Deeper Foundations? (Dee Speaking)
		Comment		Source		MAIN PATH: John
			John		Vera

I agree with you that we need a theory of rights to safeguard the individual from utilitarian calculations. There is no abuse of the individual that couldn't be justified by a utilitarian under some circumstances.

But I disagree with Rawls' initial position argument. Why should we accept the rules or institutions that a group of so-called rational actors would adopt in a state of ignorance? No one lives in a state of ignorance. I think that this device can be used to create a right to almost anything generally considered desirable. If you were in a state of ignorance you might support a right to almost anything in order to make sure you would have as much as possible in real life.

I want to offer a different kind of argument that doesn't depend on consequences or a Rawlsean contract. I think we should think of people as having rights prior to any contract to create government or social institutions rather than as a result of such a contract. Then the question becomes "What rights would reasonable people turn over to government?"

When we talk about limits on the freedom of belief and expression, we are talking about restrictions imposed by government. Now, legitimate government can only have those powers that people living without government would voluntarily give over to it in return for the benefits of government. Since no one would voluntarily give to government the right to restrict his or her beliefs and expression, no legitimate government has those rights. In short, no legitimate government has the right to restrict the expression of belief.

Ariadne Home	Hate Speech Bibliography	Hate Speech Home