From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 09:40:52 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Oct9.214739.1488@u.washington.edu>, sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
|> In article <9S5-sJB@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|> >
|> >No, in the original Constitutional sense.  There is no power granted
|> >to the Federal government giving it the ability to interfere with
|> >such contracts.
|> 
|> Sometimes, the courts have justified such legislation
|> using the "general welfare" idea which IS in the constitution. 
|> 

Another miscarriage of interpretation.  I agree with what James
Madison wrote in Federalist #41 that the general welfare "clause"
is simply an introductory statement and defines no real power.

|> 
|> >|> This works fine if you have an employer who is willing
|> >|> to negotiate.  If not, there are no options.
|> 
|> >Then I guess you find another employer.  After all, it your employers
|> >job, its *not* yours.  It would be unreasonable for the government to
|> >force a person to accept employment which was unacceptable to the person
|> >and it is equally unreasonable for the government to force an employer
|> >to make an offer to an individual that is unacceptable to the employer.
|> 
|> Your view of the employee/employer relationship is substantially
|> different than mine, as well as being substantially different
|> from that in the laws of the legal system of the US.
|> Then, I guess you can find another country. 
|> 

Ah, the enlightened liberal.  Freedom is good as long as it is
your kind of freedom (i.e. the freedom to control other people).

|> >|> 
|> >|> Maybe in some abstract realm, but in the real world
|> >|> a right requires some enforcement mechanism.
|> >
|> >There is a difference between provision and protection.  I have a
|> >right to the fruits of my labor.  In the real world, this requires
|> >protection against those who would violate that right.  It 
|> >may require some enforcement to ensure that my right is maintained.
|> >Family leave is not a right.  It requires that a business pay
|> >for your 'right'.  This isn't enforcement, it is theft.
|> 
|> Your concept of "rights" is not only too abstract,
|> it is too mystical for me.
|> 

You must have a strange definition of abstract then.  Perhaps you
need some simple examples.  Some people claim that health care is
a 'right'.  If you were alone on a desert island, where do you
get your health care?  If you were stranded with a doctor do you
have the 'right' to force the doctor to treat you?  We could make
health care in the country universally available, if we only passed
a law requiring doctors to provide their services free of charge.
Of course when our supply of doctors dwindled we would have to pass
new laws requiring that a certain percentage of college age students
enroll in medical school.  After all, health care is a right and we
would need some enforcement to make sure that people can partake
of their 'right', correct?

You have the right to free speech, but you don't have the right
to force someone to give you a free microphone or printing press
(or laser printer).  You have a right to the 'pursuit of happiness'
but you do not have the right to steal from others, even though
that may make your life easier.  I think it is your concept of
'rights' that is too abstract and mystical.  Your concept seems
to require government intervention to make the right exist.  Your
concept requires forcing others to provide for your 'rights'.
Your concept relies on a political process to 'define' new rights.
Thanks, but no thanks.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943