From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 23:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
To: Steve Schear <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: is there no end to AP & Creative Wiretap Arguments? [RANT]
In-Reply-To: <v02130500ae8d2b880b82@[10.0.2.15]>
Message-ID: <3269C2D9.28E2@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Steve Schear wrote:
> >Steve Schear wrote:

[snip]

> >If you read the US declaration of Independence it is very clear that its
> >authors rejected natural law arguments. The rights that they hold to be
> >"self evident" are extreemly abstract principles which could be
> >justified within almost any ethical system. The removal of the word
> >"God" was deliberate and reflects a concious rejection of the natural
> >law argument.

I read the DOI, and its meaning was clear. It stated that while people are disposed to 
put up with the excesses of govt. to a certain bearable extent, that when the govt. 
tilted toward totalitarianism, the people should revolt. How can you say "Self Evident" 
and "extremely abstract" in the same context?  Self evident merely means that when you 
subtract out the factors of disinformation that are applied in political/economic areas 
to guarantee the cash flow to the bosses, you can see clearly that nobody has a Right, 
"divine" or whatever, to rule someone else.  It's not abstract, religious, or anything. 

Think of the analogy in sound reproduction.  The salesman is trying to tell you that 
perfect reproduction doesn't exist, so you should consider that $20,000 system to be 
like a "very fine musical instrument".  On the other hand, your finely-tuned mind is 
aware that there is an "true original" sound that you're trying to reproduce, and 
whether it's 100% attainable is not the relevant issue. In other words, don't let the 
bosses confuse you with their rhetoric, if you're well-read and intelligent, you should 
be able to trust your own instincts.  That's what self-evident means.

As to the removal of "God", they said "...endowed by their Creator...", and I think that 
Creator when capitalized is more than clear, i.e., "God".  Almost all of the signers 
were Freemasons, whose membership requires belief in God (although I don't know that 
they require extensive testing as to how their members conceptualize God), and so it 
would appear that the exclusion of the term God would be more an act of conciliation or 
even superstition than a rejection of anything.