[rights] RE: [rights-requirements] Comments on Requirements version 16

[Bob Atkinson <bobatk@Exchange.Microsoft.com>]

Not to harp on it (ok, to harp on it), but even the rights you quote,
the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are not
intrinsic, they are "endowed by [the] creator." And the Bill of Rights
is a set of rights collectively explicitly granted by the Constitution.
If they aren't in there, you don't have them.

So far as I can tell, this is true of absolutely every 'right' I can
think of. It may be a Creator, it may be a government, it may be just
societal convention, but there is always some context or issuing
authority in which a 'right' has been granted. None of them are context
free. There is always some issuing authority.

	Bob


-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Anderson [mailto:Anne.Anderson@Sun.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 7:57 AM
To: RLTC; rights-requirements@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [rights-requirements] Comments on Requirements version 16

Comments on RLTC Requirements Version 16, last modified 11/26/2002
Comments from: Anne Anderson
Comments date: 15 January 2003

These are all comments I have made in meetings, and that others
have made, but I will reiterate them here.

1. "Thus, in this document we use the words equivalent to the
   marketplace concept of rights: permissions granted by one
   entity to another."

   This is NOT the "marketplace concept of rights".  A "right" is
   something that I have intrinsically, not something that
   someone grants to me.  For example, the "right to life,
   liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  The Bill of Rights is
   a recognition of certain rights, not a granting of rights.

   From the American Heritage Dictionary, the definitions that
   are most applicable (as a noun): "1. That which is just,
   morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.  5. Something that is
   due to a person by law, tradition, or nature.  6. A just or
   legal claim or title."