From: Wayne Aiken <NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Sunday Liquor Sales
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:38:24 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <sbuckley.714782733@sfu.ca>
Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca> writes:
>Wayne Aiken <NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu> writes:
>>In article <sbuckley.714430363@sfu.ca>
>>Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca> writes:
>
>>Be honest- is that what they're really telling you?  That you're not allowed
>>to express your opinion?  Or that you're not allowed to *enforce* your
>>opinion?
 
>  were you around when this thread began?  at that time i expressed my
>opinion about prefering to keep the sabbath and prefering our whole culture
>would as well. then someone said i have no right to say that because
>it's based on a religious reason, then s/he proceed to mis-quote the
>separation of church and state for credibility.  otherwise, people don't
>usually oppress my rights to speak out on things from a spiritual root,
>they merely laugh me off as a religious nut.  and no one's ever objected
>to me enforcing my opinion on others because i have never forced anyone
>to do what i think they should do.  if i did, i'd be the most hated person
>on the net and in more people's kill files than anyone else.
 
There may still be some confusion over the speech/action issue.  It still
seems that what was intended, althought they may have stated it poorly, was
that you are prohibited from enforcing such opinions, rather than to even
voice such opinions (freedom of speech).
 
>>If your
>>arguments against Sunday work are compelling, then people would voluntarily
>>not work, without any need for such a thing to be codified into law.  Also
>>note that we are *not* a majoritarian democracy;we are a republic which
>>(ideally) respects individual rights,thus a person should be able to do
>>whatever they want as long as they don't interfere with others.
 
> the rules and laws in my community, probly just like in yours, indicate
>whether people are allowed to open stores on sunday--usually municipal by-laws
>take care of this.
 
And these laws are falling by the wayside.  Not for lack of popular support,
but because its recognized that no majority has a right to dictate such
things to free individuals.
 
>  if most people didn't want to work on sundays we'd be
>electing politicians who would reflect that desire.  but you're wrong
>in thinking that society is based on people's freedom to do anything "as
>long as they don't interfere with others."
 
I guess I must have woke up in China this morning.
 
>>Do you see the difference between influencing society by arguments and speech
>>versus advocating changes in the law, which inevitably involves force at some
>>point?
 
>  and you're missing my point that i am not going to force people to believe
>what i want them to.
 
Beliefs often imply certain actions, at least for the people who hold the
particular beliefs.  Why do you feel that you should hold others accountable
for the same actions, if they don't share the same beliefs?  If you have the
right not to work on Sunday, why should you care what other people do?
 
>                   i can influence people and if the majority don't want
>work on sundays, laws will reflect that from a societal basis and society
>will enforce its law, not mine.
 
What is society other than an aggregate of individuals?  Are you saying here
that any sufficiently large group of people can force any minority to do
absolutely anything they want, and that by virtue of size, any arbitrary
decision is OK because it is becomes some "society" that is saying so?
 
>                                 there's a real propensity to make my
>argument out to be totalitarian, but i think you're just over-reacting.
 
One point has come out loud and clear from your postings.  You support the
concept of majoritarianism, as opposed to individualism, as a basis for the
structure of society and justification for law.
 
The point is that many people consider majoritarianism to be every bit as much
of an oppressive system of government as a sole dictator; the only difference
is that you might have a million dictators instead of one.  For a minority,
the end result is the same.  The founding fathers of this country recognized
this, explicitly expounded upon it at length (Federalist Papers), and founded
a republic, *not a pure democracy*, which, although it is democratic in nature,
contains limits and safeguards to respect the freedoms of individuals, however
contrary such a person's lifestyle and ideas may be to those around him.
 
This is the basis for my saying that laws should let a person do whatever they
wish unless they directly violate the rights of others.  There are definite
limits to how laws may be used- otherwise there would be no need for
the Bill of Rights in the US, or any mention of protection for minorities.
Any time you advocate changing a law, think of it as: "Would *I* force someone
to do X?"  When personalized to such a degree, you claim that you wouldn't, and
you rightly recognize that you would be hated if you attempted to "enforce your
opinion on others."  The contradiction is that you don't seem to see anything
wrong with participating in a group which wants to enforce *its constituent
members'* opinions on others.  To many people, there is little difference
between single and group dictatorships- and thats why your views are
characterized as totalitarian.  This is hardly an over-reaction.
 
Wayne Aiken                                            "You can BE what
PO Box 30904            slack@ncsu.edu                  you WON'T!!"
Raleigh, NC  27622                                       --"Bob"
(919) 782-8171          StarFleet BBS: (919) 782-3095