smb@research.att.com writes:

The magazine section of tomorrow's N.Y.From owner-cypherpunks Sat Jun 11 15:37:34 1994 Return-Path: <owner-cypherpunks> Received: by toad.com id AA00210; Sat, 11 Jun 94 15:37:34 PDT Received: from zoom.bga.com by toad.com id AA00197; Sat, 11 Jun 94 15:37:24 PDT Received: (from ravage@localhost) by zoom.bga.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id RAA04770; Sat, 11 Jun 1994 17:37:03 -0500 From: Jim choate <ravage@bga.com> Message-Id: <199406112237.RAA04770@zoom.bga.com> Subject: Re: Crime and punishment in cyberspace - 3 of 3 To: diseased@panix.com (Edward Hirsch) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 17:37:03 -0500 (CDT) Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.87.9406110009.A14159-0100000@panix.com> from "Edward Hirsch" at Jun 11, 94 00:29:09 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3273 Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 10 Jun 1994, Jim choate wrote:

...

...

Seems to me the 'inalienable rights' that are mentioned in our founding charter carry this argument quite well. I suspect they also 'prove' them as well.

Claiming that certain rights are inalieable is hardly the same as "carrying the arguement" of their inalienablility. I hold that man has an inalienable right to free and unlimited supplies of cheesecake... does the fact that I say so "prove" that this is an inalienable right?

If eating cheesecake makes you happppy then the Constitution says you have an inalienable right to it. This of course implies that your expression of that right does not infringe on others.

...

I am really not saying anything about 'natural' rights though.

Well, by claiming that rights exist prior to the formation of the state or charter, you are claiming that they come from the state of nature, or are inherent to the human condition. This is what is meant by the phrase "natural rights."

All rights are natural rights. Your assumptio that governments arent natural (for people) is cleary one based in unclear thinking. People are social animals and their creation of governments is a natural expression of this. All rights are natural.

...

The point I am making is that a government is defined by what it can and can't do. This distinction is made at its creation through its charter.>

Exactly. Which is why rights come into existence only *after* the charter which declares them is accepted, not before.

Wrong, one has to be able to clearly define those rights prior to writing them down. At least for me I have the thought and then write it down, not the other way around.

...

Since when isn't the Constitution a legal context?

The Constitution is a "legal context," that's why we can use it to justify the existence of a right... we can say, for example, freedom of the press is a right because the Constitution says so. However, freedom of the press became a right only when the Constitution declared it, and not before. This is why, for example, housing is not at present a right, no matter how much some people think it should be. Housing will become a right only if and when the state decides to declare it a right.

Wrong again, the right will happen when people decide to include it in the Constitution, The document does not change under its own volition. The state can be changed under the constitution if enough people say they wanted it changed to cover a particular right. This is why the states have the right to change the Constitution w/o Congressional approval. You simply need to get the requisite number of states to agree to it. As to freedom of the press, it was free until the English started trying to regulate it. The people here felt that was an untold intrusion of any government into the actions of men. Seems to me that a implicit assumption in your argument is that the actions of governments supercede the rights of man. I ask you to explain whey the Constitution goes to great expense to detail and explain the rights of men and how they are decided (see Article 9, 10) and the fact that the state is given NO rights at all...