janw@inmet.UUCP (09/10/86)
[bstempleton@watmath.UUCP ] /* ----- "Population control & Freedom" ----- */ >There really isn't a problem here because free societies increase >wealth, and wealth is the most powerful contraceptive known to >man. True. There are two other simple effects in free and wealthy so- cieties which tend to solve the problem. One is that life expec- tancy grows, compared to child-bearing age. This reduces birth rate, irrespective of people's intentions and habits. The other is, of course, wealth itself making population growth painless. >Wealthy nations like Canada and the US actually have NEGATIVE po- >pulation growth rates at the current time, due to birth. Any to- >tal growth is coming entirely from immigration. The first sentence is not quite true, but it is moving that way. *With* immigration, the growth is not negligible, but easily absorbed. Much faster growth could be absorbed without misguided social legislation such as minimum wage. >So this is a non-issue. A government in a free state would see no >need to even think about population control. Agreed. >The biggest problems arise when the not-so-free states are extra >fecund, and later come claiming a bigger share of the planet be- >cause they are so numerous. In theory, that might be a problem. In practice, these claims are not correlated to fecundity. Germany used that pretext, but she was far from overpopulated (in today's FRG, density is much, much higher, but there's no Lebensraum talk). The USSR is the current superexpansionist power, but it is clearly underpopulated com- pared to most nations. China does *not* make claims even in Si- beria, though she has historical rights; she claims Taiwan, which is densely populated, and Hong Kong, populated more than densely. India is not expansionist. Population excess isn't the issue in any current territorial debate. Mexico could well make a claim against the USA - with some justification even. But she makes other claims, not land. So this is a non-problem. If someone claims your territory, they are just as likely to be less fecund than you are, as more fecund; and the answer shouldn't be different. >Currently it is not a good political move to deny this. If we >ever do have to run into this problem, the best (although un- >pleasant) solution is to say that rights to the commons are in- >herited, with a slop factor while both generations are alive. >Thus if you come from a family of 2, you get the same rights your >parents had. Family of 4, half the rights. If you don't have any >kids, you may sell or transfer your inheritable rights to rela- >tives or the highest bidder. I don't think this is realistic. Most commons are common because they aren't easily divided - such as air and the ocean. Land is either privately or nationally owned, except the Antarctic and the Moon. (Those will be probably divided later). Returning to fecund, not-so-free countries, the problem is lack of freedom. It may yet kill us. If not, the relatively free, cap- italist nations will expand spaceward, and the problem will be less fatal then - and if the unfree nations become free, it will go away. Meanwhile, liberal immigration policies would both cushion the pressure and accelerate progress. >This is not perfect, of course. Since fatherhood is harder to >verify, we get a can of worms. It would be nice if technology >could fix this - a gene scan, perhaps. Please don't. Not another area of state supervision! IRS & FBI scientifically snooping on marital infidelities - that's all we need :-(. >Now the big problem with this (or any other population limiting >scheme) is that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the >sons. But if you get people arguing that 1/4 of the world's popu- >lation (China, for example) should own 1/4 of the world's common >property (air, water, some resources, electromagnetic spectrum) Just give them the finger. They mostly don't mean it - just appealing to the morbid Western guilt complex. As the Oriental proverb goes, "Ask your relative for a camel, he'll get scared and give you a donkey". In any case, the answer to such a claim is simple: *governments* don't have a good claim to resources because *people* are numerous. As for giving all *private individuals* equal access to common resources in conditions of freedom - this is quite accept- able. But they (3d world governments) are almost all nationalis- tic, and most of them are dictatorships. They'll refuse. >Note that overpopulation among the poor is en- >couraged by most forms of welfare. If it became popular policy to >cut all charity to any family with more than 2 kids, a lot of the >problem would be solved. Certainly nobody should get extra chari- >ty because they have an extra kid. The welfare system is a mess, but we need healthy, well developed kids. Discriminating against large families won't do it. Elim- inating most welfare, but letting adults and kids earn a living, would. There is no reason why children need be a great burden on parents *or* taxpayers. A five-year old could do some kinds of work al- ready, and learn in the process. (Apropos to net.socialists: this idea was propounded by Marx, and is, if I am not mistaken, in the Communist Manifesto). School years are mostly wasted, for poor kids and rich kids, too. The 12-year course, properly