carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (01/23/86)
Will Martin writes: >So it is inevitable that, as the number of laws >imposed upon us constantly increase, our freedoms steadily decrease. >....From before I was born there >have been steady efforts to decrease the freedom of gun ownership, >from the National Firearms Act of the 30's through the '68 Gun >Control Act, plus innumerable local and state laws, each action >steadily decreasing my freedom. I see the same things happening with >knives, from the anti-switchblade laws of the 50's to the current >anti-martial-arts-equipment legislation at local and national levels. Question for Mr. Martin: What were the intended purposes of these laws, or of others that may occur to you which you particularly dislike? Dave Kirby writes: >How about a Constitutional amendment that requires a 90% vote in >Congress to enact a law, and a 51% vote to repeal it? Thought experiment: What would have happened in the US if the Constitution had contained such a provision from the beginning? What bills passed both houses by a nine-tenths majority (or even a three-fourths majority)? What would things now be like in the US if only these bills had been enacted? Would these same bills have been passed into law if the nine-tenths provision had been in effect, or would different ones have passed? Too bad the Constitution was drafted by a committee of Founding Fathers rather than technoids from the net. For law in its true notion is not so much the limitation as the direction of a free and intelligent agent to his proper interest, and prescribes no farther than is for the general good of those under that law: could they be happier without it, the law as an useless thing would of itself vanish; and that ill deserves the name of confinement which hedges us in only from bogs and precipices. So that, however it may be mistaken, the end of law is, not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be where there is no law: and is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists. (For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him?) But a liberty to dispose, and order as he lists, his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property, within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own. --John Locke, *Second Treatise of Civil Government* -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
matt@brl-tgr.UUCP (01/24/86)
> >How about a Constitutional amendment that requires a 90% vote in > >Congress to enact a law, and a 51% vote to repeal it? > Thought experiment: What would have happened in the US if the > Constitution had contained such a provision from the beginning? What > bills passed both houses by a nine-tenths majority (or even a > three-fourths majority)? What would things now be like in the US if > only these bills had been enacted? [RICHARD CARNES] [There follows a long quotation from John Locke to the effect that where there is no law there is no freedom.] I agree with Mr. Carnes that a 90% majority requirement for the passage of laws is not a good idea. I agree with Locke that we need laws (if only to keep lawyers from starving :-) ). And I emphatically agree with Mr. Carnes that it's a good thing the Constitution was written by the Founding Fathers rather than by technoid network types. HOWEVER: Most laws passed in the past 31 years are not confined to the admirable purpose of protecting the weak from the strong. Most recent laws either restrict people's freedom or spend their money. And many of them do both simultaneously! I can't believe that that is what Mr. Locke or the Founding Fathers had in mind. -- Matt Rosenblatt (matt@amsaa.ARPA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TRUTH JUSTICE FREEDOM YIDDISHKEIT IVY THE AMERICAN WAY
janw@inmet.UUCP (01/27/86)
[Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes] >Will Martin writes: > >>So it is inevitable that, as the number of laws imposed upon us >>constantly increase, our freedoms steadily decrease ... >Question for Mr. Martin: What were the intended purposes of these >laws, or of others that may occur to you which you particularly >dislike? The question is not for me, but I see no reason not to butt in... Probably everyone has a pet peeve, as far as bad laws are concerned. But don't you think one can object to the sheer *volume* of legislation? If someone made you swallow a bucket of water (there used to be a torture like this) no particular mouth- ful would be objectionable *in itself*, but they would be togeth- er. As for "intended purposes", why read minds - collective minds to boot ? It is the *effect* of a law that matters. Inten- tions are irrelevant. >Dave Kirby writes: > >>How about a Constitutional amendment that requires a 90% vote in >>Congress to enact a law, and a 51% vote to repeal it? >Thought experiment: What would have happened in the US if the >Constitution had contained such a provision from the beginning? I don't know. Do you ? >What bills passed both houses by a nine-tenths majority (or even >a three-fourths majority)? Very few, I am sure. The Tonkin Gulf resolution was one ... >What would things now be like in the US if >only these bills had been enacted? I don't know. Do you ? >Would these same bills have been passed into law if the nine- >tenths provision had been in effect, or would different ones have >passed? Different laws. (Better or worse ? - I don't know). >Too bad the Constitution was drafted by a committee of Founding >Fathers rather than technoids from the net. Come on, Richard, that is a snobbish remark. They weren't pro- fessional Founding Fathers - just plain professionals like the netters: lawyers, planters, traders. And Franklin might even be called a technoid by someone who disliked him. Whatever they were, they would hardly discourage non-founding-fathers from dis- cussion and suggestions, would they ? > For law in its true notion is not so much the limitation as the > direction of a free and intelligent agent to his proper interest, and > prescribes no farther than is for the general good of those under > that law: could they be happier without it, the law as an useless > thing would of itself vanish; and that ill deserves the name of > confinement which hedges us in only from bogs and precipices. So > that, however it may be mistaken, the end of law is, not to abolish > or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the > states of created beings capable of laws, where there is no law there > is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence > from others; which cannot be where there is no law: and is not, as > we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists. (For who > could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him?) > But a liberty to dispose, and order as he lists, his person, actions, > possessions, and his whole property, within the allowance of those > laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the > arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own. --John Locke, > *Second Treatise of Civil Government* Well spoken, John. Well quoted, Richard. Let me quote another classic: But this I know, that every Law That men have made for Man, Since first Man took his brother's life, And the sad world began, But straws the wheat and saves the chaff With a most evil fan. --Oscar Wilde, *Ballad of Reading Gaol* Can the two texts be reconciled ? They might be, if laws were not something "men made for Man" but contractual obligations, volun- tary undertaken. They would then be more like Locke's "direction of free and intelligent agent to his proper interests". Let me ask you a few questions, too. Can we have *too many* laws? If the 51% - 90% rule is bad, what ratio would you favor ? Or is 51-51, by sheer chance, ideal ? Don't you think, if Locke's ideal is to be fulfilled, that people should *know* the laws they obey ? Is that possible now? The new simplified tax code, as passed by the House, has 1400 pages... Do you think the garden so well planted by Founding Fathers is never to be *weeded* ? And don't you think that is how the 51/90 formula could be described? Personally, I think the formula imperfect in that it does not ad- dress *length* of laws, or their clarity; but most importantly, *regulations* which Founding Fathers somehow omitted from their blueprint for the Republic. Are you sure they would side with you in this discussion? Jan Wasilewsky