Rights on the Left A Tract Book By Anthony J. Fejfar, Esq., Coif Liberalism on the left is difficult to define.

Many might say that there is no definition, but, I think something can be said. What I have to

say of course would have to be considered relative in some sense, because, as noted next, it is my position that the archetypal virtue of liberalism on the left is relativism. discussion here. Now, previously, in “Jurisprudence for a New Age,” I argued that rights could best be understood as flowing from metaphysics, and, from a Platonists point of view, from the “World of Immutable Platonic Forms.” Without retracting what was said in “Jurisprudence,” I would like now to discuss “Rights on the Left.” If we start with relativism it would seem that rights are invalid. If everything is relative, then rights are relative, and arguably not much could be said about them, at least nothing determinative. But I think In fact, relativism must be the starting point for our

something can be said,… something interesting.

So, here I go.

If we start with relativism then it is apparent that relativism must mean something. Where does relativism come from? Most people who

stop and think about it, associate relativism with Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Here is how you can think about relativity. Instead of thinking

about everyone being in a fixed place, imagine everyone in existence, even everything, has a speed or trajectory. So, imagine that everyone is traveling by him or herself in a car alone. You are driving at a speed of 50 miles per Let

hour. The car next to you is driving at a speed of 50 miles per hour.

us imagine that you do not know your own speed nor the speed of the car next to you. You can have the relative illusion that the care next to you is If you ignore everything else

operating at the speed of zero miles per hour.

and just look a the car next to you, the car does not appear to be moving. While metaphysics can tell you your speed and the speed of the car next to you, without metaphysics you can’t tell the real speed, and you are left with relativism. If the car next to you drives at a real speed of 60 miles per hour,

then the relative speed of the car next to you is 10 miles per hour, since you are driving 50 miles per hour (60-50= 10 miles per hour). Now, with the foregoing in mind, let us return to Jurisprudence. everything is relative, yet we are still capable of speaking about things, If

…which we are, then, we must find a way of starting with relativism and then getting to right. Here’s how. The primary ethical principle of

relativisms is that you should not impose your purely subjective, relative, value preferences upon me. Because everything is relative, you should

stay off my turf, and, you should not step on my toes, because of relativism, you have no right to do so. The interesting thing, however, about relativism is this: if you have an obligation not to step on my toes, even if it flows from relativism, you have what can be described as a “duty” not to step on my toes. And, as

one Jurisprudentialist has pointed out, for every “duty” there is a corresponding “right.” Therefore I have a “right” on the left for you to

not violate your “duty” on the left, which is, not to step on my toes. “Not stepping on toes” is of course a metaphor for every individual right that there is, or could be. We then begin a process of balancing rights This is law on the left

where rights conflict, and wala, we have law. and rights of the left.