taught, need take no more than 2 years. (I'd undertake to do it in 18 months, working full-time with one pupil - and beat the SAT of the average school products). Abolish most welfare, abolish public schools, abolish minimum wage; permit child labor under healthy conditions. Create (privately) a network of apprentice schools where kids would be paid a little, and fed, and taught. Let charities chip in where the parents can't; but that may not be needed. Industries will likely jump at the chance to have a workforce tailored to their needs many years in advance, meanwhile doing something useful. Kids will be *needed*. Get rid of race prejudice interfering with adoption of minority kids. Babies are needed, too. The problem is not inequality, but lack of social mobility. As we are graduating into a post-industrial era, a part of our popu- lation is stuck and unable to adapt. It is *not* a matter of their getting too little, or too much, of the pie. The problem is qualitative, it is one of skills, incentives and role models. And of intermediate steps; a family does not have to make it in one generation. What's wrong with this progress report: grandmother on welfare, mother a cleaning lady, daughter an electrician, granddaughter an engineer? Even the Kennedy clan didn't make the presidency in one generation... Jan Wasilewsky
rdh@sun.uucp (Robert Hartman) (09/13/86)
To paraphrase: >>[janw] People's right to procreate shouldn't be violated under any circumstances. >[carnes] People's demand for a reasonably good quality of life should be respected, and if necessary, protected by govt. intervention. The fact is that the overpopulation scenario is a classic example of how a collection of individuals, each acting independently in his perceived (or misperceived as the case may be) best interests, can produce a tragic result that affects them all, and that none of them wants. This is where the "enlightened" aspect of "enlightened self-interest" should come into play, both on the part of the indiviuals to see the aggregate situation, and on the part of those making policy to educate, persuade, reward, and withhold rewards, to effectively influence individual decisions. I should think that the goal would be to encourage people to be satisified with the number of children that they can reasonably expect to support, and to effectively discourage them from having more than they can reasonably expected to support. The operative words here are "reasonable" and "effective"; there may be a tradeoff between the two. BTW, the Constitution guarantees everyone a right to privacy, but I have yet to see a Constitutional guarantee of a right to have children. That's my obligatory little jab at Jan's position, but I won't push it. -bob.
rat@tybalt.caltech.edu.Caltech.Edu (Ray Trent) (09/15/86)
In article <11700397@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: >Procreation rights follow simply from one's right to dispose of >one's own body. That right is so basic that it must be preserved >unless you want all other rights to go. Even the less extreme >forms of slavery respect it. It includes the right to conceive >and the right not to abort. Together, they form the right to pro- >create. Tsk tsk. This, after Jan gives us a lecture on the need to define rights clearly. Surely Jan does not believe in a right to do whatever one wants to one's body regardless of the impact on others. Surely he will not say that I have a right, for example, to take a drug which induces homicidal paranoia while walking a busy city street. Richard Carnes asserts that procreation has negative effects on others. Jan replies that not all negative effects count as possible grounds for restricting an activity. Well -- speaking of defining rights clearly -- *which* ones don't count, and why not? (Especially why not -- you'll have a hard time convincing me on that score.) Back to square one. what you need, Paul Torek, not necessarily reflecting the views of: rat@tybalt.caltech.edu
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (09/15/86)
[janw] >Procreation rights follow simply from one's right to dispose of one's >own body. That right is so basic that it must be preserved unless >you want all other rights to go. Even the less extreme forms of >slavery respect it. It includes the right to conceive and the right >not to abort. Together, they form the right to procreate. Are government-mandated vaccinations and immunizations ever justifiable, in your view? This seems like a clear violation of the alleged absolute right to dispose of one's own body. Richard Carnes
mccarthy@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (John Edward McCarthy) (09/15/86)
>Sure, let's preserve genetic diversity: let's stock our zoos, >collect seeds, freeze some animal sperm and eggs for future >use. Wilson's statement, however, is ridiculous. Species die out >all the time, with or without human help. A few hundred or >thousand species is a drop in the ocean. And we will soon start >creating new species. The problem is of *some* importance but >has no relevance whatsoever to population control. > Jan Wasilewsky Prior to increase in human ability to destroy the environment, species died out at an average rate of about 2 per century. Now it's in the thousands and increasing. The arrogance inherent in your anthropocentric chauvinism is exceeded only by the myopia exhibited by your belief that human life in a world barren of ecological diversity would not be dreadfully impoverished. John McCarthy
