From: ethridge@Onramp.NET (Allen Ethridge)
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 17:37:02 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Nature of Rights
In-Reply-To: <adbdfc49030210049d28@[205.199.118.202]>
Message-ID: <199605142259371109420@lbj15.onramp.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Tim May wrote:

> At 5:09 AM 5/14/96, Allen Ethridge wrote:

> >And on another thread, if rights are simply restrictions on the
> >government and not attributes (inate, even) of the individual, then they
> >are meaningless.

> I presume you're speaking about my point....

Yes.

> This is generally not the place to have long debates about the nature of
> government and of civil rights, . . .

Yes.

> . . .

> As nearly every argument in this area points out, your right to free speech
> does not mean you get to use my newspaper, nor my public address system,
> nor my computer service.

> The so-called innate or intrinsic rights ("life, liberty, and the pursuit
> of happiness") are basically bromides. Philosophical arguing points for a
> view of government as being limited in scope.

> Converting a slogan like this to assume this means government will
> guarantee jobs for all, or will provide two cars in every driveway, or
> whatever, has been fraught with problems.  Not the least of which are that
> such goals are inimical to the actual, enumerated rights.

Nice straw men, but not quite to the point.  I was thinking more along
the lines of the often overlooked 9th and 10th Amendments.  And, as you
mentioned in another post, I was discussing the way things should be,
not the way they are.


-- 
if not me, then who?
mailto:ethridge@onramp.net
http://rampages.onramp.net/~ethridge/