From: cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR)
Subject: Re: Civil Rights are Absolute.  was: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:09:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.011619.6470@panix.com> pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:

>No. The right still exists, even when someone is violating it. The fact
>that we have rights that exist independently of whether others (either
>individuals or states) recognize them is what underpins the ability for
>someone to say "You shouldn't oughta lock people up for expressing their
>opinions" etc. (By "ability" here, I don't mean the question of whether
>they'll be locked up or shot for saying so, but rather that you can
>even frame the concept.)

	You only say that the right continues to exist out of habit
	(that is, you're used to it being there so you assume it is
	still there).  The sad fact is, it isn't.  If Jesus Christ
	(or any other suitable "holy" dude) came down to Earth and
	said: "Your rights are absolute and nobody can ever take them
	away", then I might be inclined to agree since we would be
	dealing with something divine.  Until that happens, there will
	be nothing to guarantee that the human-conceived notion of
	"rights" will be honoured for the remainder of time.  It has
	been the case in the past (and will continue into the future)
	that at certain points in history, rights were curtailed or 
	even repealed.  This is why they are relative to:
		1) the moral edicts of any given nation
		2) any given time
		3) current dilemmas

>After all, if rights really vanished under the barrel of a gun, then
>their could be no crime such as civil rights violation, and yet there
>it is on the books. Put there by the all-powerful state itself.

	Does Saddam worry about this?  When examining the issue of
	rights, we have to look at a larger picture than just the 
	US.  Americans are fortunate in their strong adherence to
	the ideal of "rights".  This sets a precedent but does not
	guarantee anything.

>Admittedly, the concept that a government draws its legitimacy from
>the consent of the governed is only a few hundred years old, but it's
>still an important one. Unless you believe in the concept of rights
>as things that persist regardless of the state's attempt to trample
>on them, you have no philosophical leg to stand on when that cop
>comes to take you away for the sheer amusement of it.
>
	You're right.  In some parts of the world, this is the
	case.  It may even happen in the United States some day
	(who's to say?).

>What good does having a philosophical position to back you up do
>when the guns are out? Good question. In the short run, relatively
>little (except that smug feeling of moral superiority) but in the
>long run people have proven remarkably willing to put their lives
>on the line and topple governments precisely because they believe
>in those rights.
>
	Oh yes!  Which is why I consider the right to bear arms a
	worthwhile thing to have in any nation.  It prevents abuse
	by the leaders who control the military.  But the masses are
	the masses.  They have a power all their own.  The power of
	the individual is relatively little.  We're addressing the 
	relativity of the individual's rights in the face of in-
	surmountable adversity.  Unless you have those numbers, your
	opinions don't matter to anyone.

C. Armour-Kidson
cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:7544 alt.politics.bush:6966 soc.rights.human:3728 alt.society.civil-liberty:6072