Smoke two...

-- deleted messages --

-- deleted messages --

-- deleted messages --

Re: Smoke two...

In article <Xns9A89141656F18goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.95>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:

> >> You've already shown that you have some confusion over
> >> whether I meant that jury duty was the right.
> >
> > I've shown no such thing.
>
> Don't make me cite you again. Oh, what the heck:
>
> >YOU claiming YOUR right to vote puts an obligation on YOU
> >to sign-up for jury-duty.
>
> The right in question was "right to jury trial", not
> "right to vote". If I have a "right to vote", why
> are there strings attached?

Ah, I see the problem, here: You're confused.

You have no inalienable right to vote. (See earlier post about
alienable vs inalienable, and how the former is more like a "privilege",
widely granted.)

I hope that clears things up.

--
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.

Re: Smoke two...

Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
9F5887.07535123042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :


>> The right in question was "right to jury trial", not
>> "right to vote". If I have a "right to vote", why
>> are there strings attached?
>
> Ah, I see the problem, here: You're confused.

I don't think so. At least not in the way you mean.

> You have no inalienable right to vote. (See earlier post about
> alienable vs inalienable, and how the former is more like a "privilege",
> widely granted.)

The issue here wasn't "inalienable" but whether rights invoke
obligations on others. If you don't think voting is a right,
just substitute something you think is a right into the argument.

B.

--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.

Re: Smoke two...

In article <Xns9A89DD026C510goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.94>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:

> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
> 9F5887.07535123042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
>
>
> >> The right in question was "right to jury trial", not
> >> "right to vote". If I have a "right to vote", why
> >> are there strings attached?
> >
> > Ah, I see the problem, here: You're confused.
>
> I don't think so. At least not in the way you mean.
>
> > You have no inalienable right to vote. (See earlier post about
> > alienable vs inalienable, and how the former is more like a "privilege",
> > widely granted.)
>
> The issue here wasn't "inalienable" but whether rights invoke
> obligations on others. If you don't think voting is a right,
> just substitute something you think is a right into the argument.

Ok, sure.

You have a right to free speech. This right does not invoke any
obligation on others.

Btw, I realise that there's a lot going on in this thread, but it hardly
seems in the spirit of honest debate to argue against person X by poking
holes in statements made by person Y, even if X & Y seem to largely
agree.

It seems that every time I get close to answering your supposedly
sincere questions, you go off on some tangent or another about how
Mickey, Tom, or sometimes Alex said something else that doesn't jibe
with what I said. That's all fine & dandy for the purposes of general
discussion -- I think we all agree that folks don't fully agree on this
stuff -- but please be careful to avoid forms that could be construed as
variations on "you're wrong because Paul once posted <foo>." Thanks!

--
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.

Re: Smoke two...

Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in
news:Misc-D2C9CA.20381523042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :


> You have a right to free speech. This right does not invoke any
> obligation on others.

It sure seems to. Since we've all gotten together and
decided that a person should (that is, "morally")
have freedom of speech, we have a moral obligation to
not sin (in commission or omission) against this right.
Therefore, I'm morally obligated to join with society
in actively and passively promoting freedom of speech.
This includes paying taxes which fund cops who protect
peaceful protests from being routed by angry bystanders.


> It seems that every time I get close to answering your supposedly
> sincere questions, you go off on some tangent or another about how
> Mickey, Tom, or sometimes Alex said something else that doesn't jibe
> with what I said.

I don't bring those up to say "you're wrong because he said";
I bring them up to ask, "he said this which apparently disagrees
with you, doesn't this show that the vagueness of which I
complain is, in fact there?"

B.

--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.

Re: Smoke two...


