In article <1993Apr19.183819.5324@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com  (Michael A. Thomas) writes: >In article <C5qK7t.2qK@voder.nsc.com>, matt@galaxy.nsc.com  >(Matt Freivald x8043) writes: >> >> In article <1993Apr16.033313.18356@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com >> (Michael A. Thomas) writes: > >> As far as "set the moral tone" is concerned, if a community does not >> collectively want to put up with prostitution going on in front of their >> kids, why should they have to?  If a community does not want to see >> proliferation of drugs among their kids, why should they have to? > >  By what right? And do tell, from the standpoint of the drug >dealer or prostitute, what is the difference if the gun is pointed >by the local hick city council or the feds? >  If something is wrong, it is wrong. Period. If it is not >sustainable at a federal level why should it be OK just because >the geographical unit is smaller? >  Peter Nelson posted a very eloquent response to this point in  talk.politics.misc, so I need not consume more bandwidth here.   > >> The problem with the egalitarian view is that it tries to deny the >> fundamental dilemma of democratic government:  The People have a right >> to exercise a voice in their community, yet individuals have the right >> to be left to themselves.  This is a serious dilemma precisely because >> there is not much that takes place in a vacuum. > >  You are seriously misusing the word egalitarian. You should >look the word up before you use it. There is a vast difference >between Equal Justice under the Law and Egalitarianism.  What I meant, if it was not clear, was the intersection set of liberal and libertarian philosophies of "natural rights" and how the government (and Constitutional interpretation in particular) fits into that  philosophy.  This philosophy engages in the very serious practical  error of endowing the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court with an almost  totalitarian authority, completely outside of the consent or consensus  of The People.  This is why Supreme Court nominations are such amazing political fist-fights these days, because He who Controls the Court Rules the Country.  The people on the Court may well be trying to do the best job they can, but they are at best a benevolent oligarch, even if you approve of every Supreme Court decision ever.  Eventually, an oligarch will arise that will decimate that which you hold dear.  Try  Supreme Court cases by Jury, and the problem would be mitigated a great  deal.  Those who would create broad, non-enumerated government powers at any  level (as in European Parlamentary Democracies and the current de-facto standard in the U.S.) have essentially engaged in the same fundamental  mistake, except that it is some different body that has the totalitarian,  virtually unchecked (except by plurality election, death, or retirement),  government power.    >  And *why* should your community be allowed to stop my activities >when I'm not picking your pocket or defrauding you? Just because >you don't like it? Because you find it morally repugnant?   This is like asking why the wind blows, unless you can prove that the fact of your engaging in certain activities has absolutely no  effect whatsoever on any other human being who has not consented to your engagement in those activities.  Very few human activities indeed fit into this category.    Even for those few that do, who would you empower to make the judgement  of what is and is not a fully autonomous activity?  Who defines "picking  my pocket" and "defrauding"?  Are economic assets a person's only assets, or are peace of mind, stability, confidence in a child's emotional  environment, security, and many other things not also a part of a person's assets?  What gives you the right to create a moral environment that a parent strongly objects to?  What gives you the right to create an  environment of social unrest and instability?  If you say that what you do does not have those effects, by what authority do you say that?  Who is empowered to make these value judgements?   >How  >would *you* feel if I got a gang together and found xtianity >(or insert your favorite cause here) morally repugnant and >passed laws to outlaw its free exercise? (all at a local >level, since that seems to be A-OK with you) >  If the Federal Constitution explicitly prohibited you from doing so, the  federal government would prevent you from doing so.  If it did not, and you could muster enough local support to pass an amendment to the local Constitution (by, say, a 3/4 majority) empowering the local government  to do so, then I would have to vote with my feet and move to a neighborhood more friendly to my own system of values.  This is not an ideal situation, but it is far better than the mess we are mired in right now.   >> As to the "gang of pitchfork and torch wielding friends", there are very >> few restrictive local laws that I personally would advocate or vote for, >> since I am of the view that exercising government power over your neighbors >> should be done with extreme care and only when absolutely necessary.  