KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU (07/28/86)
Return-Path: <KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 86 14:08:05 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Rights
To: Salamir%UMass.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
cc: KIN@AI.AI.MIT.EDU, KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
From: salamir%UMass.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
(Ron Lussier -- SalNet Hacker)
homosexuals cannot be given special
rights because historically, they have always been treated badly.
Not exactly. The Supreme Court didn't say they COULDN'T be given
special rights, but that they didn't HAVE TO be given special rights.
This is true not becuase 'they have always been treated badly' but
because it does not say in the constitution that you can't
discriminate based on sexual preference.
The things to do are:
1) Try to get the state law changed. The Supreme Court didn't say the
law HAD to be there, merely that the Supreme Court had no authority
to eliminate it.
2) Try to get a constitutional amendment. The Constitution is what
the Court has to follow. The Court doesn't really have all that
much power. If there was an amendment saying that people have to
wear green hats on Tuesdays, the Court would have to live with
that, they couldn't overrule it.
Good thing this court was not around during the Lincoln era, eh?
Well, slavery was perfectly legal where states did not have laws
against it. Until the 13th amendment was added to the Constitution.
And it really wasn't up to the Court. The Dred Scott decision is
ridiculed today, but it was the only decision the Court could have
come to at the time, given the Constitution as it existed.
The Supreme Court does NOT have the power to eliminate BAD laws. It
has the power to eliminate UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws. Not the same thing
at all. Remember 'seperation of powers'. The Supreme Court does not
run the country. We the people do. Write to your congresscritters
about getting a gay rights amendment, if that is how you feel.
Keith, what is this bullshit about liberals thinking that the
government should subsidize homosexuality? What is that supposed
to MEAN?
Well, it seems nothing can simply be 'legal' anymore. Once it is
legal the government has to pay for it at least part of the time. For
instance taxpayers money is used to pay for hundreds of thousands of
abortions each year. I'll bet that if marijuana was legalized
tomorrow that government would soon be subsidizing marijuana growers,
buying surplus marijuana, paying farmers not to grow marijuana, etc.
Just as they are doing now with tobacco.
I think the perception is that if gay sex were legalized, that there
would be more of it, that there would be more AIDS, and that many of
the people with AIDS would be given medical treatment at taxpayers
expense. Understandably, taxpayers do not like this scenario. Nor do
they like having to pay hundreds of millions of dollars a year for
research into AIDS cure and prevention, when they perceive that gays
'caused' the disease and that 'innocent' people are now catching it.
This is the same sort of reasoning that lead to the mandatory
seatbelt law, and the mandatory motorcycle helmet law. If government
is going to pay for medical care for helmetless motorcyclists, then
surely it is a government interest that they wear the things.
I symathize with this reasoning, but I think people are drawing the
wrong conclusions. This is America, not some random European
socialist despotism. The solution is not to make these behaviors
illegal, but to make them 'at your own risk'. If you ride a
motorcycle without a helmet, and you are injured, YOU pay for the
medical care. If you catch AIDS, YOU pay for the medical care.
I don't want to government to do anything but leave me alone.
Same here.
If I am being denied something because I'm gay, I expect my
government to protect me as it would protect blacks, jews, or any
other minority.
There has been a pernicious trend towards enumeration of minorities.
The idea apparently being that each identified minority must have
explicit mention in the Constitution and in the state laws and in the
EEOC rules. I have worked with EEOC and the recognized groups are 1)
White 2) Hispanic 3) Black 4) Asian/ Pacific Islander 5) American
Indian/Native Alaskan. The implication is that everyone is in exactly
one of those categories, and that aside from those categories (and
male vs female) it is ok to discriminate for any reason.
You object that gays are not a recognized minority group. Well, the
same is true of short people, tall people, ugly people, fat people,
left handed people, crippled people, blind people, deaf people, old
people, young people, Arab-americans (a relatively new form of
discrimination), Jews, etc, etc...
This is a nation of 240,000,000 minorities and each should be judged
on his or her own merits, and not on membership in any minority. It
bothers me when blacks object to 'dilution of the black vote'. The
black race has no rights. The white race has no rights. Gay people
as a group have no rights. Every INDIVIDUAL has rights, as do
VOLUNTARY organizations of individuals. Nobody else and nothing else
has any.