"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in message
news:Misc-68D4C2.15300222042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net ...
> In article <Xns9A889DF0EA7F5goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.94>,
> Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
>
>> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in
>> news:Misc-25CE02.13052718042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
>>
>> > In article <Xns9A848D76DD99Cgoddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.90>,
>> > Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
>> >> E356E6.08313218042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
>> >> > If man has inalienable rights, then the fact that some despot
>> >> > infringes those rights does NOT mean the rights no longer exist.
>> >
>> >> Doesn't "infringe" mean the same a "aleinate" here?
>> >
>> > Sure, I just thought infringe was more widely understood (I'm trying
>> > to communicate effectively :)
>>
>> If they mean the same, then the rights are not "inalienable",
>> because they have, in fact, been alienated. This little
>> contradiction is at the heart of my problems with talking
>> about "rights".
>
> No, you're stuck thinking that people whose rights have been denied them
> don't have those rights. They still have the rights, they just can't
> exercise them.
>
> If they didn't have the rights, we wouldn't care, since nothing would be
> being denied them.
>
> It sure SEEMS like you're intentionally playing word-games; I'm having a
> hard time believing that you don't understand what is being said, here.
>
>> > I'm saying this in the sense of "if you steal my stereo, it's STILL my
>> > stereo",
>
>> But is it your "unstealable" stereo, if I steal it?
>
> You're trying to equate "inalienable" with "un-infringable"? (I chose
> that over "undeniable" to avoid the ambiguity.)
>
> "I do not think that word means what you think it means..."
>
> in·al·ien·a·ble
> adj. That cannot be transferred to another or others: inalienable
> rights
>
> Inalienable means you can't take it away or transfer it to someone else.
> It does NOT mean it is impossible for anyone to deny me said thing.

On minor point: some of these rights can be DLELGATED, such as retaliation
for a crime committed against you (delegated to police and courts), but you
still retain them, you have not given them up entirely.

> You also seem stuck on the idea that a right that is
> infringed/denied/not-exercisable is no right at all and pointless. But
> it is not. The right has a point and the point is: you SHOULD be able
> to exercise it, and the U.N. should send a very stern email to whoever
> it is that is denying you your rights.
>
>> It can obligate someone to serve in the military, which is a
>> coerced action which purpose is to secure the rights of others.
>
> Mickey, Tom & I don't like the draft, either, for the same reason.
>
>> Ditto jury duty. Ditto paying taxes (which pay for the voting
>> system and the military maching.)
>
> Jury duty's been debunked. I'm pretty sure Mickey, Tom & I don't like
> Taxes, either. :)

Taxes are legalized theft, though alternative means of financing the
"necessary and proper" functions of government are difficult outside of
taxes. As for taxes to fund redistributionist schemes, that's a no-brainer.

I'm afraid society has not evolved enough to provide necessary funding
_voluntarily_, and the tariffs of the early Republic would be preferable. As
for the state of society, I might be surprised, but I'd hate to bet on it.

Yet, during WW2, many bought war bonds, and I'd surmise that many of those
never expected to get their money back.

In sum, a government cannot FORCE (1) you to do something that an individual
could not do on his or her own.

(1) In a nutshell, government is a body having the power of legal use of
force within a jurisdiction. Like an individual, it cannot legitimately
initiate force. (Operative word, stictly used, is "initiate").

Re: Smoke two...

In article <dqCPj.30287$KJ1.26520@newsfe19.lga>,
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:

> > Inalienable means you can't take it away or transfer it to someone else.
> > It does NOT mean it is impossible for anyone to deny me said thing.

> On minor point: some of these rights can be DLELGATED, such as retaliation
> for a crime committed against you (delegated to police and courts), but you
> still retain them, you have not given them up entirely.

I'm going to disagree, here. Your "right to vote" isn't an inalienable
right. It's actually a privilege, of sorts, which one loses when one
commits certain crimes. Another way to say the same thing is "you have
the right to vote, so long as you don't commit said crimes."

I suppose one could argue that said "right" then comes with a form of
coercion (to not commit crimes) but, even then, the coercion isn't on
another person to produce some labour, it's just on you.

--
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.

Re: Smoke two...


"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in message
news:Misc-C6FC8C.08070223042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net ...
> In article <dqCPj.30287$KJ1.26520@newsfe19.lga>,
> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
>
>> > Inalienable means you can't take it away or transfer it to someone
>> > else.
>> > It does NOT mean it is impossible for anyone to deny me said thing.
>
>> On minor point: some of these rights can be DLELGATED, such as
>> retaliation
>> for a crime committed against you (delegated to police and courts), but
>> you
>> still retain them, you have not given them up entirely.
>
> I'm going to disagree, here. Your "right to vote" isn't an inalienable
> right. It's actually a privilege, of sorts, which one loses when one
> commits certain crimes. Another way to say the same thing is "you have
> the right to vote, so long as you don't commit said crimes."

