Hi 3WD, DMB, Marco, All:
Thank you 3WD for writing:
> ...I find those self-evident truths to be that people are endowed with a
> "four" basic "unalienable" rights.
>
> 1 The right to LIFE
> 2 The right to LIBERTY, or freedom
> 3 The right to HAPPINESS
> 4 The rights to ALTER, ABOLISH and INSTITUTE new governments.
>
> Unfortunately the AMONG left the door open for both Governments and
> People to "misconstrued rights" in both "arbitrary and tyrannical"
> ways. Go read the 27th amendment to the Bill of Rights and tell me that it
> rises to the "unalienable" level. It is my understanding that there were
> many people at the time who felt the whole Bill of Rights idea was
> dangerous because of just what has happened. Unstead of testing the
> abridgement of "unalienable human rights" against these four (which like
> the MoQ 4 +DQ cover everything ) a whole list of "arbitrary, tyrannical
> and conditional" rights have been elevated to the "unalienable" status.
>
> The whole issue with the Afgan prisoners is another case and point of
> AMONG allowing legal rights (rights mutually agree upon for specific
> legal circumstances, in this case the Geneva Convention concerning the
> treatment of prisoners of war) being misconstrued as "unalienable" human
> rights. The only "unalienable" right involved if you take up arms against
> your fellow man and try to kill him is his "unalienable" right to return
> the favor. It is perfectly moral that he does, because you by you actions,
> placed all four of his "unalienable" rights at risk.
>
> And this process continues with Civil "rights", both sides of Abortion
> "rights", Child "rights", Education "rights", Animal "rights", Plant
> "rights", the "rights" to clean air, water, land, and tommorrow the
> "unalienable" right of all to have a 24 hour a day accessible public toilet
> with scented Charmin..... in your house.
Well put! You may have noticed I have attempted on several occasions
to draw out from our liberal friends exactly what they mean when they,
like in Pirsig's famous "sentimental soup of sentiments" scene, cheer
for human rights. Marco did not hesitate to respond that he meant the
specific rights Pirsig enumerated--freedom of speech; freedom of
assembly, of travel; trial by jury; habeas corpus; government by
consent. I prefer your list to Pirsig's, but beyond either one I would not
go except to add the specific right to property which someone (Marco?)
has already suggested, the right of religious freedom and the right to
bear arms "to return the favor" as you put it.
Since Pirsig mentioned no human rights other than those he listed,
and since I have been scolded time and again for reading into the MOQ
what isn't there, it will be interesting to see if anyone here will claim that
Pirsig endorses the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva
Convention, the Hague Convention or any other "international"
enumeration of rights religiously ignored by most of the non-Western
world. It will also be fun to watch the MOQ being twisted, skewered
and misquoted to support various socialistic sacred cows such as the
right to a pension, health care, affirmative action and that one big all-
encompassing excuse for abridging freedom--"social justice."
Right now American's right to free speech is threatened by a
misnamed Campaign Reform Act whereby no so-called special
interest group funded by "soft money" will be able to criticize an
incumbent President, Senator or Representative 60 days prior to
election day . . . this in spite of a clause in the Constitution stating
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech."
Oh, I forgot. The founders of the Constitution didn't really mean it. As we
have all learned by now, absolutes don't exist. (-:
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:52 BST