verber@osu-eddie.UUCP (Mark Verber) (09/15/86)
In article <7220@sun.uucp> rdh@sun.UUCP (Robert Hartman) writes: > mumble, mumble, ... >This is where the "enlightened" aspect of "enlightened self-interest" >should come into play, both on the part of the indiviuals to see the >aggregate situation, and on the part of those making policy to educate, >persuade, reward, and withhold rewards, to effectively influence individual >decisions. > >I should think that the goal would be to encourage people to be >satisified with the number of children that they can reasonably expect >to support, and to effectively discourage them from having more than >they can reasonably expected to support. The operative words here >are "reasonable" and "effective"; there may be a tradeoff between the >two. > > ... From my observations, the only truly effective way to limit the number of children is to remove the economic advantage that many children bring. In many opf the developping countries it is to the parents advatage to have as many children as possible. After all, who is going to take care of you in your old age, help with the work, ... The best long term solution from my perspective is to make having a limited number of children advantagous. You can see the effects of this in the US and most of Western Europe. This would require massive support of the third world over a number of years. Andrei Sakharov in Progress, Coexistence & Intellectual Freedom finds fault in the US and the CCCP for many of these problems. He points out that neither country have given enough aid to really help the long term situations, but has applied enough to help the country get by, or has given enough to win political favor. Cheers, Mark A. Verber verber@ohio-state.arpa (internet) The Ohio State University verber@ohio-state.csnet (csnet) +1 (614) 422-0915 cbosgd!osu-eddie!verber (uucpnet)
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/16/86)
You know, I often get the feeling that everybody must "n" past Jan's articles, because nobody nails him on the howlers near the end. In article <11700392@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: [100+ lines deleted... mrh] > There is no reason why children need be a great burden on parents > *or* taxpayers. A five-year old could do some kinds of work al- > ready, and learn in the process. What a novel idea! Jan has invented CHORES and CHILD LABOR, for which I'm sure generations of children to come will praise him. And just think how much they'll learn performing repetitive tasks instead of wasting their time learning their 3 R's or any other such liberal bunk. > School years are mostly wasted, for poor kids and rich kids, too. > The 12-year course, properly taught, need take no more than 2 > years. (I'd undertake to do it in 18 months, working full-time > with one pupil - and beat the SAT of the average school products). While some portion of the school years are wasted, the solution is to teach more in the course, not merely to shrink the time spent. The two year claim is absurd. At what age does Jan propose to teach for two years? An average student? Give us a break. If this was practical, we'd see lots more 15 year olds (or younger) from private schools entering college. > Abolish most welfare, abolish public schools, abolish minimum > wage; permit child labor under healthy conditions. Create > (privately) a network of apprentice schools where kids would be > paid a little, and fed, and taught. Let charities chip in where > the parents can't; but that may not be needed. Industries will > likely jump at the chance to have a workforce tailored to their > needs many years in advance, meanwhile doing something useful. We used to have that. Among other things, it included migrant labor. I'm sure those farmers and industrialists were plenty interested in spending all the money they saved by hiring children on educating the children. Right. :-( > Kids will be *needed*. Get rid of race prejudice interfering > with adoption of minority kids. Babies are needed, too. This reminds me of a Monty Python sketch about how to solve the problem of world disease. "Become a doctor, discover something really important so that people really listen to you, etc...." I had no idea you were such a Utopian, Jan. > The problem is not inequality, but lack of social mobility. Return to a system of apprenticeship is going to alleviate a lack of social mobility? Our current society probably has the least barriers to social mobility of any historical society. > As we are graduating into a post-industrial era, a part of our popu- > lation is stuck and unable to adapt. It is *not* a matter of > their getting too little, or too much, of the pie. The problem is > qualitative, it is one of skills, incentives and role models. And > of intermediate steps; a family does not have to make it in one > generation. What's wrong with this progress report: grandmother > on welfare, mother a cleaning lady, daughter an electrician, > granddaughter an engineer? What's wrong is that two generations have missed out on their potential for no good reason. Perhaps you've progressed too fast for your family, Jan. Care to go back to the old village as a peasant? (Or whatever lowly position is appropriate for your ancestry.) For someone who's concerned with social mobility, your idea of stretching it out over four or more generations is a cop out. Why should anyone with potential be slowed down? The real problem is that for long periods of time, "free market" mechanisms like prejudice, bigotry, child labor, etc. don't merely "slow down" social mobility: they lock large numbers of people into cycles of poverty and repression. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