Didn't say the "right to vote", as there is none. Voting is a priviledge
granted to those based on certain criteria, such as age, mental competence
(don't get started, okay?), and citizenship standing. It is a facet of a
representative republic, but that is only a form of government.

> I suppose one could argue that said "right" then comes with a form of
> coercion (to not commit crimes) but, even then, the coercion isn't on
> another person to produce some labour, it's just on you.

Coersion is justified, just not the initiation of it.

Re: Smoke two...


"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in
message
news:Misc-920B9C.08554316042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net ...
> In article <66m1plF2l544lU1@mid.individual . net >,
> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> OK, specific example. You have a severely autistic
>> child. You and your
>> wife die. There is no money. Your kid is utterly
>> incapable of providing
>> for himself. At that point, do you really say "hey, let
>> the kid take his
>> chances with charity, he has no right to live" or will
>> you agree that he is
>> a human being and has the right to the very basic means
>> of ensuring
>> survival?
>
> False dilemma.
>
> We say "the kid has a right to live, I *do* so hope that
> someone will be
> charitable and help him do so."
>
> What we do *NOT* say is: "Alex, you are hereby responsible
> for providing
> for this child in the manner that we feel he deserves."
>
> ...Because that would be stealing. It would be WRONG.

I'm not talking about "the manner that we feel he deserves".
That's welfare. That's doing stuff to make someone's life a
little more comfortable, and it goes way beyond making sure
this kid actually gets to live.


>
>> More generally, does it really give you a warm glow of
>> justifiable
>> righteousness to argue that it's perfectly legal and just
>> to let a guy
>> starve, freeze or bleed to death in some alley near you?
>
> Yes.
>
> Because even though you attempt to paint it in those
> horrible terms,
> what we're REALLY arguing is that man's life is important,
> and that he
> has a right to direct himself and the fruits of his own
> labour.
>
> Does it REALLY give you a warm glow to argue that an
> unemployed bum
> should be allowed to hold a gun to our heads and take what
> is ours,
> because he's too lazy to get off his ass and find a job?
>
> Let's cut the bullshit, Alex -- folks are trying to have
> an honest
> discussion, here, and you're out making carefully crafted
> ad-homs and
> "for the children" arguments. We expect better of you.

Either I'm not expressing myself clearly enough, or you're
not reading all the posts. I am not concerned with
welfare -- that is up to the individual and his conscience,
either enacted by himself or through institutionalised
mechanisms. This is not the issue here, as far as I am
concerned. I am defending the fundamental right to life,
the right not to starve, freeze or bleed to death, the right
without which all other rights (entitlements, privileges
etc) are meaningless. If you make my very survival
contingent on your generosity alone, you essentially deprive
me of my human dignity and you deny that I, as a human
being, have the *right* to live independently of your
charitable impulses. Do you really want to go there? When
you get right dow to the very edge, the survival of each and
every one of us depends on others recognising our right to
live and assist us in continuing to do so. When that fails,
we typically end up re-enacting mankind's worst moments of
inhumanity.


>
>> This is not an issue of welfare fraud.
>> It's a fundamental point of natural and human rights.
>
> Indeed. We agree, here.
>
>> You DO NOT deprive me of my life.
>
> Indeed. No one should do so.
>
>> You DO NOT deprive me of the means necessary for my very
>> life.
>
> Indeed. No one should do so.
>
>> Anything else is murder.
>
> ...Or theft, depending on how much depriving you're doing.
>
> I believe this argument is centred around your confusing
> "must not
> deprive" with "must provide."

At the extreme and the very basic end, they are one and the
same, Ted. If you refuse me that which is absolutely
essential for my survival, you effectively deprive me of
life; in reverse, this means that you -- personally and
communally -- must provide those fundamental needs because
the failure to do so will directly impact my fundamental
right.

And no, "fundamental needs" does not mean free turkey
dinners and cable TV.

