From: dmeyers@mal-s2.gatech.edu (Dave Meyers)
Newsgroups: ga.general
Subject: Re: Warning: Religion!
Keywords: Murder, jesus, Beer
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:59:44 GMT
Distribution: ga
Organization: Georgia Tech Res. Inst./Modeling & Analysis Lab

In <66001@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt0418c@prism.gatech.EDU (Shane Wm. McWhorter) writes:

>Laws CANNOT be passed on MORAL grounds, because MORALITY is specific
>for one particular religion.

Try SHOULD NOT.  Cannot is not the issue.  Its already been done.

>For instance,

[Murder, rape and smoking as violations of the rights of others]

One major proper goal of government is the protection of the rights
of individuals.  

>(4) Robbery is illegal becuase it violates your right to liberty and freedom
>from siezure.

Be careful.  The government robs people of things all the time for the
so-called 'common good'.  Part of that is taxes, and part of that is
a common practice these days called civil forfeiture wherein the gov't
seizes things that its officials believe are tainted with evil (usually
these days that means somehow associated with the sale of drugs).  The
property is seized without any trial, guilty verdicts, or even arrests.
Then, the (former) owner has to go to court and prove that the property
is innocent (ie. was purchased with legitimately earned money).  If the
(former) owner succeeds on the state level with these proceedings, the
state can avoid returning the property to its rightful owner by turning
it over to the federal government and the (former) owner has to go 
through the whol process again.

In any case, taxes are a constitutionally protected right of the government
to take things from you.  Theoretically, these things are returned to
you in the form of government protection from everyone else.  Heh heh.
Private businesses who engaged in such things are called extortionists.

In theory, Robbery OUGHT to be illegal because it violates your property
rights.  Perhaps.

Bear in mind, that one's own body might be considered his private property,
too, but that's also not the case.  If it were, you would be allowed
to do what you like with your own body as long as it didn't harm
anyone else.  But you can't.  You are not allowed to sell parts of your
body.  You are not allowed to sell (certain) services performed by your
body (ie. sex is illegal to sell for money, but pack-animal type labor 
is allowed to be exchanged for money.  Why the distinction? )

>So, therefore, which one of your Constitutional Rights am I violating
>when I sell liquor on a Sunday? This is an important question that
>any resonable response to this must address.

Come to think of it, which constitutional right is being violated by
ANY private business transaction between two consenting adults, whether
it is the sale of goods or services?  (Think about anything from drugs
to employment.  Or even renting out a room in your home.  At present,
there are many laws which let the gov't stick their nose into your
otherwise private life.  The constitutuion has had nothing to do with
it for many many years now.)

>Unless you can show me how the sale of liquor on a Sunday violates
>the US Constitution, there is no legal ground to stand on.

Same goes for a heap of other gov't interferences.  Has nothing to
do with what the constitution theoretically protects.  Has to do with
what the waaaay over-fattened federal gov't has created as it's powers
all in the name of protecting you (from both yourself and others).

>However, I can show you how MY rights are violated. 

>If YOU prevent ME from doing something I want, it is ILLEGAL unless
>what I want to do violates the rights of others.

>IT'S ABSOLUTELY CLEAR.

Yes.  In theory.  Welcome to America.  It's not what the brochure 
describes.  Screaming about the sale of liquor on Sundays is nice
and everything, but there really aren't any people getting seriously
hurt by that.  I'd prefer to scream about civil forfeiture.  You
remember -- that business about being protected from unreasonable
search and seizure.  That's some serious violation of rights.  Makes
this sunday-liquor thing really seem trivial.

--David

-- 
David S. Meyers (dmeyers@math.gatech.edu)      ***      What .signature?