wex@milano.UUCP (09/16/86)
In article <15675@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, mccarthy@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (John Edward McCarthy) writes: > Prior to increase in human ability to destroy the environment, species > died out at an average rate of about 2 per century. Now it's in the > thousands and increasing. The arrogance inherent in your anthropocentric > chauvinism is exceeded only by the myopia exhibited by your belief that > human life in a world barren of ecological diversity would not be dreadfully > impoverished. > John McCarthy I'm not sure this is totally true. I work with several conservation organizations (NRDC, World Wildlife Fund, Nature Conservancy, etc.). I seem to recall that experts now think that 98% of all species are now extinct. It is hard to believe figures for species extinction from the past because the information from that time is so poor. Most species were not even known; how would we determine how many species died out from say 1700-1799? There is evidence for species known today but how does that compare with the past? I agree with John, however, that we (mankind) are destroying species at an incredible rate and that we will soon have real problems as the destruction wreaked on nature begins to make itself felt in humankind. (Some of this can be seen in the third world today, but the developed nations are only beginning to experience it.) -- Alan Wexelblat ARPA: WEX@MCC.ARPA or WEX@MCC.COM UUCP: {seismo, harvard, gatech, pyramid, &c.}!ut-sally!im4u!milano!wex "All that money makes such a succulent sound."
rdh@sun.UUCP (09/16/86)
>[janw] >Procreation rights follow simply from one's right to dispose of one's >own body. That right is so basic that it must be preserved unless >you want all other rights to go. Even the less extreme forms of >slavery respect it. It includes the right to conceive and the right >not to abort. Together, they form the right to procreate. > Well, Jan, you took the bait. First of all, if childbirth were parthenogenic, then you would be entirely correct that a right to do so could be logically inferred from one's own rights. HOWEVER, it ISN'T. Therefore you could reasonably conclude that (if it is decided at all and not just an accident--in this day there is absolutely no need for such accidents) childbearing comes the result of a JOINT DECISION BETWEEN two RESPONSIBLE ADULTS. The decision, which is irrevocable, implies a very large commitment on their parts, and society's part to back them up -- because, as you point out, once born the child has rights that must be honored by society. You could reasonably assert that childbearing is a PRIVILEDGE that adults confer upon one another by association, since it can be preempted simply by the withdrawal of consent or participation by one or the other adults before a child comes. (Afterwards, if they want to back out or can't cut it, it's everybody's problem, and that includes YOU Jan.) You could say that each consenting (there's that word again) adult has the responsibility to make sure that both he or she AND THE OTHER PERSON are prepared to live up to the commitment it entails. If a pair consistently refuses to act in a responsible manner, as with any privilege in society, steps may have to be taken to limit the damage they cause, even though no individual (except perhaps their children) can place a specific monetary figure on the damage done to him. This is why relatives and friends are invited to weddings -- to assert the community's faith in their judgement, and their support for the children should disaster strike. And this is why, perfunctory though it is, you still need a license to get married (and by implication, have "legitimate" children). This also means, Jan, that those two people can entangle you in their problems, just by having more children than they can support. Isn't that nice! If you want to preserve your independence, and not get voted out of your pay, you'd better make sure you let those adults know that it would be a damn good idea for them to have only the number of children they can reasonably expect to support. Hopefully your policy would provide some direct consequences for them if they unreasonably insist on doing otherwise. If slave holders don't restrict childbirth amongst slaves, that's probably because they view the children as an "economic resource" in a much less abstract fashion than I think you mean by the words. Knowing how you react to the idea of slavery, I'd suggest your rethink your view of unrestricted population growth. People can be enslaved much more readily when demand for basic life-support far exceeds supply. Keep your mind open and keep thinking about it. -bob.
