From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Subject: Re: Liberals want to remove Admendment #10? (was Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:19:13 GMT

In article <1drdpfINN6od@agate.berkeley.edu> curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.140406.2361@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>>>
>>Conversely, if my state takes away my whiffle balls, I'd like the U.S. to be
>>there to stick up for me.
>
>And I, sir, would like a big fast Bugatti and hot apple pie a la mode
>every morning with my coffee.

Ummm, my right to whiffle ball juggling does not imply (well, it
wasn't meant to) that the State has to provide me with whiffle
balls.

>But I'm afraid that the Constitution does not guarantee either
>of us our desires.  

Sure, I've never claimed otherwise.

I was discussing this with a friend a lunch and I think a big problem
when discussing rights is defining exactly what constitutes a right.
Is a right a positive claim on society to do something (i.e. provide
health care or whiffle balls) or is it a negative claim on society to
NOT do something (i.e. stop me from jugglin whiffle balls)?  I
subscribe to the latter and it sounds like you may also.

Where we seem to disagree is that you think that only the Feds should
have this negative claim placed on its actions and I think that the
states should also be restricted.

>Well, shit, if you think WHIFFLE BALL JUGGLING is some kind of
>a RIGHT - and I'd like to note, here, that word "juggling",
>which is definitely not of good Anglo-Saxon stock, in fact I
>think it's Indian, and you all know what the Indians are - never
>heard anyone talk of "Blue Indians," have you? - then don't
>you think growing a PLANT in your CLOSET, for god's sake, might
>have something to do with your "right to privacy"?

Sure, I haven't denied it have I?

>Unfortunately this "right to privacy," while a beautiful
>invention, an invention of wonderful creativity and originality,
>a real work-of-art invention if I may say so myself, is also an
>entirely bogus invention, and thus its inventors feel free to
>take it or leave it as the feeling moves them.

Oh jeez, I'll probably regret this because this is a real time waster,
but what is your life like if you don't have a right to privacy?  Also,
what would be the point?  You seem to think that the state can screw
you over in any case - it would apply only to the Feds.

It's ironic that the guys who were worried about enumerating _some_
rights in the BOR because they thought that some would think that those
were the ONLY rights would be proven right after all.

Another way of looking at this is examining two different perspectives
on rights (i.e. two different philosophies on rights): a) you enjoy the
right to go about your life and do things because this has been
bestowed upon you be a benevolent gov't which reserves the right to
change it's mind at any time, or b) you enjoy the right to go about
your life and do things which can be restricted only after the gov't
can show that it isn't a right after all.  It's sort of like being
guilty until you prove yourself innocent vs. being innocent until they
prove you guilty.  In this case it's a) you have no rights except for
those bestowed upon you on a possibly temporary basis, vs. b) you have
rights until they are shown to not exist.


Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8567 alt.rush-limbaugh:9683