From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Some more about 'RIGHTS'
Date: 4 Oct 92 20:19:38 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1aic5hINN3f8@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:
    >In article <1992Oct2.161740.6025@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
    >(Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>Wrong. There are inherent rights -- they exist whether you
    >>care to acknowledge or not. As for the majority of people you
    >>rave about,
    >>
    >yes I agree - there are inherent rights; the right to be free
    >of mental and physical persecution; the right to pursue
    >intellectual avenues that favor your desires... These are but
    >a very few of inherent rights- but who will actually define
    >them, you use inherent as 'inborn' or 'intrinsic' these are
    >very difficult to define. When I became conscious of my
    >existence as a person when I was a child- I blindly went
    >ahead thinking that any thing I did was OK- without needing
    >to worry about others, or my effects upon them. It is a
    >requirement of functional societies that they decide what is
    >to be the scope and (limits and nonlimits) of rights.

I don't agree that there is a right to be free of mental and physical
persecution. I exclude those ares of persecution that encompass initiation
of coercion -- that is never right. But, I would persecute a person such
as Ted Bundy in all ways that I could, including telling other people
that they shouldn't deal with (social, mental, commercial, or sexual
intercourse), and would engage in efforts to isolate him. All WITHOUT
any initiation of coercion.

So I don't think this is a right at all.

Especially when some people DESERVE to be persecuted.

    >>consider that Hitler both rose to power, and did what he di
    >>to the Jews legally and with the agreement of the majority of
    >>the people. Indeed, much of terrible crimes committed in the
    >>"name of god" (so to speak) have been committed with the
    >>wishes of the majority.
    >>
    >These are well known conditions; they have arose in all parts
    >of the world, and have turned into something that was not
    >beneficial. But keep in mind, you do state above that the
    >majority agreed, and then took it on themselves to exercise
    >what they thought were their inherent rights- to have their
    >fatherland (homeland) free of what they considered
    >non-germans. Hilter was the genesis behind it, but he didn't
    >do t alone.

Correct -- which is why it is so important to start reinforcing
the the right to do what one wants (adult, mutually consenting
and respectful of all property rights) to stop this. Your/their
inherent rights STOP t the tip of my nose.

    >I have never said that I wanted to control what other say- I
    >have simply stated my discontent with particular statements
    >and sentiments. To attempt to control what others say is
    >foolish and will gain nothing in the end- but I can remain
    >rational and state my case with the hope that other rational
    >people will listen and state their case and beliefs.

thts is fine, so you then retract your statement that no one has the
right to [talk bad] about other people?

    >I do not know what you are hiding behind- 'coercion' has many
    >meanings and one is that it can be applied in subtle ways-
    >especially in the area of verbal coercion.

Coercion - the act of compelling by threats of force or force.

What subtle definitions do you have in mind?


    >I think you may be inolerant of new things and new ideas,
    >that may just make sense in the end.

Naw -- I'm intolerant about a lot of things. Some of which "claim" to
be new (such as many Politically Correct trends), but aren't, being the same
old coercive shit. I am intolerant of coercion, fascists, murder, child
molestation, and a lot of other such shit. How about you?

    >>And here you are, telling me I'm wrong, and being mean about
    >>it to.
    >>
    >>
    >>Tsk tsk tsk .... can't live by what you state ...
    >>
    >Not really I did not call you any names, as you seem to have
    >to do, and did not state anything in such a way as to degrade
    >your character or person, I made a statement about what I
    >think some improvements might be.

Calling me intolerant, with the insinuation above, is not name calling?
Oh, O.K.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)