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (09/24/86)
>But consider three parent pairs. Mr. and Mrs. X think people are >crowding seals out, and refuse to have kids. Mr. and Mrs. Y be- >lieve human kids are compatible with seals, and they have 4 boys and >a girl. Mr. and Mrs. Z couldn't care less about seals, and have 4 >girls and a boy. > >In the name of *what* principle may the X's punish the Y's and the >Z's? I don't see any. > Jan Wasilewsky I don't see the point of this confused and/or confusing comment, but here is a response. The X's may impose sanctions (or penalties) on the other couples only if they have the legitimate political authority to do so and if the specific measures taken are not unjust. The same is true of the other couples. So it is a question of political philosophy: what constitutes legitimate authority and what is just and unjust? Richard Carnes
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/24/86)
[radford@calgary.UUCP ] >For those who don't believe Jan meant this as satire, I will point out >that effective means of suicide have never been hard to come by, so this >isn't much of a "proposal". A "decriminalized but not legalized" case. But I made my position clear many times. I like people; I welcome more of them around; I think they make more living space for each other than they take; but I also think birth and death ought to be private. I am not into social tinkering of either population- reducing, or population-increasing kind. The "proposal" is in the nature of a challenge to the other side of the debate: if you want that, say I, then you ought to prefer this. Utilitarianism is not my basic approach: but I believe that, con- sistently followed, it leads to libertarian conclusions, as it often did in the hands of Mill. >I also note that the title of the posting, >"A Modest Proposal", was first used by Jonathan Swift in advocating >that Irish babies be eaten. Exactly. That old essay is a staple of modern English-language education. I expected readers to recollect it. To make it even clearer: I don't recommend or encourage suicide. If I did, I would do it for the sake of the person involved - not to relieve traffic congestion (like that governor who said old people have a duty to die). But even *that* is less heinous than imposed birth control. Jan Wasilewsky
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (09/25/86)
In article <7220@sun.uucp> rdh@sun.UUCP (Robert Hartman) writes: > >BTW, the Constitution guarantees everyone a right to privacy, but I have yet >to see a Constitutional guarantee of a right to have children. That's my >obligatory little jab at Jan's position, but I won't push it. This is a peculiar statement, in as much as the Constitution does not mention either a right to privacy or a right to bear children. Both of these rights, to the extent that they are Constitutionally protected, are based on interpretation and inference, rather than on explicit guarantees. Have you not read the Constitution? -- David desJardins Note: Some state constitutions do mention an explicit right to privacy. This includes California's, I believe.
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/25/86)
[mrh@cybvax0.UUCP ] >> There is no reason why children need be a great burden on parents >> *or* taxpayers. A five-year old could do some kinds of work al- >> ready, and learn in the process. >What a novel idea! Jan has invented CHORES and CHILD LABOR, for >which I'm sure generations of children to come will praise him. Hm... Little Mozart did not exactly curse the chores of his child-labor. One learns better by doing something useful, if it's also fun, than by scholastic drill. >And just think how much they'll learn performing repetitive tasks >instead of wasting their time learning their 3 R's or any other >such liberal bunk. Why not compare *creative* work with *repetitive* studies? >> School years are mostly wasted, for poor kids and rich kids, too. >> The 12-year course, properly taught, need take no more than 2 >> years. (I'd undertake to do it in 18 months, working full-time >> with one pupil - and beat the SAT of the average school products). >While some portion of the school years are wasted, the solution >is to teach more in the course, not merely to shrink the time >spent. Why not both? >The two year claim is absurd. At what age does Jan propose to >teach for two years? I don't. I said it *could* be done. I'd rather intersperse learn- ing with work and play. Still, 13 years from kindergarten to gra- duation is monstrously long. >An average student? Give us a break. If this was practical, we'd >see lots more 15 year olds (or younger) from private schools >entering college. Private schools only look good compared to public schools. They are overregulated, and lack the spur of competition, because of the rotten public school system. >> Abolish most welfare, abolish public schools, abolish minimum >> wage; permit child labor under healthy conditions. Create >> (privately) a network of apprentice schools where kids would be >> paid a little, and fed, and taught. Let charities chip in where >> the parents can't; but that may not be needed. Industries will >> likely jump at the chance to have a workforce tailored to their >> needs many years in advance, meanwhile doing something useful. >We used to have that. Among other things, it included migrant labor. >I'm sure those farmers and industrialists were plenty interested in >spending all the money they saved by hiring children on educating the >children. Right. :-( Depends on the contract, on supply and demand - on the times, too. For its times, apprentice system seems to have done a good job. The public school system, for our times, is doing abysmally. >> Kids will be *needed*. Get rid of race prejudice interfering >> with adoption of minority kids. Babies are needed, too. > [...] I had no idea you were such a Utopian, Jan. "A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail". (Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism). He's right. Modern age is in many ways beyond the wildest utopian dreams of a few centuries ago. As for racial mores changing in this nation - it is gradual, but we are more than half-way there already. (BTW, the American Left deserves great credit for its part in the change. Whatever else it did or does, this should never be forgotten). >> The problem is not inequality, but lack of social mobility. >Return to a system of apprenticeship is going to alleviate a lack >of social mobility? Our current society probably has the least >barriers to social mobility of any historical society. Overt barriers - maybe. But social mobility is significantly down from previous generations. Apprenticeship can enhance social mo- bility by giving youngsters their first marketable skill early. Ask Ben Franklin. >> As we are graduating into a post-industrial era, a part of our popu- >> lation is stuck and unable to adapt. It is *not* a matter of >> their getting too little, or too much, of the pie. The problem is >> qualitative, it is one of skills, incentives and role models. And >> of intermediate steps; a family does not have to make it in one >> generation. What's wrong with this progress report: grandmother >> on welfare, mother a cleaning lady, daughter an electrician, >> granddaughter an engineer? >What's wrong is that two generations have missed out on their potential >for no good reason. I don't see that they did: each one had a sense of achievement. What *is* wrong is that generations of our people *are* wasted *not* moving up from a very unsatisfactory position. >Perhaps you've progressed too fast for your family, Jan. Care to >go back to the old village as a peasant? (Or whatever lowly posi- >tion is appropriate for your ancestry.) Oh, they include all sorts. One great-grandfather *was* a peasant. I can't boast I progressed much. If I did (in some worthwhile sense) of course I would be proud of this. >For someone who's concerned with social mobility, your idea of >stretching it out over four or more generations is a cop out. Why >should anyone with potential be slowed down? They should not. The faster the better of course. Part of the po- tential *is* one's background as a kid - which can make progress a family enterprise. I am speaking of accelerating from zero up, not of slowing someone down. >The real problem is that for long periods of time, "free market" >mechanisms like prejudice, bigotry, child labor, etc. don't >merely "slow down" social mobility: they lock large numbers of >people into cycles of poverty and repression. No, free market favors social mobility. This is a plain historical fact. Welfarism is one of the systems that *do* lock people into cycles of poverty. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/26/86)
[rat@tybalt.caltech.edu.Caltech.Edu ] >>Procreation rights follow simply from one's right to dispose of >>one's own body. >Tsk tsk. This, after Jan gives us a lecture on the need to define >rights clearly. Surely Jan does not believe in a right to do >whatever one wants to one's body regardless of the impact on others. Surely I do. No problems arise unless it collides (as is unlike- ly) with another right as basic as itself. I don't think clarity gains by attempts to list recipes for every contingency. Basic principles ought to be clear; ramifications are inevitably tangled. >Surely he will not say that I have a right, for example, to take a >drug which induces homicidal paranoia while walking a busy city >street. Comes the unlikely collision... Hard cases make bad law but good logical entertainment. This can be unraveled in several ways. E.g.: (1) *Taking* the drug is a right. Going there under its influence may or may not be a right. Homicide is certainly a crime. You therefore act imprudently by taking the drug, criminally afterwards. (The case is analogous to drinking, then driving, then killing someone). (2) An attack justifies self-defense. Preparations for it, inno- cent in themselves, become part of it, and justify self-defense. E.g., asking someone for five bucks is O.K., but not if it is the initial stage of a mugging. Let us assume that the verdict in the Goetz case is Not Guilty. The basic right of free speech (in- volved in asking for the five bucks) is not abrogated by this. Speech was not reacted to as such, but as a symptom of imminent action. The basic right to self-defense wins, in this case. So your berserker drug-taker is in an initial stage of an attack on