From: Blanc <blancw@cnw.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 22:37:23 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Moral Legitimacy (was Child Molester Prevention)
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970927072718.0068f0cc@cnw.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Glenn Hauman quoted:

>"But this relationship depends on the secular Left-liberals cooperating, by
>also making children a transcendental category. That they have done so has
>less to do with the welfare of children than with a restless search by
>these elites for a source of moral legitimacy to shore up their managerial
>foundations."
............................................................


	a restless search.....for a source....
	of moral legitimacy....

I am moved to preach to the Choir, for this struck me as a significant
series of words to remember.  (There have been many posts lately to which I
wanted to comment, but I'm restraining myself to this one.)  .

Some people search within the U.S. Constitution or Declaration of
Independence, for moral legitimacy to their political stands.   

Some efforts for moral legitimacy are from people who feel left out and
need (desperately) to find a place for themselves within a social/political
context.  Ex:  "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [...]
are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights..." i.e., with
certain qualities which in reality make them, therefore, no less
significant politically than any who would presume to be above them.

Some efforts seem hypocritical, appearing to be attempts at creating the
image (illusion) of being founded, similar to the concepts of Natural
Rights, upon something unquestionable or inalienable, yet upon closer
examination resembling less the endowments of a Superior Creator than of
certain psychological desires of regular Human Beings.

Differentiating between Deific Origins and other Sources:  the concept of
being endowed with qualities like "inalienable Rights" leads one to think
that one (any individual) has within them the justification for standing
separately from, and acting independently of, the absolute hold of a
"ruler" of a whole group of people.

Contrast that with concepts which lead one to forego the idea of oneself as
their own person, substituting instead the image of being situated in a
hospital, where everyone is the equivalent of a patient and all are cared
for by an Official Nurse who looks after their best interest.  All
officially justifiable and legitimate investments within this domain are
identified not by reference to innate strengths which anyone might find
within themselves, but instead are categorized as varieties of weaknesses
which give argument to the propriety of surrendering to the ministrations
of Authorized Overseers - who will sympathize, succor, and tend to those
investments.  The intent is for everyone to internalize the image of
themselves as invalids within an atmosphere of sympathy for their "special"
condition; invalids warranting the attention of the only ones who will be
sensitive to their delicacies -  those worthy causes which everyone else
neglects.

Whereas the Founders (of the U.S.) looked to innate qualities of goodness
for the justification to their rebellion against mistreatment, these
Upwardly Mobile Middle Managers look for untended frailties at the "bottom
of the barrel" to provide just cause for acquiescence to their programs.

Question:  what is "moral" legitimacy (more than merely legitimate)?
Better than Thine? One which would be so worthy of one's investment, that
it would seem like an obligation, a duty; in a society, that which would be
deemed worthy of *everyone's* time and effort, without exception.

Is it good to search for (establish) a moral basis to use as a defense of
one's manner of existence, or is it really unnecessary?  If left
unreferenced, unmentioned, will that leave a vaccum in the mind which might
otherwise support  such endeavors?  Does one *need* to legitimize one's
(political) behavior?   When it becomes necessary for a people to "assume
among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the
Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitles them, a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which
impel them to the separation."

The Founders felt the need to justify their break from the Mother Country.
 Today the UMMM feel the need to accomplish acquiescence to their goal of
situating themselves as The Legitimate Ministers of Important Matters.  As
they must evoke feelings of justification for their intents and purposes,
the reasons for these, the source, must appear to be Moral, to be
undeniably Basic and inarguably appropriate, neutralizing all argument
against it.

But "[...] when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably
the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,
it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
provide new Guards for their future security."   

Like, inviolable encryption.  <g>

    ..
Blanc