www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." wrote: > > On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 16:23:27 GMT, brian bennett > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:53:04 GMT, Manny Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> >>The problem with natural rights is that we all have different views of > >> >> what should be on the list. Do you agree that we all have a natural > >> >> right to medical care, whether we can afford it or not? > >> >> > >> >> Some make that argument. Does the Ninth Amendment require > >> >> government-assured universal medical insurance? > >> >> > >> >> How do we decide which rights are in the list and which are not? > >> > > >> >Well, one thing we know is that for some action to be a right, it must > >> >apply to everyone equally. Another thing we know is that your rights > >> >cannot obligate someone else to do something for you. > >> > >> Well, that's a good answer - it helps distinguish rights from > >> nonrights. > >> > >> But we don't know that actually, even though it is an answer.. "We" > >> know that govt must pay for medical care for the poor. Or at least > >> some among us think that medical care is a right. > >> > >> Why must we believe your view of a "natural" right rather than someone > >> else's view of a natural right? > >> > >> Thus you have the > >> >right to speak your mind because it doesn't obligate anyone else, and we > >> >can apply it to everyone equally without ridiculous consequences. You > >> >have the right to defend yourself, because that right doesn't obligate > >> >anyone else, and everyone can exercise the right and all is well. > >> > >> You are describing what YOU think should distinguish rights from > >> nonrights. > >> > >> Who says your taxonomy is the correct one, rather than Larry Tribe's > >> list of rights? > >> > >> > > >> >But me claiming a "right" to healthcare obligates other people to provide > >> >healthcare for me, hence it makes other people slaves of mine. A right > >> >obviously cannot allow me to enslave people or allow me to become > >> >enslaved. Therefore there can be no right to healthcare, education, etc. > >> > >> Who says a right can not allow you to enslave others? I am sure many > >> societies have had rights to own slaves. So who says the Ninth > >> Amendment excludes slave ownership? Weren't slaves owned when the > >> Ninth Amendment was passed? > >> > >> > > >> >It's not perfect, but it does coincide fairly close with my beliefs of > >> >what right and wrong are. > >> > > >> > >> It's a good answer. For what rights SHOULD be. But we have a different > >> problem - what rights ARE in the ninth amendment - not what rights > >> SHOULD be in the Ninth. > > > >nah, that's just a lawyer trick. the 9th is quite clear -- citizens have rights > >that have not been (and need not be) enumerated .. > > Ok, fine. I have the right to medical care, whether I can afford to > pay or not. having the right to medical care does not mean the rest of us pay for it -- it only means we cannot *prevent* you from obtaining it. > Glad you agree. > > . nothing more, nothing less. > >the government is further denied the authority to tell us what rights we *don't* > >have by the 10th amendment. > > So true. Medical care is a great example - the govt doesn't have the > right to deprive me of my right to such care. > > > > >trying to define every "right" that may or may not exist is a fool's errand. > > Ok. I have the right to have sex with all women in families with > incomes lower than my own household income. the government has no power to determine your sexual partners. > Great idea. That the govt would dare interfere with my right is > absurd. > > Once such a right did exist in the top lord in an area - he had a > right to first have sex with new brides. > > Doesn't that right still exist? i honestly can't tell if you're being facetious or just stupid. your "rights" extend only to the point that anothers' rights are not violated. you only have the "right" to have sex with those adults who grant their bodies to you. > > > >consequently, we don't have to specify what rights we have -- the constitution > >specifies the *powers* granted to the government. punishing those who choose to > >use the "wrong" intoxicants violates the constitution simply because no *power* > >to void the free will of the citizens has been encoded in the constitution. nor > >is any power delegated to the congress to outlaw lifeforms. > > So by your view the govt has no right to requrie us to drive only on > the right side of the road, because such a right was never granted to > govt. have you read the constitution? the power to make laws over "post roads" is clearly enumerated. > Ok. > > No right to ban private ownership of nuclear bombs. technically correct. > No right to build a capital building with bathrooms in it. The word > bathroom does not exist in the constitution. this is why i can't tell if you're stubborn or trying to be a comedian. > I doubt that's what they had in mind. > > But you give a good answer - that the central govt can't do very much > at all. that's the key: *we the people* hold the power and can only grant powers to the government that we legitimately possess in the first place. > But that's not a view which we all agree on. then the constitution will have to be changed to reflect that -- if we don't all agree that it is the "supreme law" then it has to be revisited as our most sacred pronouncement doesn't it? > And law must involve some clear lines about what is permitted and what > is not. have you read the constitution? > Folks just don't agree on what's in the Ninth Amendment. amazingly simple language, in its entirety: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." since you may not understand it, in simple english it says "just because we forgot to write it down, doesn't mean you get to take it away from us." it is as elegant and simple as can be. > So it's worthless. only if you find yourself incapable of comprehending it, or unwilling to stand up for yourself. > As law. wrong. the congress is *not* empowered to pass laws that restrict rights that are protected by the constitution. since defining all possible rights is impossible, the founders assumed a certain "lowest common denominator" mental capacity would be retained by the citizens at large. the government can't tell us that we don't have rights -- we the people muct empower them to act in those areas where they have been legitimately empowered to act. since the 9th amendment clearly states that the government can't "just say no" to us, they can't make laws that tell us what we can do to ourselves. > You may be correct as to what is SHOULD mean, but not many agree with > you. of course you've conducted an opinion poll which leads you to this conclusion? > And law must involve agreement as to what it says. are we as a citizenry so dense as to not comprehend that the government *can't* tell us that we don't have the right to do things to ourselves? > It can't vary from judge to judge. From cop to cop. that's why the citizens are the ultimate source of power -- they need only wake up to it. please provide a list of all those who you believe are properly qualified and empowered to void your will when it comes to the choices you make about what you do to yourself. mine has no names on it -- neither should yours. the 9th amendment is your weapon. b -- citizen, patriot, stoner Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think. visit truth: the Anti-drugwar at http://www.briancbennett.com Ask these former drug warriors why drugwar doesn't work: http://www.leap.cc
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
