From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Sunbird a la 400ci)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
Date: 24 Jan 93 00:01:50 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1993Jan15.164904.22137@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
>Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
>Date: 15 Jan 93 16:49:04 GMT

>In article <exuptr.630.0@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
>>>>I'm for the preservation of individual rights, but I think these rights are 
>>>>abused a lot these days.  We should ask the question, "If you don't want to 
>>>>have screening, why not?  Are you afraid they will catch *you*?"
>>
>>>No, this is exactly the question we SHOULDN'T ask.  
>>
>>Gee, why not, Fred?

>Because it is a stupid question which implies that people are guilty
>of criminal behaviour simply because they disagree with your position.

Hmm, I think in some cases you might find it to be true, whether it's true 
for you or not.

>Is it so unusual to you that someone might take a position out of
>PRINCIPLE rather than self-interest?

Yes, it is.  Frankly I find a large number of self interested people out 
there today.  Maybe you're not one of them.  I don't really know you well 
enough to say.

>[Do you like that last question?  It is the only reasonable response
>to the question you want to ask.]

I thought it was a fair one, but I don't agree that it is the only 
reasonable response.  Perhaps you meant the only reasonable response from 
your viewpoint.

>One might take the same position on ANY violation of rights.  You're
>opposed to warrantless searches and wiretaps?  Why?  Are you afraid
>they'll catch you?

I just don't see much harm in a *small* sacrifice to save lives.  Wiretaps 
and the like require just cause (and some paperwork of course), and stopping 
cars should also.  But I think Saturday night on Greenville Avenue is just 
cause, especially if they find a large %age of violations.

>It never ceases to amaze me how many AMERICANS don't seem to
>understand what is wrong with the kind of reasoning you're suggesting.

What does nationality have to do with it?

>I have to wonder just what the hell they're teaching in civics and
>government classes these days, when people don't even understand the
>basic principles of the Bill of Rights.

I understand them, but I don't blindly agree with all of it, or with any one 
person's interpretation.  Life is full of choices, balances, and the like.  
If you want to stop alcohol deaths, you must give up some degree of "
freedom" (in this case the freedom not to be licensed-checked) in order to 
reduce the number of dead persons.

BTW, did you realise that 2/3 of the people killed in D/D accidents are not 
the drunk driver, but the other persons?  This is a Plano statistic, so 
don't start arguing with me about California or Bosnia or somewhere else.

>>Why should people die because of some marginal viewpoint of what your rights 
>>actually are?

>Your 'question' is an absolute non-sequitor.  
Weren't you the one telling everybody there were no absolutes?   Anyway 
that's ridiculous.  We're all still talking about the Constitutionality of 
license-checking, and the point is relevant in the way that I meant it.

>There is nothing
>'marginal' about the opinion that Americans are SUPPOSED to be secure
>from unreasonable searches and siezures of their property and persons
>and that they cannot be coerced into providing evidence against
>themselves.  Now, which part of the Bill of Rights is it that you want
>to suspend again?

None.  We just disagree about what is unreasonable, period.  If you're going 
to insist still that I am suspending the Constitution, then fine, but it's 
only because we interpret 'unreasonable' differently, and for no other.

>Hey, I've got an idea for you.  Saudi Arabia has just the kind of
>despoty without rights that you seem to favor.  They have capital
>punishment for drunk driving, and absolutely prohit alcohol.  Not to
>mention there are none of those mess 'marginal' rights to get in the
>way. 

Go pound sand in your ass.  :-)

>>Who is disallowing rights to what disagreeable group here?  Seems to me the 
>>suggestion was fair and not based on any agreement or disagreement to any 
>>philosophy or doctrine.

>4th Amendment
>        The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
>houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but
>upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
>particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or
>things to be seized.

Bingo.

>Now then, given a total lack of both probable cause and of a warrant,
>do you still fail to see why random stops or sobriety roadblocks are a
>violation of the Constitution?  

I just don't agree with your givens.  How many times do I have to say it?
Are ye deef?

>It's one thing if someone is weaving
>all over the road.  That's probably cause for a stop.  However, merely
>being behind the wheel of a car at a sobriety roadblock is NOT
>probably cause to suspect someone of driving while intoxicated.

Ok, fine.  But you have yet to realize that *this* is your opinion and is 
_not_ part of the Constitution.

>And neither, might I add, is disagreeing with people who want sobriety
>roadblocks. 

It's certainly not proof, but it adds to the suspicion level, IMHO.  I guess 
I'm not a very trusting person, but life has borne me out many a time.

Just ask yourself this question:  Have I ever driven under the influence?  
Is it even conceivable that I endangered someone else's life?  Is my right 
not to be stopped in a "high-risk" area greater than someone else's right 
not to have me kill their entire family if I screw up?

You may not agree, but if you face these questions honestly, you'll at leat 
know where I'm coming from.
 -----------Visit the SOUNDING BOARD BBS 214-596-2915, a Wildcat! BBS--------
 ObQuotes:
 "Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand..."
 "Ignorance and prejudice, and fear go hand-in-hand..."

    Patrick Taylor, Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                    "Don't let the .se fool you"
Newsgroups: tx.politics