From: m5@vail.tivoli.com (Mike McNally)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 94 08:37:57 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: crypto in the NY Times
In-Reply-To: <9406111446.AA23625@toad.com>
Message-ID: <9406111537.AA13182@vail.tivoli.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



smb@research.att.com writes:
 > The magazine section of tomorrow's N.Y.From owner-cypherpunks  Sat Jun 11 15:37:34 1994
Return-Path: <owner-cypherpunks>
Received: by toad.com id AA00210; Sat, 11 Jun 94 15:37:34 PDT
Received: from zoom.bga.com by toad.com id AA00197; Sat, 11 Jun 94 15:37:24 PDT
Received: (from ravage@localhost) by zoom.bga.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id RAA04770; Sat, 11 Jun 1994 17:37:03 -0500
From: Jim choate <ravage@bga.com>
Message-Id: <199406112237.RAA04770@zoom.bga.com>
Subject: Re: Crime and punishment in cyberspace - 3 of 3
To: diseased@panix.com (Edward Hirsch)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 17:37:03 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.87.9406110009.A14159-0100000@panix.com> from "Edward Hirsch" at Jun 11, 94 00:29:09 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 3273      
Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com
Precedence: bulk

> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 10 Jun 1994, Jim choate wrote:
> > > 
> > >
> > Seems to me the 'inalienable rights' that are mentioned in our founding 
> > charter carry this argument quite well. I suspect they also 'prove' them
> > as well. 
> 
> Claiming that certain rights are inalieable is hardly the same as 
> "carrying the arguement" of their inalienablility.  I hold that man has 
> an inalienable right to free and 
> unlimited supplies of cheesecake... does the fact that I say so "prove" that this is an inalienable right?
>
If eating cheesecake makes you happppy then the Constitution says you have
an inalienable right to it. This of course implies that  your expression of 
that right does not infringe on others.

> >I am really not saying anything about 
> >'natural' rights though.
> 
> Well, by claiming that rights exist prior to the formation of the state 
> or charter, you are claiming that they come from the state of nature, or 
> are inherent to the human condition.  This is what is meant by the phrase 
> "natural rights."
>
All rights are natural rights. Your assumptio that governments arent natural
(for people) is cleary one based in unclear thinking. People are social animals
and their creation of governments is a natural expression of this. All rights
are natural.

> > The point I am making is that a government is defined by what it can and
> > can't do. This distinction is made at its creation through its charter.> 
> 
> Exactly.  Which is why rights come into existence only *after* the 
> charter which declares them is accepted, not before.  
>
Wrong, one has to be able to clearly define those rights prior to writing
them down. At least for me I have the thought and then write it down, not
the other way around. 

> > Since when isn't the Constitution a legal context?
> 
> The Constitution is a "legal context," that's why we can use it to 
> justify the existence of a right... we can say, for example, freedom of 
> the press is a right because the Constitution says so.  However, freedom 
> of the press became a right only when the Constitution declared it, and 
> not before.  This is why, for example, housing is not at present a right, 
> no matter how much some people think it should be. Housing will become a 
> right only if and when the state decides to declare it a right. 
> 
>
Wrong again, the right will happen when people decide to include it in the
Constitution, The document does not change under its own volition. The 
state can be changed under the constitution if enough people say they 
wanted it changed to cover a particular right. This is why the states
have the right to change the Constitution w/o Congressional approval. You
simply need to get the requisite number of states to agree to it.

As to freedom of the press, it was free until the English started trying
to regulate it. The people here felt that was an untold intrusion of 
any government into the actions of men.

Seems to me that a implicit assumption in  your argument is that the
actions of governments supercede the rights of man. I ask  you to explain
whey the Constitution goes to great expense to detail and explain the
rights of men and how they are decided (see Article  9, 10) and the fact
that the state is given NO rights at all...