others' bodies, not his own, and they can restrain him. If ba- bies were *really* ticking bombs, isolating pregnant women would be justified. You objected to my assertion that disposing of one's body is a basic right. Let me ask a counter question: do *you* know of any basic rights? If yes, I bet they are liable to the same kind of casuistic conundrum. If no... well, then I'd ask what you fill the vacuum with - expediency, or a system of duties, not rights, or a live oracle (like the Supreme Court), or what? >Richard Carnes asserts that procreation has negative effects on >others. Jan replies that not all negative effects count as possible >grounds for restricting an activity. But without conceding the negative effects. >Well -- speaking of defining rights clearly -- *which* ones don't >count, and why not? (Especially why not -- you'll have a hard >time convincing me on that score.) Back to square one. Write these four words in the square: rights count, interests don't. Violating another's rights may justify restraint; damaging another's interests may not, unless it violates rights. Why? Well, making *all* interests count would leave *no* right to do anything, as each action affects someone's interests. Restrict- ing an activity would be always justified, and this makes abso- lute the authority of those who decide what to restrict in each case, and how. Counting only *some* interests would eliminate this unsatisfactory conclusion - provided they were finite interests with clear boundaries - so that *some* activity could go on without affecting them. We are close now to reintroducing the concept of a *right*. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/28/86)
>[carnes@gargoyle.UUCP ] >>But consider three parent pairs. Mr. and Mrs. X think people are >>crowding seals out, and refuse to have kids. Mr. and Mrs. Y be- >>lieve human kids are compatible with seals, and they have 4 boys and >>a girl. Mr. and Mrs. Z couldn't care less about seals, and have 4 >>girls and a boy. >>In the name of *what* principle may the X's punish the Y's and the >>Z's? I don't see any. >> Jan Wasilewsky >I don't see the point of this confused and/or confusing comment, but >here is a response. Well, giving a response before seeing the point is to risk missing the point. Strangely, having found this part of my article confusing - you chose it as the only one to respond to... >The X's may impose sanctions (or penalties) on the other couples >only if they have the legitimate political authority to do so and >if the specific measures taken are not unjust. The same is true >of the other couples. So it is a question of political philoso- >phy: what constitutes legitimate authority and what is just and >unjust? Quite right: you repeat the question in more general terms, but you don't answer it. It is as if I said: well, I don't see how you can build a faster-than-light spaceship (implying I don't believe you can) - and you'd answer that it is a matter of physics and engineering. *I am leaving aside here the question of _people_ needing other species, which I answered separately.* Are the X's to tell the Z's : the seal's right to have puppies is, under our political philosophy, greater than your right to have children? What political philosophy is that? Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/28/86)
[desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU ] >In article <7220@sun.uucp> rdh@sun.UUCP (Robert Hartman) writes: >> >>BTW, the Constitution guarantees everyone a right to privacy, but >>I have yet to see a Constitutional guarantee of a right to have >>children. That's my obligatory little jab at Jan's position, but >>I won't push it. Surely the "right to privacy" guarantees the right *not* to abort at least as much as the right to abort. > This is a peculiar statement, in as much as the Constitution does not >mention either a right to privacy or a right to bear children. Both of >these rights, to the extent that they are Constitutionally protected, >are based on interpretation and inference, rather than on explicit >guarantees. That's true, as far as it goes. But some rights are so basic that they had never been questioned, and therefore were not specifically asserted. The Framers noticed this problem, and *addressed* it in the 9th and 10th amendments. Jan Wasilewsky
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (10/11/86)
In article <117400070@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: >That's true, as far as it goes. But some rights are so basic >that they had never been questioned, and therefore were not >specifically asserted. The Framers noticed this problem, >and *addressed* it in the 9th and 10th amendments. Neither the Ninth nor the Tenth Amendment have any bearing on the question of a Constitutional "right to privacy." The Ninth Amendment merely makes it clear that the Constitution does not *deny* the right to privacy, but this in no sense means that this "right" is guaranteed or protected. The Tenth Amendment is even more unrelated; all it says is that the States and the people have certain powers, and it does not address the question of the extent of the powers of the State over the people; that is left to the individual state constitutions. -- David desJardins