Re: Smoke two...

"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked.com> wrote in message
news:Misc-178394.23005822042008@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> In article <Xns9A88DD834E856goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.89>,
> Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked.com> wrote in news:Misc-
>> A12E9E.18301022042008@news.sf.sbcglobal.net:
>> > No. Pay attention: we're talking about your statement that one
>> > person's
>> > rights puts an obligation on another person (or society), which I claim
>> > is false, and repeatedly ask you to provide a single example. You keep
>> > bringing up jury duty as an example of a right that some other person
>> > has that puts an obligation on another person (or society), but it does
>> > not.
>
>> Of course it does. YOU have the right to a jury trial. _I_ am
>> coerced into serving on the jury. (By the way, Texas doesn't
>> use the voting rolls to choose jurors. They use the driver's
>> license rolls.)
>
> Your statement is self-contradictory. In the same paragraph, you tell
> me it's coercion, but also that you voluntarily sign up for it.
>
> (Or does Texas coerce people into getting drivers licences? Or is that
> just Houston? ;)

I did form the impression that quite a few people in Texas (and Boston)
don't bother with acquiring driving licences ...
:-)

Bart, in obtaining his driving licence, does not expressly sign up for jury
duty. It is the state which has chosen this particular database as a tool
for enforcing the obligation of jury duty. In Britain, they do so via
electoral registers (failure to sign up for which being an offence).


>
>> I think that in anyone's book, "If you don't
>> submit to jury duty, then you can't drive or vote" is coercion.
>
> I'm going to go out on a limb and claim -- without any ability to prove
> it, whatsoever -- that you don't actually think that.
>
>> > YOU claiming YOUR right to vote puts an obligation on YOU to sign-up
>> > for jury-duty.
>
>> See? I'm not the one not paying attention. I said nothing
>> of the sort. I said, rather, that YOUR right to a jury trial
>> puts an obligation on me. If I shun the obligation, there is
>> a penalty: I don't get to vote or drive.
>
> No, you have it backwards (and you know it.) When you sign up to vote
> (or drive), you are, at the same time, signing up for jury duty. Your
> jury duty does *NOT* come as a coerced obligation based on my right to
> vote, it comes as something you voluntarily accept, in return for being
> granted another privilege.

Ted, you're wrong. Would you argue the same if Texas were to draw upon
electoral rolls, the land registry or passport ownership to fill its pool of
jurors? The state chooses a particular method for enforcing this
obligation; this does not invalidate the coercive aspect.


>
>> >> Of course I have. Jury duty. Military service. Taxes. Having
>> >> to deal with unwanted "free" newspapers thrown on my lawn.
>
>> > You said a bunch of words. You have not shown how any person's rights
>> > have imposed obligations on others (let alone all of society.)
>
>> I'm pretty sure I have.
>
> Sure you are. Just as I'm pretty sure I've explained all this to you in
> words any English speaking person could understand. I'm also pretty
> sure that I've provided you with a working definition of "right."
>
> ...And yet we both remain unconvinced.
>
>
>> In order to ensure my rights, because
>> they are "rights", the government/society is obliged to take
>> certain actions.
>
> You have yet to name one single instance in which this is true.

Go to your local court-house on any given day, and choose a case at random.
There is your instance. The entire infrastructure of law enforcement, from
the meter maids through the court system to your friendly neighbourhood
prison, is designed and maintained to ensure and enforce your rights (and
obligations). Without recourse to this system -- maintained at society's
expense -- your rights would effectively only be enabled and enforceable at
the point of your gun and the whim of your neighbour.


>
> I say that your statement, above, is false; indefensible. It's the
> simplest of all possible proofs, Bart -- all you have to do is come up
> with ONE SINGLE CASE where it's true, and I'm forced to admit defeat.
>
> Are you up to the task...?
>
>> That is, jury duty is clearly an obligation,
>> and I'm coerced into it by the government....on YOUR behalf.
>
> Perhaps we need to work on vocabulary, here. If you want to have sex
> with a woman, and she says "only if you buy me dinner, first", are you
> being "coerced" into buying her dinner?

Depends.
How desperate are you?
:-)

In article <6790rhF2mjms2U2@mid.individual.net>,
"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> > No, you have it backwards (and you know it.) When you sign up to vote
> > (or drive), you are, at the same time, signing up for jury duty. Your
> > jury duty does *NOT* come as a coerced obligation based on my right to
> > vote, it comes as something you voluntarily accept, in return for being
> > granted another privilege.

> Ted, you're wrong. Would you argue the same if Texas were to draw upon
> electoral rolls, the land registry or passport ownership to fill its pool of
> jurors? The state chooses a particular method for enforcing this
> obligation; this does not invalidate the coercive aspect.

That (the style you suggest is used in the UK) would be coercive.

Also note, though, that the right to vote or drive is not an inalienable
right. It's more like a privilege. A "right to own land" or "...to be
born"..? Again, muddy area.

> > Perhaps we need to work on vocabulary, here. If you want to have sex
> > with a woman, and she says "only if you buy me dinner, first", are you
> > being "coerced" into buying her dinner?

> Depends.
> How desperate are you?
> :-)

Again, for any definition of "coercion" that allows an answer other than
flat out "no", (i) I will concede that the language has been so mangled
that anything can be called coercion, including the obligations placed
on others due to my rights and (ii) I think is a totally fucked-up usage
of the word.

--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked.com> wrote in message
news:Misc-3DA705.08375623042008@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> In article <6790rhF2mjms2U2@mid.individual.net>,
>
> Also note, though, that the right to vote or drive is not an inalienable
> right. It's more like a privilege.

Correct - the right is one of travel (for a word that Bart can comprehend),
but the means of said travel is not assured.

> A "right to own land" or "...to be
> born"..? Again, muddy area.
>

> Again, for any definition of "coercion" that allows an answer other than
> flat out "no", (i) I will concede that the language has been so mangled
> that anything can be called coercion, including the obligations placed
> on others due to my rights and (ii) I think is a totally fucked-up usage
> of the word.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source - Share This
Main Entry: co·er·cion
Pronunciation: kO-'&r-zh&n, -sh&n
Function: noun
: the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as
discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person
in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act
against his or her will; also : the defense that one acted under
coercion —see also DEFENSE, DURESS —compare UNDUE INFLUENCE

---------------------
"Is their a problem officer?"

Alex W. wrote:
> Go to your local court-house on any given day, and choose a case at random.
> There is your instance. The entire infrastructure of law enforcement, from
> the meter maids through the court system to your friendly neighbourhood
> prison, is designed and maintained to ensure and enforce your rights (and
> obligations). Without recourse to this system -- maintained at society's
> expense -- your rights would effectively only be enabled and enforceable at
> the point of your gun and the whim of your neighbour.

that may have been their original intent. their purpose now is to enforce
statute laws and have little to do with Constitutional Law. there is a difference.