rights sounds, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.