Jeeeezus
I think the thread on Dan's blog is dead by now, so I'll just put this here. This is Dan:
"Another, more realistic example, would be that of carrying concealed weapons. In out culture, this is not permitted, except with special permission from the government. Presumably, this is done so that people will not be able to effectively attack each other in the heat of passion, thus super-protecting a negative right not to be unjustly attacked. But in doing so, it violates the generic negative right to not be interfered with."
Of course it does. What bugs me about this argument is that it assumes Dan's right to not be interfered with _in his ability to carry conealed weaponry_ (and only in this, not in general) is not outweighed by others' rights not to be dead. Give me a fricking break.
"Another, more realistic example, would be that of carrying concealed weapons. In out culture, this is not permitted, except with special permission from the government. Presumably, this is done so that people will not be able to effectively attack each other in the heat of passion, thus super-protecting a negative right not to be unjustly attacked. But in doing so, it violates the generic negative right to not be interfered with."
Of course it does. What bugs me about this argument is that it assumes Dan's right to not be interfered with _in his ability to carry conealed weaponry_ (and only in this, not in general) is not outweighed by others' rights not to be dead. Give me a fricking break.