Any other approach runs into serious problems when it conflicts with
individual rights. What about an indian tribe? Does it have rights?
The right to continue its culture? What does that mean? If a member
of that tribe wishes to leave the tribe, does he have that right? Or
does it conflict with the right of the tribe to continue its cultural
existance? If a member of the tribe objects to being put to death for
fornication (in accordance with tribal laws) does it violate the
tribe's rights for him to demand a trial under United States laws?
We have the same problem with 'state's rights'. Despite what I was
saying above about the Supreme Court not having authority to overturn
random bogus state laws, I do NOT belive in 'state's rights' in the
traditional sense. The pre-1860 notion (at least in the South) was
that the states get their power from the people of the state, and that
the U.S. gets its power from the states. That the U.S. is in fact a
voluntary organization of the states.
Much anguish could have been avoided had it been more generally
realized that involuntary organizations have no rights. The U.S.
could not be a voluntary organization of the states because the states
have no rights to join or leave any such organization. Only
individuals and voluntary organizations of individuals (or of
voluntary organizations, etc) do. The U.S. gets its power directly
from the people, not from the states. The states get their power from
the people, not from the U.S.. The division of power between the
states and the U.S. government is spelled out in the Constitution.
The Constitution can be changed, but until it is, people should
realize that their dispute is often with their state, not with the
Federal government or any of its agencies or courts.
Has anyone noticed that we are slowly losing more and more of our
rights.?
Yes.
...Keith
-------kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/05/86)
---------------
Return-Path: <@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 86 16:13:55 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Rights
To: silber@P.CS.UIUC.EDU
cc: KIN%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: silber@p.CS.UIUC.EDU (Ami A. Silberman)
Yes, but what right's do people have,
Every possible right, except those that would violate other
individual's rights.
and do some people have more rights, or different rights, than
others do ...
No.
and do collections, groups, and organizations of people have
rights.
They have all rights that the individual members do, and no more.
This applies to government as well. Government has no rights that
individuals do not.
...Keith
-------kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/10/86)
From: Eyal mozes <eyal%wisdom.bitnet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
... The objection to the liberal activists in the courts is not
their excessive zeal for individual rights, but their tendency to
create bogus new "rights", which, like bad money, are driving out
the real ones. ...
Exactly. For instance what does it mean to have a 'right to a job'?
Who is compelled to give a job to whom, and who is compelled to pay?
...Keith
-------KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (09/10/86)
From: power.Wbst@Xerox.COM
... I take for granted ... that there are no such things as
rights, and individuals can't cede to groups what never existed in
the first place. What is a right? Freedom of speech? It doesn't
exist. People are murdered every day for saying the wrong thing.
If demonstrating that a right has been violated somehow proves that
that right never existed, then I agree, it is meaningless to speak of
rights.
It is also meaningless to speak of crime, since any criminal can
point out that he violated nobodies rights since he was able to do
what he did. Thus all criminals are allowed to go scott free. Unless
the judge (or bystanders) decide to kill the criminal. Which is also
ok, of course. As shooting an innocent bystander would be.
This is anarchy, or social darwinism. This is what libertarians are
often ironically accused of advocating. Actually, we advocate the
exact opposite.
When we talk about the way to make a society better (having
defined better),
And having defined society.
we have to start from the way humans act and interact, not
the way they 'should'.
Agreed.
And because of the type of animal that a human being is, his life
is dominated by the groups around him.
I am not sure what you mean by "dominated". I agree that man is a
social creature. That most people enjoy interacting with others.
Some people on this list have somehow gotten the idea that
libertarians think otherwise. This is not the case.
There is a big difference between freely interacting with others and
being "dominated" by others.
People behave very differently when they are in groups. ...
If people are always in groups, how can you say they act differently
in groups? Differently from what? From if they lived in a cave? So?
People are still individuals in a group, but they perform
different functions - leader, conscience, facilitator, worker.
Different functions than what? Than they would in a cave? There is
nothing un-libertarian about joining a group with (or as) a leader,
etc. But nobody is COMPELLED to be a leader or to follow a leader.
