The notion of human rights, appealing as it may be on the surface, is deeply flawed: not only is it hard to agree on why they might be but whatever we end up will always be limiting. If your list of rights does not include X, then is X ok? To draw a fence around a set of morally protected goods is a dodgy practice.

My inner anarchist quickens! There is truth here, but this truth equally applies to laws, which suffer from the same problem as rights. Perhaps that is why people have noted that sometimes the law is an ass. Then my thoughts turn to babies and bath water. These problem raise the need for looking to the spirit, rather than the letter of the law. But that only helps in those situations where the dissonance between the letter and the spirit of the law arouses public opinion -- on in those cases where one agrees with the judgment.

But I do not think it is appropriate to throw out the concept of rights, which is based on empathy and compassion, because of the vulnerability of so much of the population to the psychological vices of splitting and projecton, which are at the basis of demonization. We have to find some way to save the baby, however foul be the bathwater. Any suggestions on that front?

And it is good to see you on ET again.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."