Re: MD Should privacy be a right?

From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Jul 06 2003 - 22:09:55 BST

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD Should privacy be a right?"

    Hi Platt and David,
    This came through after I sent the last post. So this is my real last post
    on the topic (really this time, i swear :-).

    P
    > You might want to point out where Pirsig said that a right to privacy is
    > an intellectual value. If you can't, you're attributing a position to him
    > that isn't there, just as the Court found a right to sodomy in the
    > Constitution that isn't there.

    R
    As I've pointed out to you several times now, the Constitution does
    explicitly say that it is not an exhaustive list of rights, so I can't
    imagine why you still think it's persuasive to keep pointing out that the
    Constitution doesn't contain an explicit right to privacy. The 9th amendment
    + 10th amendment = unenumerated rights that belong to the people as
    individuals. Nobody (no matter how conservative) disputes this!!! The
    debated question is whether privacy is one of those unenumerated rights. Do
    you actually have any arguments that SUPPORT your view that it isn't? Texas
    didn't... Should they have hired you as their lawyer instead? How would you
    have convinced the Court that the framers didn't intend privacy to be
    covered by the 9th amendment? As a great man once wrote, "Show some
    evidence, please, not just your personal bias."

    P
    > Pirsig did write this:
    >
    > "I personally am pro-choice, but I understand the moral integrity of those
    > who are not. It is a matter for society through its mechanisms of politics
    > to decide and keep deciding as it evolves toward a better world." (Lila's
    > Child, Note 92.)
    > Pirsig's "codes" appear to be much more tolerant than yours. Moreover, you
    > will notice that he comes down on the side of the "mechanisms of
    > politics," i.e. legislatures, to decide such moral questions, not the
    > courts which are supposed to be above politics. This is also my position.

    R
    Now you're the one putting words in the man's mouth Platt, "mechanisms of
    politics" does not mean "legislatures". Pirsig is a highly educated man,
    and the author/editor of a professional level legal-textbook, if he meant
    the "legislatures" should decide, he would have said it. But he didn't
    (because if he had it would have been akin to endorsing a dictatorship of
    legislatures). He meant what he wrote. The mechanisms of politics include
    legislatures, but they also include courts, executives, voters,
    administrative agencies, private litigants, special interest groups...etc.
    "Politics" is the sum of that world, not any one part.

    take care
    rick

    Man is by nature a political animal. - Aristotle

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 06 2003 - 22:08:17 BST