Forums: Discussions for entrepreneurs and small business.

Lots of people seem to think that discussions of morality and philosophy really don`t have much to do with everyday life. All that`s too difficult, obscure, and can`t be resolved.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion, after all, and nobody can ever be completely right. Right? This is an essay, but feel free to comment. :-)

Journalists like to use, as an excuse to invade someone`s privacy, that "the public has a right to know." This somehow justifies incredible excesses in various situations. Who`s "The Public?"

We also hear all the time about how corporations are just "too greedy." They don`t have a "right" to do what they`re doing. Which person in the corporation?

Rights are associated with the concept of morality. A society`s legal code is the written embodiment of the underlying moral structure for that society. What you legally do or don`t have a right to, directly is a result of the moral principles upon which the society was founded.

As such, rights are a logical statement. They`re made up of words and logic. You can`t do an autopsy on a dead guy and lift out his "rights." Nor can you go walking around and find some "rights" lying on the ground.

Dogs can fight over a bone because they both want to eat the bone. But after one or the other wins, no dog is going to sit down and have a discussion about who has the right to that bone---the property rights.

Morality is a set of rules, and those rules directly apply to individuals. As such, rights apply to individuals. So when a reporter says that "The Public" has a right to know, which person do they mean? Does every living human being have the "right" to know everything? What specifically do they have a right to know, and are there any limits of any kind?

Suppose a reporter wants to know if you wear diapers when you go out in the car. It`s an embarrassing question, and you`d prefer to not say. The reporter then chases you around, claiming that "the public" has a right to know.

Aren`t you part of that public? You already know, so who else needs to know? Why does anyone "need" to know?

We tend to look at life as a "me" and "everyone else" set of two groups. "Me" works one way, and "Them" works some other way. As such, businesses, corporations, governments, agencies, all are "them."

But because we can lump many people into a single word---"them"---it almost seems as if "them" is the same thing as one individual. It`s just not true. It`s mental laziness to believe that a "group" is the same as an individual, regardless that we can manipulate the concept of the group as a single unit.

There are laws about what a corporation can and can`t do. But does a corporation, which is a group of many people, have any rights? Isn`t it the single owner of the corporation who has the rights? When a corporation sets out to do something, isn`t it because of single individuals who make decisions?

So what about this smoking issue, where "the public" wants to invade the privacy of "the business" and demand that the business ban smoking on its location? One concepts is attempting to invade and control another concept. Is that even real or possible? No.

With everyone running around talking about how their rights are being abused, interfered with, or otherwise taken away, we need to understand the term.

It isn`t going to be long before YOU, as a "Business" are going to discover that there are two sets of rights in question--two different moralities. There are YOUR rights as a citizen of the country. Then there are the non-existent "rights" of non-specific others, "thems," and "theys," that you`ll be facing.

No matter what rights anyone talks about, some ONE person makes decisions based on those rules (the rights). In the Soviet Union, "The Public" was considered to be more valuable and important than the individual. And so, "The Public" was assigned rights in an impossible fashion.

But individuals were in charge of making all the decisions for "The Public." We`re moving along in that direction, these days, here in the US. Let`s keep an eye on it.

Interesting post indeed. It`s balance I suppose, rights of the individual -vs- rights of public. No fan of big government here. Less government, not more. If we need laws against everything then we`ve reached a sad place.

Yes....there are no "rights" of the public. There only are rights for individuals. Every time you hear "The public has a right," it`s a make-believe concept.

And yet, due to lazy thinking I think, many people just slide right into the belief that, indeed, "the public" actually exists as an independent entity having rights.

What`s serious about all this is that a "business" has no rights either. However, at least the business has an owner! That *owner* has rights!

We can substitute "the public" with "the greater good" and end up smack dab in the middle of communism.

I think a motivating factor for screaming, "I have a right!" is because everyone thinks their thoughts of equality are correct, and everyone else is not.

There is a battle in each of us. As we discuss any topic with people we would consider `friends,` we also risk learning their ideas do not agree with ours. At some point in the conversation we either drop/change the subject in order to keep the relationship `freindly` or through time, slowly look towards new friends that will support our ideas.

Therefore, our `friends` always remain to be people who support our thoughts and objectives. With this support, we believe our thoughts are correct. We never imagine our thoughts are wrong, based on the followers/friends we have.

So, with topics like smoking laws, war, political stands, and many other `to the heart` issues, we are divided into groups. In this country, right or wrong, groups are more powerful than wisdom.

"Rights" are a term humanity has created. Without this concept, we are all animals. We are all equal with No Rights. Just fighting for survival in an unfair, no guarantees, world. The right to speak your mind is supposed to be our country`s (USA) most basic of rights. It`s known throughout the world. But do you really think you can speak your mind without retribution from government, news media, or the general public? If you are not part of a `group,` speaking what they want you to hear, you quickly become a "lone wolf." What does it get you? Definitely not compassion, discussion or open mindedness. You are most commonly met with aggression and some type of legislation to force you to "behave" as others. So the struggle of what one`s "right" is continues to be fought. It`s all for a good cause, but the struggle to create equality isn`t a straight line.


-------------------------

Vincent Wilcox (a.k.a. KRAKR)
Drummer
My band: Letters Make Words

Speaking your mind is one thing. The consequences of that action are a different thing. :-)

We have a right to free speech (assigned under the Constitution). In another thread, PatentAndTrademark pointed out that we also have a right to prove an idea via registered mail.

In the copyright issue, it isn`t about whether or not you can prove you were first with the idea. It`s about whether you can enforce that proof in a tangible way. Enforcement comes under the process of The Legal System.

So too, we have a right to speak our mind. It`s an "inalienable" right because it`s foundational to, and intrinsic to the human mind. After we make the noise of the words, they produce results in other minds. If the words do harm, then the victim has a right to some form of redress.

The right to speak is one thing. The right to justice is another. Each applies ONLY to individuals, on a formal basis. However, if a publicity spokesperson for a "business" makes a statement that causes harm to an individual, The Law doesn`t allow that victim to punch the publicity person in the nose. As a spokesperson, the speaker is doing so "on behalf" of an organization.

So who is directly and personally responsible for what that spokesperson is saying? That too is part of the overall legal process. If "nobody" is the owner of a business, in that it`s publicly owned, then there isn`t any 1 person directly responsible for the harm of the words.

That`s where we are these days, and it`s an increasingly worrisome problem. I`m not sure, but I think I read that new law is being proposed to hold each member of the board of directors for such publicly held companies individually responsible for the overall actions of that company. That would be a good thing.

I think it arose from the Enron scandal, but I don`t know the current status of that law.

One difference between the animal and human state is exactly the concept of rights and morality. In fact, I`d argue that it`s specifically the decision to choose a moral system that moves (progresses) a child from the animal to the human state or condition. "Human" isn`t a biological condition, in other words. It`s a combined condition of genetic form AND mental process.