Re: two questions about Slavery in the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
However, this is less repugnant than the idea that past rights violations are justified by current prosperity they enabled.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would depend on what we define as a right. Many would argue today that forcing school children to learn in english rather than teaching in their native tongue is a violation of their rights. I would argue it is not a violation, and might be inclined to use their future prosperity as an argument for immersion. Many would disagree.

Re: two questions about Slavery in the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
Many would argue today that forcing school children to learn in english rather than teaching in their native tongue is a violation of their rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are people really arguing it's a violation of their rights? I usually hear it framed in terms whether it is good public policy to teach a non-native speaking student math, for example, in his non-native tongue. Maybe people are arguing that it is a violation of the right to a public education (assuming the state holds public education as a right), but that's not what people traditionally think of when they talk about "violating one's rights."

Re: two questions about Slavery in the US
 

There are many examples -- how about a "right to abortion"? Would it be repugnant of me to argue that the current prosperity of a non-aborted person was due to past civil rights violations?

Re: two questions about Slavery in the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
This would depend on what we define as a right. Many would argue today that forcing school children to learn in english rather than teaching in their native tongue is a violation of their rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

A) Forcing someone to attend school isn't forcing them to learn anything. (NB: forcing them to attend school in the first place is a violation of rights, regardless of language)

B) You can send your child to any school you want, or self-educate them.

C) The government shouldn't be in the education business anyway.

D) You don't have a "right" to an education.

E) You don't have a right to never be exposed to the English language.

Re: two questions about Slavery in the US
 

You misunderstood my question. My question wasn't whether you COULD argue it was a violation of rights. My question was whether that's how people are actually arguing it (as you suggested they were.) I just don't know if I see people framing the issue as a "rights" issue.

Re: two questions about Slavery in the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
D) You don't have a "right" to an education.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on the state. Some states, in their constitutions, have a provision for the right to a free public education.

Re: two questions about Slavery in the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
D) You don't have a "right" to an education.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on the state. Some states, in their constitutions, have a provision for the right to a free public education.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a privledge, not a right.

Re: two questions about Slavery in the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's a privledge, not a right

[/ QUOTE ]

No, again some states (in the STATE Constitution and/or statutes) confer a RIGHT to a free public education.

Re: two questions about Slavery in the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
No, again some states (in the STATE Constitution and/or statutes) confer a RIGHT to a free public education.

[/ QUOTE ]

They can call it whatever they want. Governments cannot grant rights. They can only grant privledges.

Re: two questions about Slavery in the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's a privledge, not a right

[/ QUOTE ]

No, again some states (in the STATE Constitution and/or statutes) confer a RIGHT to a free public education.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I bet a bunch of people think it is a natural right.