From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Privacy    (was Re: what the hell is HR 4983
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:34:02 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <BtvyFG.Kr0@rice.edu> kossack@qvi.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.142812.20723@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>- >	Murder laws are a States Rights issue! 
>- 
>- So if you had a right to life in Texas, but not in Oklahoma, and went
>- visting your in-laws in OK and got killed, too bad?  No thanks, I'd
>
>	You would rather impose your views on folk in Oklahoma? 
>
>	If the people of Oklahoma, as a whole, feel that homicide is 
>   not a crime, why should you, as a non-resident, be able to force 
>   your views on them?  I seem to recall you complaining that the 
>   "religious right" was trying to force their morality on unwilling 
>   folk, but you seem eager to do _the_exact_same_thing_ to those 
>   hypothetical pro-murder Oklahomans we were talking about.

IMHO, one of the biggest responsibilities of the Federal govt. is to
protect my rights - if this means that the good folk of OK can't have
their way about killing me, fine.  What you are describing is mob rule
- if a majority thinks it ok to do X to a person, then let's do it.
Very democratic for sure, but I'm not a complete believer in the
democratic system.  Look how far it got Socrates.

Insofar as I think that individual's rights (yes, I know it's
redundant) should be protected against the threat of mob rule, yes, you
can say that I'm trying to impose my ideas on them.  But IMHO, rights
place a negative burden on others while what the religious right wants
to do is place a positive burden on others.  For instance, my right to
my life means that you have to refrain from killing me while the
religious right's pro-life stance means that I (were I a woman) would
have to carry a fetus to term.

Ahh, you say, but it really means that you have to refrain from killing
the fetus.  At this point we would get bogged down again in the
abortion debate and it would go on and on and on... so if that is the
point you'd make, consider it made.


>- rather that rights issues were decided on a Federal basis rather than a
>- state by state basis.  Actually, if I recall correctly, this was one
>
>	So, would you prefer a national anti-abortion/right-to-life
>   law over allowing the residents of each state to decide? 

At this point we could start _another_ ongoing debate over pro-life
vs. pro-choice but I will not get sucked into it.  Suffice it to say
that it I believed that it was the right of the unborn to gestate in
it's mother for 9 months, I would support it, but I don't.


>	I am opposed to the WoD (aka The War on Rights) not because  
>   of any implied right to privacy, but because regulating intrastate 
>   commerce of any kind (heroin, sten guns, federal drinking age) is 
>   explicitly a power not delegated to the United States by the 
>   Constitution.  Of course, the Constitution is ignored by the Feds 
>   these days, so maybe the point is moot.  Did you ever wonder why 
>   the Federales had to amend the Constitution to ban alcohol sales?  
>   Why did they not need an amendment to ban cocaine?  Maybe because 
>   they no longer give a rat's arse about the Constitution, as long as
>   the SC will wink and pretend they didn't see the rights violation? 

Good point about amending the Const. to outlaw alcohol but not
(illicit) drugs.  However, if it was the State of Texas conducting the
WoD, within the borders of Texas, would you oppose it and if so, why?

> Jordan M Kossack   |   
>  kossack@qvi.com   |   Guinness and Harp and Bass ... oh my!  
>  +1 713 240 2073   |   

And Celis White...

Later,
Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail.