Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 12:05:37 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Talk about a vague amendment!!!

>> How is it that the people can collectively have a right that no individ-
>> ual has without the permission of a government?
>
>Are you serious?  Andy, without any permission from anyone, can you practice
>law or medicine, teach in a school, operate a saloon, fly a plane or drive an
>automobile, represent your state in Congress, seize and take control of the
>property of another, make your own personal treaty with another country?

I'm quite serious.  The examples mentioned aren't a "right of the
people", at least not one protected by my copy of the Constitution, so
they're irrelevant.  Yes, priveleges exist, but that doesn't mean that
everything is a privilege.

Let's look at other uses of the phrase "the right of the people".  The
1st amendment says that "they" have the right "peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for redress of grievances".  Does that
mean that an individual has no right to petition without permission?
Even the right of an individual to "assemble", which is almost
internally inconsistent because assembly almost requires a group, is
an individual right.  (An individual can easily exercise RKBA.)  Even
a "press" operated by an individual is protected, as is the practice
of religion by individuals.

Then we move down to the 4th.  "The right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures".  Does that really allow govt to arbitarily
decide that certain individuals don't have that right?  Is it really a
collective right that is not violated when an individual's "person,
house, papers, or effects" are unreasonably searched or seized?

Note that the 9th and 10th also distinguish the people from both the
states and the feds.

People who favor a collectivist interpretation of the 2nd have an
massive burden.  They not only have to show that it protects some
militia, but that it, despite its words, does not protect ANY
individual right.  Bringing up privs doesn't make that any easier.

>In addition, I don't think talking about social responsibility in the same
>breath with social rights and freedoms is an effort to curb freedom or take
>shortcuts with personal liberty.

While it isn't necessarily such an effort, I'm pointing out that it
almost always is in practice.

>Liberty has its bounds and the bounds are responsibility.
>Liberty without bounds is license, and nobody displays more
>license than a tyrant.

I happen to agree, but that applies to the gun controllers as well.
They have a responsibility to show that their policy will produce
benefits that exceed the costs, a responsibility that they evade.*
They cry "public safety", but it's a cruel joke, making defenseless
and blaming those who they have failed to protect.  There's tyranny
here all right, but it comes from the controllers.

I am responsible for my actions.  Restricting me won't help anyone.

-andy

* - That's understandable, they can't meet that burden because their
policy doesn't work, but ....
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU