[jbovlaste] Re: natural and human rights

[Alan Post <alanpost@sunflowerriver.org>]

On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 07:12:20AM -0800, A. Piekarski wrote:
> coi ro do
> 
> Please comment:
> 
> 1) mujyselpo'e
> 
> p2 is a natural/inalienable right possessed by p1
>  
> from:
> p2 se ponse p1 lo munje
>  
> 2) remselpo'e
>  p2 is a human right possessed by p1
>  
> from:p2 se ponse p1 lo remna
>  
> totus
> 

I've gotten used to saying "se broda" for definitions like this that
it first seemed weird that you reversed the x1 and x2 places.

I haven't seen enough words to know whether the Lojbanic order for
these places should be reversed from what you've got.  I remember
you bringing up this issue and if I recall we didn't find any
concensus.

I suspect this means we get inconsistency instead, so let me focus
on something else!

Let's pretent I'm having a converation:

.i mi cuska lu .i mi mujyselpo'e lo nu badna li'u
.i do cuska lu .i do na mujyselpo'e lo nu badna li'u

I claim to have an inalienable right to bananas, yet you claim I
don't.  How do we further discuss the matter?  Even though we're
claiming the right is inalienable, we don't agree on the set of
things that are appropriate for p2.

Have we begun to resolve these outside of the bridi places and taken
out epistemology places?  Should the enforcement authority or social
norm granting p2 have a place?

-Alan
-- 
.i ko djuno fi le do sevzi