Everyone is free to leave the group if they don't like the leader, and
to join another group, or to form one of their own, or even to live
alone in a cave.
Individuals only rarely, extremely rarely, remove themselves
completely from society (small s: a group of people larger than
the immediate family).
Do you think you are arguing against me? You are arguing with a
straw man of your own devising.
Society does force individuals to do things, it always has and it
probable always will.
Society consists only of individuals. You think that some
individuals should be allowed to force others to do things? Why?
Or do you think it would be good if they didn't, but you don't think
this is possible because it has "always" been done this way? You see,
I can't figure out whether you are happily advocating a coercive
system as optimal, or whether you are saying "give up, it's hopeless,
there is no escape from our prison". If the latter, please realize
there IS a way out. Read Ayn Rand for more details.
Arguing against it is like argruing that people shouldn't fall in
love, or shouldn't be sad if someone they do love dies.
I am not sure if you are saying "these are also good" or "these are
also inevitable". Please clarify.
The system of a powerful central governing body (Government,
church, employer) is a central part of most peoples lives.
You are lumping employers and churches together with governments.
This is completely wrong. Churches and employers are VOLUNTARY
organizations. Government is NOT.
The system of a strong central Government, with the heads
democratically elected, has evolved because people, even the
workers, want to be hassled as little as possible, pure and
simple.
I agree that people want to be hassled as little as possible. Why
do you say "even" the workers? Do you expect that they might want to
be hassled more?
I am not sure what you mean by a "strong" government. If you mean
one that is competent at protecting people's rights from criminals and
foreign invaders, I agree that a strong government is good. If by
"strong" you mean a government that controls every aspect of
everyone's life, I think that a strong government is very bad.
But they also don't want to concern themselves day in and day
out with the running of the society (because they're not leader or
conscience or facilitator).
Sigh. You are obviously using the word "society" to mean
"government". Do you think Reagan runs everything? Are people
helpless puppets? If Reagan and Bush both went on a long vacation, do
you think everything would grind to a halt? Would food not grow?
Would factories not manufacture goods? Would trucks and trains not
deliver goods? Would TV and radio stations stop broadcasting? Would
air conditioning and heating systems stop running?
If society is the interaction of all the individuals, then we ALL
run society, and do so every day. You run society when you work. You
run society when you play. I am running society by reading your
message and replying to it.
The removal of power from the immediate (employer, parish priest)
to the far away (Washington) does a lot to realize this ideal.
Wrong, wrong, WRONG! Government power is the power to coerce.
Priests and employers have no coercive power. You are free to tell
them both to go jump in the lake.
If you weaken the government enough, this system falls apart.
What system? The only system you have described is a mass of
contradictions and fuzzy thinking.
The libertarians think they can weaken the government to an
amazing degree, but still have it be able to control the
corporations, the Mafia bosses.
I think the government can prevent the mafia, corporations, etc,
from violating other people's rights - at least to the extent they are
able to prevent this now - by voluntary contributions. The more
concerned people are with crime the more they will be willing to
contribute. And private security will grow in importance in places
where it is more practical than government security. People should
learn self defense.
Why do you put "corporations" with the mafia? What about plain old
street thugs? Do you believe that corporations violate people's
rights more than burglars and muggers do? Why?
I guess if I had to sum it all up, I'ld say that libertarians are
reductionists, and see only the individuals.
No, but we DO see the individual as being the most important thing
in the world. If there is to be a government its only purpose is to
protect the rights of individuals. No organization should exist
except to benefit individuals. The idea that organizations have
rights and privileges in and of themselves, independently from the
rights and privileges of their individual members, makes no sense at
all to me. It is a small step from saying that some organizations
exist to benefit other organizations to saying that individuals exist
to benefit some organizations, specifically government. This is the
central tenet of fascist and communist systems. We all know what sort
of tyranny such systems invariably quickly lead to.
I say that people behave differently in groups, and society
actually forms a meta-being.
This may be true in some metaphorical sense, but trying to apply it
literally, in particular, trying to say that the meta-being has the
same rights as individuals in and of itself, leads to very strange
conclusions. Is peacefully replacing our current government "murder"
of some meta-being?
...Keith
-------