From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 08:02:04 GMT

In article <16845147EE.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal) writes:
>>Well I thought I had made this clear.  Let's try again.  Can you have
>>happiness without life?   Can you have liberty without life?  Can you
>>have life without liberty or happiness.
>
>     Consider the ramifications and abuses possible with this reasoning.
>Imagine the abuses possible from a government which is "just trying to
>protect your right to life."  If your right to life is more important than,
>say, your freedom of speech, couldn't the government decide to restrict you
>from saying anything that might anger somebody else and thereby jepeardize
>your life?
>     Or create broad police powers allowing the government to search homes
>and people at whim, on the basis that they are trying to "clean up the
>streets" and "just make life safe" for you.
>
>>Adrienne, if you don't think
>>that this society has a hierarchy of rights how do you explain the
>>differences in penalties for murder vis a vis violation of a human's
>>civil rights?
>
>     Because when all is said and done more damage has been done to someone
>who has been murdered than someone who has been, say, denied their right to
>vote.  That there is a disparity in damage does not mean that either right
>is any more "important" than the other.  Both are rights, and must not be
>violated.  It is not acceptable to violate one right in order to protect
>another.
>>
>>>I think this is bogus.  It does not now, and hasn't in recent years.  What
>>>term are you applying to your notion of 'society'?  We cannot and do not
>>>force physical 'donation' to preserve life on this planet.
>>
>>Because that endangers the life of the donor.
>
>     Then I can be compelled to give blood, which posses no real risk to
>me, but I can't be required to donate a kidney?  Will it become acceptable
>to require the donation of kidneys if medical science allows them to be
>extracted without significant danger to the person?

David, you make some very thoughtful arguments.  I firmly believe as you
do that our government is designed to protect all our rights whenever
possible.  It is only when circumstances warrant that one right takes
precedence over another.  For example, the right to free speech does not
take precedence over the effects that could occur when a spy gives
information to another country.  The protection of the country takes
precedence.  Similarly, one cannot yell "Fire!" (when no fire is
present) in a crowded theatre because it could imperil the lives of
those within.  We must balance our rights as best we can; giving the maximum
freedom possible.  Yet, we really do have a hierarchy that comes into
play when important conflicts arise.

Tim


>========================================================================
>| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
>|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
>========================================================================


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.abortion