From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Newsgroups: alt.personals
Subject: Re: internet abuse & its affects
Date: 17 Aug 92 00:04:22 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Aug14.092341.8663@news.acns.nwu.edu> query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
>	I am under the impression that there are certain "rights" we are
>*given* by the Constitution.  I put "rights" in quotes, because, if they
>really were "rights" then we would not need anything to gaurantee them.

Don't want to start a big flame war here, since this isn't really the 
proper newsgroup for this discussion, but I must make a comment here:

The Constitution does *not* grant or give rights--they are assumed to
already exist, and the Constitution merely affirms these rights.  In the
same vein, there is a common misconception that the Constitution states
what the federal government can't do.  This is also wrong.  The Constitution
is a document of empowerment, and grants rights to the federal government
from the people; anything not specifically granted by the Constitution,
the federal government does not have a right to do.

>	Anyway, I figure that "might makes right" in almost any given case.

Not hardly (IMO).

>I will explain:
[somewhat misguided explanation deleted]

>	The "rights" gauranteed by the Constitution are privalleges, and
>they *CAN* be taken away, rather easily.  How?  Examples:

Wrong!  There is a big difference between rights and privileges, and
our rights were specifically guarded in the Constitution by the Framers
against abusive government (doesn't seem to have worked very well...).

>	The 'right' to vote:  Convicted felons can't vote in federal
>elections.  And, lets face it, there are a lot of people convicted of
>bullshit felonies.

That falls under "due process", and such felons have lost their rights
through violations of the rights of others.

>	Martial Law: No problems with rights then... you don't have any.
>This loophole was thoughtfully provided for you by the Constitution.

Please give a citation.  Exactly where does it say this?

>	Over zealous police:  All it takes is one bullet to take away any
>rights you may have had...  and the cop doing the shooting will probably
>not get much by way of punishment.

Granted this happens, but it is illegal nonetheless.

>	Free access top roads,etc:  The Denver Boot.  Impound lots.
>Federal and state requirements for emissions and insurance.  Drivers
>licenses (wellm, you can use the roads, but you better not get caught!) 

Here, you are confusing rights and privileges again.

>	Access to computers, ownership of property:  Granted, the chances
>of anyone being raided are slim, but, ask the people who have been raided
>about their equipment being impounded etc.  Out of all the people raided, I
>am sure that there were a few innocents who had their stuff taken forever.

Either they broke the law, or the raiders broke the law.... that doesn't
affect the definition or perception of our rights.

>	Pursuit of happiness:  What a joke...  A 17 year old can't go out
>and rent an x-rated film (im most states, I believe), you can't smoke dope,
>cant drink, cant do a lot of things that make some people happy, unless you
>are a certain age, or, worse, you cannot do them at all.  What if smoking
>dope is what makes me happy?  Or anything else that is either outlawed or
>age restricted?

Rights are not absolute; you do not have a right to do something that
makes you happy if it violates the rights of someone else.  Whether
current law is perfect or not is something else entirely.
 
>	Basically, what I am saying is that you only have one right:  Do
>what the hell you want and can.  Other people have the same right.

Within limits.

>	So, if I want to flame someone on the net, and they can get my
>account revoked, then thats the way it is.  If I want to go and get my
>access back, or hack an account, then I have the right.  Of course, then
>the loop goes on...   

If you violate the law, you suffer the consequences.  If you don't like
the law, work (legally) to have it changed.

>	I couldn't care less about whether or not the net is a right or a
>privellage, and, if my access were revoked, I would either get it back or
>leave it alone.  And anyone else can do the same.

Others may actually care.  That is their right.

>	Lastly, please do not take what I say about certain behavior to be
>my condoning it.  If I do or not is irrelevant.  Hopefully this will avoid
>the waste of time that numerous flames of "I bet he's just pissed cause
>dope is illegal" or whatever would take up.  I would preferr just a
>discussion of whether or not we really have any rights other than free
>will.

We do not have the right of *unlimited* free will.  We should essentially
be able to do what we want as long as it doesn't affect the rights of
others.


Strider

Newsgroups: alt.personals,alt.personals.ads