Re: Smoke two...

Alex W. wrote:

> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in
> message
> news:Misc-920B9C.08554316042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net ...
>
>>In article <66m1plF2l544lU1@mid.individual . net >,
>>"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>OK, specific example. You have a severely autistic
>>>child. You and your
>>>wife die. There is no money. Your kid is utterly
>>>incapable of providing
>>>for himself. At that point, do you really say "hey, let
>>>the kid take his
>>>chances with charity, he has no right to live" or will
>>>you agree that he is
>>>a human being and has the right to the very basic means
>>>of ensuring
>>>survival?
>>
>>False dilemma.
>>
>>We say "the kid has a right to live, I *do* so hope that
>>someone will be
>>charitable and help him do so."
>>
>>What we do *NOT* say is: "Alex, you are hereby responsible
>>for providing
>>for this child in the manner that we feel he deserves."
>>
>>...Because that would be stealing. It would be WRONG.
>
>
> I'm not talking about "the manner that we feel he deserves".
> That's welfare. That's doing stuff to make someone's life a
> little more comfortable, and it goes way beyond making sure
> this kid actually gets to live.
>
>
>
>>>More generally, does it really give you a warm glow of
>>>justifiable
>>>righteousness to argue that it's perfectly legal and just
>>>to let a guy
>>>starve, freeze or bleed to death in some alley near you?
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>Because even though you attempt to paint it in those
>>horrible terms,
>>what we're REALLY arguing is that man's life is important,
>>and that he
>>has a right to direct himself and the fruits of his own
>>labour.
>>
>>Does it REALLY give you a warm glow to argue that an
>>unemployed bum
>>should be allowed to hold a gun to our heads and take what
>>is ours,
>>because he's too lazy to get off his ass and find a job?
>>
>>Let's cut the bullshit, Alex -- folks are trying to have
>>an honest
>>discussion, here, and you're out making carefully crafted
>>ad-homs and
>>"for the children" arguments. We expect better of you.
>
>
> Either I'm not expressing myself clearly enough, or you're
> not reading all the posts. I am not concerned with
> welfare -- that is up to the individual and his conscience,
> either enacted by himself or through institutionalised
> mechanisms. This is not the issue here, as far as I am
> concerned. I am defending the fundamental right to life,

which we all seem to agree is a Right (as opposed to the fictional "rights" some
are making synonymous with demands.

> the right not to starve, freeze or bleed to death,

which isn't a Right, but an expectation or, for some people, a demand on others
to comply with the sensibilities of the person making the assertion.

> the right
> without which all other rights (entitlements, privileges
> etc) are meaningless.

which is the right to life and the oportunity to attempt to survive (and
possibly prosper) without hinderance.

> If you make my very survival
> contingent on your generosity alone, you essentially deprive
> me of my human dignity and you deny that I, as a human
> being, have the *right* to live independently of your
> charitable impulses.

no. it makes your survival contingent on your ability to take advantage of equal
oportinity to influence your personal outcome; USING the wealth released from a
government that currently holds it hostage at confiscatory levels.

> Do you really want to go there? When
> you get right dow to the very edge, the survival of each and
> every one of us depends on others recognising our right to
> live

yes. equal oportunity without hinderance from others.

> and assist us in continuing to do so.

no. that's equal outcome; a differently-colored horse.

> When that fails,
> we typically end up re-enacting mankind's worst moments of
> inhumanity.

no. we free up personal wealth and allow individuals to direct it toward the
charities of their conscience instead of the demands of an inficient government
and the sensibilities of others with (potentially) conflicting intents.

Re: Smoke two...

"[none]" <name@swbell . net > wrote in message
news:pxwNj.8546$V14.2206@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc . com ...
> Alex W. wrote:

>>
>> Either I'm not expressing myself clearly enough, or you're not reading
>> all the posts. I am not concerned with welfare -- that is up to the
>> individual and his conscience, either enacted by himself or through
>> institutionalised mechanisms.

If it is individual conscious, that's a lot different from institutionalized
via force of government.

