From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 20:01:24 GMT

In <1992Aug27.164646.414@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.145737.12572@eco.twg.com> chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall) writes:

This thread was getting unwieldy, so I've pruned out a bunch of side
issues, and I'm just responding to the two points that I thought were
most important...

[Much deleted: I discuss "privilege-based" societies, where the people
exist to serve the government, and "rights-based" societies, where the
government exists to serve the people.]

>Haven't some restrictions been imposed on free speech?  And if this is
>true (the most common example is one of malicious mischief, yelling
>"fire!" in a crowded theatre when there isn't one), is free speech a
>privilege, not a right?

I don't think you've understood my point. When you shout "fire!" in
a crowded theater, you violate other people's rights...in this case,
their "Right to Not Be Trampled To Death". Since there is a conflict
between rights, the government is allowed to step in and resolve it.

On the other hand, suppose you wanted to stand on the street corner
and criticize the President. As long as you tell the truth, you
aren't violating anyone's rights...because there is no "Right to
Freedom From Valid Criticism". A rights-based society would have
to allow you to do this; but in privilege-based societies, this
type of behavior is often illegal.

(A rights-based government might prohibit your behavior on the grounds
that there really is a "Right to Freedom From Valid Criticism", but
it has to be pointed out that there is nothing in the Constitution,
in tradition, or in legal precedent that would support the existence
of such a right.)

Clearly, there is no such thing as a government which is purely 
rights-based or purely privilege-based. All societies fall 
somewhere in the middle. The US is near the rights-based end, and
the function of the Constitution is to help it stay there. (It
would be possible for the US to ban criticism of the President, but
not until several difficult conditions were met.)

Now, I personally think that the government should be as "rights-based"
as possible. Many people disagree with me. They believe that people
who don't share their likes and dislikes are "evil" or "twisted", and
that the function of the government is to force everyone to conform
to their personal beliefs. 

This is especially clear in the abortion debate. It appears to me
that most of the people involved want to ban abortion for one of
two reasons: Because such a ban would compel everyone to conform
to their narrowly-defined views on sexuality, or because they can't
personally imagine a situation where they would want an abortion, 
so they assume that no one else really wants one either.

(There is also a small minority who make the argument that fetuses
have rights. I don't have any complaint with this, as long as they
understand that this argument either prohibits rape-and-incest 
exceptions, or denies the "Right to Equal Protection Under Law".)

So, which side are you on, man?

>>Note that the fetus does a lot of damage over the course of nine months.

>This sounds like an opinion.  What kind of damage does a fetus do?  I
>am the proud father of a 6 month old baby boy, and except for a tiny
>scar and a few extra pounds, my wife seems undamaged (if you consider
>extra pounds damage).

>>If
>>a born person tried to inflict that level of damage on you, you would
>>be perfectly justified in killing him in self-defense.

>!?!?!?!?  Wow, do you ever have an extreme view of pregnancy!  If you
>don't mind, I'd like you to finish teaching me, before we dive back
>into disagreements about abortion/pregnancy etc.

Temporary damage counts as damage.

Stoopid analogy time: Suppose I packed one of those strap-on 
"pregnancy simulators" with dynamite and strapped it onto you.
I explained that it would detonate if you tried to remove it,
unless you disarmed it first. Suppose I then laughed maniacally,
waved the circuit diagram in your face, and told you that I'd mail
it to you in three months.

If the only other way you could get the diagram was to kill
me and take it, would you be justified in doing so? After all,
you'd only be suffering three months of discomfort and inconvenience,
with little risk of permanent damage.

So, what does everyone think? Is this as stoopid as "The Red Button
Scenario" or "Diary of an Unborn"? I do try...

[Worth pointing out: The element of coercion can turn a bearable
burden into an unbearable one. Have you read the "Whitewashing the
Fence" chapter in "Tom Sawyer"?]

>John
>stevens@uswest.com
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity