Re: MD Should privacy be a right?

From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 07 2003 - 04:49:32 BST

  • Next message: johnny moral: "Re: MD Should privacy be a right?"

    Hi Rick,

    >PIRSIG (LILA p430)
    >Dhyana was what it was what this boat was all about. It's what he bought
    >it
    >for, a place to be alone and quiet and inconspicuous and able to settle
    >down
    >into himself and be what he really was and not what he was thought to be or
    >supposed to be.... The most moral activity of all is the creation of space
    >for life to move onward."
    >
    >R
    >Catch that? Creating the kind of privacy that men need to think, the kind
    >Phaedrus found on his boat (and presumably once his motorcycle) is THE MOST
    >MORAL ACTIVITY OF ALL. Moreover, when Lila seeks privacy to sort out the
    >problems of her life Phaedrus comments on the same page that "...the
    >culture
    >has a moral obligation not to bother her." And Lila's battle is
    >everybody's
    >battle, you know Platt?

    What is the point of privacy if you can't do illegal stuff in it? Like
    build bombs, write revolutionary tracts, take drugs, have sex with your
    sister, etc. The danger of making some things legal in private and keepnig
    other things illegal is that we ASSUME that the police are in the bedroom,
    we almost invite them in.

    I was also hoping you could finish explaining to me the "due process" thing.
      It was a real question, asking if a perpetrator's due process rights give
    him the same right to commit a crime in his bedroom. I was asking what the
    actual crime had to do with the unconstitutionality of enforcing it on due
    process grounds.

    >P
    >Incidentally, you added something to the
    > > 10th Amendment by saying rights belong to the people "as individuals."
    >Is
    > > that addition the Court's interpretation of "people," or yours?
    >
    >R
    >It's the only possible interpretation that makes sense. If "the people" is
    >read to mean 'the state' than the amendment is pointlessly redundant
    >(naming
    >the same group twice under two different names for no reason at all). If
    >"the people" is read to mean 'the federal government' than the amendment is
    >nonsensical (stating that any rights not expressly reserved to the federal
    >government are reserved to the states or the federal government). Equating
    >"the people" with individual citizens is the only possible logical
    >interpretation of the language. Unless you care to offer another
    >alternative....

    I think the state and the people decide for themselves how those rights are
    distributed. Some people may live in a state that gives very few rights to
    the people, other people live in states that have very few powers and
    rights. But it is up the the people in those states to work that out
    amongst themselves.

    >R
    >No you can't because I didn't say he meant "the Supreme Court" I said he
    >meant ALL the mechanisms of politics (which is what he wrote) you were the
    >one trying whittle it down to merely "the legislature".

    Politics is even larger than the branches of government too, it includes
    newspaper editorials, dirty tricks, corruption, etc...

    Johnny

    _________________________________________________________________
    MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
    http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

    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 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 04:50:01 BST