Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 12:08:13 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@attbi.com> Cc: jtn@jtn.cx, rob spellberg <emailrob@emailrob.com>, FreeBSD Chat <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: was this really necessary? Message-ID: <3E592A2D.1F46CD19@mindspring.com> References: <00bc01c2d93e$452d1f60$0502000a@sentinel> <4.3.2.7.2.20030221181620.01b7ded8@threespace.com> <20030222010251.Y318@ndhn.yna.cnyserzna.pbz> <3E56F25F.3B09AB9F@emailrob.com> <20030222204314.GA52476@jtn.cx> <3E58778A.CD67C07@mindspring.com> <w68yw623f2.yw6@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Gary W. Swearingen" wrote: > Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > > "Jason T. Nelson" wrote: > > > And this is particularly why we have the 2nd amendment; the second the US > > > federal government tries this is the day I march on Washington armed to > > > defend my rights as defined in our Constitution (and I wouldn't be alone, I > > > assure you). I doubt you could seriously consider that Congress attempting > > > this stupidity as "representing" our citizens' interests. > > > > The Constitution does not grant these rights; it merely > > acknowledges them. Look up "inalienable". 8-) 8-). > > Did anybody here say the Constitution grants rights? Jason used "defined". > > As for "inalienable", that's from the Declaration of Independence, which > can be easily ignored by those amending the Constitution. (Of course, > The People may claim their rights, regardless of the Constitution.) As Jason points out, if that were to happen, we'd just re-declare out independence. 8-) 8-). > There is a language problem here, though. The word "right" has many > meanings, so that our language is often misinterpreted and discussions > become babble. There are two main meanings, with a big difference: > > "Privilege": > This the obvious and most practical meaning -- the most useful one. > When people mean something different, they should use more words; > but they don't, leading to the creation of this definition: "Driving is not a right, it's a priviledge", since we nationalized the highway system in 1954 in order to force standards to support width and bridge height requirements for mobile command posts, in the event of nuclear war. 8-). > "Claim of Privilege": > This meaning is usually rendered fuzzy by an implied or explicit > prefixing with the word "Just". At one extreme, "Just" is defined > metaphysically as coming from a god. At the other extreme, it's > defined as coming from some law/regulation/rule. In the middle, > it comes from tradition and/or supreme law as from our Declaration > of Independence and/or Constitution (as misinterpreted by a Court). inalienable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights> right: 1 qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval 2 something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled b(1) the interest that one has in a piece of property -- often used in plural <mineral rights (2) plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature <film rights of the novel> 3 something that one may properly claim as due 4 the cause of truth or justice > It's unclear what people are thinking when they say "driving's not a > right, it's a privilege". (Most are probably not thinking at all, but > merely quoting a mantra tought to them by their teachers who, in turn, > learned it from their socialist college professors.) Driving can be > considered either a priviledge or a just claim to a privilege as granted > by law to those who qualify (i.e., a right). Driving, as a right, is not inalienable. It was alienated in the Interstate Highway Act of 1954 (see above). > Changing the subject somewhat, I'll note that regardless of what > *claims* people have on any privileges, the *enjoyment* of those > privileges are ultimately dependent on explicit or implicit *grants* of > privilege by the people controlling the force of arms, who are usually, > in turn, controlled by means of money. If you want to try to ensure > your enjoyment of rights, you need to strive after control of the guns > and money. That really doesn't agree with Locke or Rosseau... 8-) 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E592A2D.1F46CD19>