From: Jim choate <ravage@wixer.bga.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 07:29:02 PST
To: blancw@microsoft.com (Blanc Weber)
Subject: RE: Civil Rights
In-Reply-To: <9402280424.AA22224@netmail2.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <9402281521.AA04599@wixer>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


The problem I see with your comments, in particular in reference to the
source of the rights I mentioned, is the original contact that defines the
government. In your reply you used references to both of the documents that
define and establish our government, these documents are what define the
rights of the individual, not the legistlative body who makes laws ex post
facto. In short, the rights are granted when the government is created and
not later, unless of course the original documents define a method of change
through some process. The rights have to be granted, or defined in some
manner, before any laws can be enacted by any legislative body.

The whole idea of the Declaration of Indipendance and the Constitution is
that there are some facets of an individual which they have simply by
existing. These characteristics are beyond the normal law-making powers of
that body. In short it is the realization that individuals have certain
characterisitics which are damaging to any form of government if they are
allowed to be regulated in any manner by that government. No matter how
heinous, uncomfortable, or silly these actions may be. The only caveat which
might be applied to such rights would be that they harm a person or their
property w/o the owners prior consent. Without this there is no basis for
government in the first place. It simply breaks down to who is bigger and
willing to use more force to get what they want and hopefully can keep it
when the next 'billy bad-ass' comes along (in short this is anarchy, pure -
plain - and simple). There is no place for any form of anarchy in any form of
human organization. There is a place for non-structured interaction, but
calling that 'anarchy' besmurches all of our intelligences.

In our specific case our founding charters (I feel to talk about the
Declaration of Indipendance or the Constitution w/o mentioning the other is a
slight of hand and a  civil disservice) make it plain that we should be able
to make any public statement no matter how unpopular w/o regards to any form
of legal ramifications from the governing body. All our other rights stem
from this single idea. As to anonymouse statements, the founding fathers used
the pen name 'Publius' in several of their writing, it has a long and
respected history in our country and should be fully supported. The bottem
line being people should be able to say whatever they please and it is not
any government regulatory agencies business in any manner, shape, or form. If
people feel that they want to use crypto then so they shall, in any form they
choose. The people of the US are guaranteed by general consent (ie you keep
your citizenship) to abide by these rules of action because while they may
cause short-term discomfort they provide long-term security.

Our charter provides a means to alter it in a reasoned and controlled manner
where the citizens must decide themselves, the Constitutional Amendment.
Nowhere in our charters are the government given the power regulate drug use,
crypto, sexual service sales, etc. w/o asking us first. For them to have such
powers they MUST have an amendment added. The last time the US government
acted legally in such manners was concerning the prohibition and right to
vote amendments. The present laws that control many of our actions are un-
constitutional becuase there is no amendment giving the legistlative powers
that be the right to control them in the first place. An added protection was
the 9th Amendment which says that if the right is not specificaly listed then
it belongs to us to do with as we please, and not the governing body. At no
place in the charters does it provide a means or method to bypass this, and
with good cause I believe. Personaly, I believe that this whole mess started
during WWII because of the need to act as a cohesive whole against a commen
threat, that situation no longer exists and really is not even probable.

The government belongs to us, we don't have to ask their permission for a
damn thing. We do tell them what we want and basicly how to go about doing it.
We dont owe them one penny in tithe, they owe us.