But >> I DO believe in protecting children from victimization by people who have >> callous disregard for the effects they have on others.  I would certainly >> leave a "well-behaved" massage parlor alone, so long as it had no >> detrimental effects on the neighborhood. > >  You just don't get it. The debate is not whether you or a >communitity would or would not vote away my rights; it is >the propriety of whether that should even be an *option*.  When you define "rights" very broadly, there is no practical choice about  whether people will or will not infringe upon your rights since these "rights" overlap.  Even when rights are defined very narrowly, the government  has been empowered to prevent others from infringing on your rights.  The  fundamental question is, by whose authority is that power created.  If you  support the current situation with a "natural rights" Supreme Court (rather than an "original understanding" Supreme Court or, even better, Supreme Court by Jury), you are consenting to having nine lawyers in Washington,  D.C. create those powers out of the air.  In my "Fractal Federalism" scenario,  it is a broad consensus of The People (i.e. the amendment process) that  creates those powers.   >> Certainly not the only cause, Mike, but people in a local neighborhood >> should have a voice in what goes on in that neighborhood.  To deny this >> is to create another concentrated centralized power to keep the locality >> from abusing its power > >  [!!!] You mean that horrific centralized power, the individual?  No, I mean the federal government that comes trucking in with guns to tell the locals how to run their neighborhood.  Waco, TX is a nice example.   > >>-- in essence, using a pit bull to keep a toy poodle >> from biting your leg.  Chances are, the pit bull is going to turn on you >> some day, and you have much less defense against it than you do against >> the toy poodle.  Ideally, everyone would leave everyone else alone and >> no government coercive power of any kind would be necessary.  This will >> never work, because people are different and by their nature they will >> always want to force their views on others.  If this were not the case, >> nobody would try to force their view that murder is wrong on anyone else. > >  Fine. When they force their views on others prosecute them. >Until then leave them alone. This is such a simple concept. >How do you feel about speech codes? Hate speech certainly >*could* be considered an indication that the "pit bull is >going to turn some day". Should the "community" be allowed >to limit it too? If not, why not?  If you create a community where public masturbation is permitted in the  cause of "personal autonomy", have you done anything different?  What precisely are these autonomous activities you are referring to?  If you list them, perhaps we can get enough people to agree that they are truly autonomous and pass a constitutional amendment protecting them.    >  And how do you feel about David Koresh? Did he deserve >it? Should the BATF (or a local version of same) be allowed >to toss him in jail just because they *think* he's off >his rocker?  The Koresh Incident appears to be a horrendous abuse of government power, power possibly illegitimately obtained through a means I would abolish.  The constitutionality of "no-knock" warrants seems very dubious to me, not to mention the mere existence of BATF and the government's propensity to  ignore the word "infringe" in the Second Amendment.  This power is upheld  by the same body, with its incredible concentration of power in the hands  of nine people, that has upheld much so-called "Civil Rights" (read- affirmative  action) legislation despite the Fourteenth Amendment.   > >> >  Who said anything about the public till? Get rid of it, and >> >get out of my face. >> > >> >> I agree about getting rid of the public till.  Are you still sure you don't >> want to come over for coffee?  You might not especially like my neighborhood, >> and I might not especially like yours, but at least we can agree to let each >> other live the kind of life we want to. > >  At the point you get rid of the public till, you lose all >credibility as to *why* you should have a say about my private >affairs. Are you sure you are ready for that? >--  Money is certainly not the only asset I have in this world.  If it were, this would be a bleak existence indeed.   > >               Michael Thomas  (mike@gordian.com)   Matt Freivald   -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LiBORGalism:              THINKING IS IRRELEVANT. INTEGRITY IS IRRELEVANT.           FREE SPEECH IS IRRELEVANT. PRIVATE PROPERTY IS IRRELEVANT.                  PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS IRRELEVANT.                      CONSERVATIVISM IS FUTILE.                       YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- THESE ARE MY OPINIONS ONLY AND NOT THOSE OF MY EMPLOYER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!