Forwarded message:

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 14:06:00 +0000 From: Tim Griffiths <T.G.Griffiths@exeter.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)

But the bit I'm trying to get at. Doesn't the idea of what those rights are change from social group to social group?

Do they? My thesis is that people are people and the basic things that make them satisfied and productive are the same: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Prove that people over time change their base behaviour or that that base behaviour is fundamentaly linked to the societial more's that they are exposed to. Note, that there is a distinct difference between these base behaviours and how they express them.

Furthermore, doesn't having a irrefutable set of laws place a fundamental (ist) limit on a democracy that exists under them?

Who, other than you, has said that there was a such thing as irrefutable laws? Laws or not rights, if your assertion is this please be so kind as to demonstrate that as well. Demonstrate that such a concept as irrefutable laws has an existance as anything other than idle mental mechanations.

Is it possible to have a true democracy without the assumption of a 'higher authority'?

Where in a democracy is there the assumption there is a higher authority than the governed? ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage@ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|