From: "Dave Coull" <coull2-AT-btinternet.com>
Subject: RE: Rights vs. Freedom
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 09:30:30 -0000




I wrote


>> there is a major difference between, on the one hand,
>> "animal rights", and, on the other hand, "women's rights"
>> or "queer rights". The major difference is that  _women_
>> initiated the women's rights movement. WOMEN  took direct
>> action in support of (for instance) their right to vote.
>> The same applies to queer rights. Homosexuals took direct
>> action to assert their rights. But most animals are quite
>> incapable of understanding the concept of "rights". In fact,
>> most animals are quite incapable of understanding the concept
>> "animals". If you take a cat and a dog, for instance, they
>> are incapable of understanding the idea that together they 
>> form a class which is oppressed by humans. Now, this is
>> not to deny that animals  _are_  oppressed by humans. As
>> a matter of fact I am all in favour of compassionate treatment
>> of animals. But that is a different matter from "rights".
>> Rights are something you fight for. When Tom and Jerry
>>(and Fido) all band together and take collective action,
>> not in a cartoon but in real life, I will believe in 
>> "animal rights".


and the person who claims to be called "Freedom" (in Russian)
wrote


> "Rights" are for the slaves. 


No, as a matter of fact, this is not strictly true. 
For example, when the USA had actual human slavery, 
which was less than a hundred and fifty years ago, 
the slaves had no rights. 


> Citizens of the country have rights


Yes, that is true. And when the USA finally, reluctantly,
decided to follow the examples set earlier by the British
and French Empires, by abolishing actual human slavery
and beginning to acknowledge the possibility that
the former slaves just might be citizens, this
was a limited but nevertheless significant
advance for human freedom.


> free persons on the other hand have freedom (undevisible)


Who was it that said "strong walls do not a prison make,
nor iron bars a cage"? Was it Milton? Anyway, whoever
it was, they were making the point that your  _mind_
can be free even in prison. An admirable sentiment,
no doubt, but the fact nevertheless remains, many prisons 
are indeed made out of strong walls and iron bars. 


> Animals don't have a consept of that... or they 
> just understand that so much better than we can 
> emagine right now... so they fight for their freedom 


It is  _not_  true that "animals" fight for their freedom.
If you try to cage an animal, it will indeed try to
avoid this; but it does so instinctively and as one
individual animal. Most animals are incapable even
of banding together with significant numbers of their
own species in order to fight for their freedom, 
never mind with members of other species. Let me 
know when Tom (the cat), Jerry (the mouse) and Fido 
(the dog) all band together as "animals" to fight for 
their freedom, and I will believe there is something 
in what you are saying.


> The most rights was given by Stalin's constitution... 


That is true.

Look, I'm not the one who is hung up on this concept
of "rights" granted by the state. It's the "animal
rights" advocates who see things in those terms, 
not me.


> If anybody wishes to say that Stalin was 
> a freedom fighter... i'll listen to your 
> arguments


You are a foolish, pathetic individual who 
doesn't know his arse from his elbow, 
and furthermore, your aim is so far off, 
you couldn't hit a cow's arse with a banjo. 
I don't give a squelchy wet fart whether 
you listen to my arguments or not. 
Your support for them is not necessary.


Dave Coull