Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:43:26 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> It's not a "privilege" to be treated fairly by the courts, or to be
>> allowed to live without being hassled by your neighbors, or to avoid
>> being beat up for no reason when you walk down the street.
> 
> Some might argue, though, that it is if your situation is such that you 
> are not.  There's the idea (which is what you describe), and then there's 
> the reality (which many in the US live in every day).  It *shouldn't* be 
> a privilege, I'd agree with that - it should be something everyone has 
> access to.

Unless you count "privilege" as opposite of "disadvantage", I don't see 
how you count "being treated the way the law says you should" as being 
"privileged."  I.e., you run into the excluded middle of "normal", where 
everyone who isn't ground down is unfairly uplifted.

Maybe this is a meaning of the word "privilege" I'm not aware of. Lots 
of people seem to use it to mean "better off than I am, through no fault 
of theirs or mine."

>> The idea that you'd want to take these "privileges" away from someone in
>> order to be "more fair" is absurd in my mind.
> 
> I agree with this.  For example, the way to fix "not everyone is treated 
> fairly by the courts" is not to make the situation so it reads "everyone 
> is treated unfairly by the courts".

That's the problem. You start getting people saying "let's take away the 
unfair privileges."  You know, like being born in a country where it's 
possible to get rich.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message