If your "unclear" point makes no distinction between voluntary charity and
mandatory programs, funded via taxes, they you really need to go back to
square one and check your premises because you're missing all the critical
points.


>> This is not the issue here, as far as I am concerned. I am defending the
>> fundamental right to life,
>
> which we all seem to agree is a Right (as opposed to the fictional
> "rights" some are making synonymous with demands.
>
>> the right not to starve, freeze or bleed to death,
>
> which isn't a Right, but an expectation or, for some people, a demand on
> others to comply with the sensibilities of the person making the
> assertion.
>
>> the right without which all other rights (entitlements, privileges etc)
>> are meaningless.
>
> which is the right to life and the oportunity to attempt to survive (and
> possibly prosper) without hinderance.
>
>> If you make my very survival contingent on your generosity alone, you
>> essentially deprive me of my human dignity and you deny that I, as a
>> human being, have the *right* to live independently of your charitable
>> impulses.
>
> no. it makes your survival contingent on your ability to take advantage of
> equal oportinity to influence your personal outcome; USING the wealth
> released from a government that currently holds it hostage at confiscatory
> levels.
>
>> Do you really want to go there? When you get right dow to the very edge,
>> the survival of each and every one of us depends on others recognising
>> our right to live
>
> yes. equal oportunity without hinderance from others.

"Equal opportunity" is another bogus notion.

Opportunities are out there and people seek them out and take advantage of
them; they're not doled out like cookies off a platter.

Now is someone is retarding or rstricting someones pursuing an opportunity,
that's something different.

>
>> and assist us in continuing to do so.
>
> no. that's equal outcome; a differently-colored horse.
>
>> When that fails, we typically end up re-enacting mankind's worst moments
>> of inhumanity.
>
> no. we free up personal wealth and allow individuals to direct it toward
> the charities of their conscience instead of the demands of an inficient
> government and the sensibilities of others with (potentially) conflicting
> intents.

One is benevolent, the other is thug force.

Re: Smoke two...

Tom S. wrote:

> "[none]" <name@swbell . net > wrote in message
> news:pxwNj.8546$V14.2206@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc . com ...
>
>>Alex W. wrote:
>
>
>>>Either I'm not expressing myself clearly enough, or you're not reading
>>>all the posts. I am not concerned with welfare -- that is up to the
>>>individual and his conscience, either enacted by himself or through
>>>institutionalised mechanisms.
>
>
> If it is individual conscious, that's a lot different from institutionalized
> via force of government.
>
> If your "unclear" point makes no distinction between voluntary charity and
> mandatory programs, funded via taxes, they you really need to go back to
> square one and check your premises because you're missing all the critical
> points.
>
>
>
>>>This is not the issue here, as far as I am concerned. I am defending the
>>>fundamental right to life,
>>
>>which we all seem to agree is a Right (as opposed to the fictional
>>"rights" some are making synonymous with demands.
>>
>>
>>>the right not to starve, freeze or bleed to death,
>>
>>which isn't a Right, but an expectation or, for some people, a demand on
>>others to comply with the sensibilities of the person making the
>>assertion.
>>
>>
>>>the right without which all other rights (entitlements, privileges etc)
>>>are meaningless.
>>
>>which is the right to life and the oportunity to attempt to survive (and
>>possibly prosper) without hinderance.
>>
>>
>>>If you make my very survival contingent on your generosity alone, you
>>>essentially deprive me of my human dignity and you deny that I, as a
>>>human being, have the *right* to live independently of your charitable
>>>impulses.
>>
>>no. it makes your survival contingent on your ability to take advantage of
>>equal oportinity to influence your personal outcome; USING the wealth
>>released from a government that currently holds it hostage at confiscatory
>>levels.
>>
>>
>>>Do you really want to go there? When you get right dow to the very edge,
>>>the survival of each and every one of us depends on others recognising
>>>our right to live
>>
>>yes. equal oportunity without hinderance from others.
>
>
> "Equal opportunity" is another bogus notion.
>
> Opportunities are out there and people seek them out and take advantage of
> them; they're not doled out like cookies off a platter.
>
> Now is someone is retarding or rstricting someones pursuing an opportunity,
> that's something different.

i sit corrected. access, unhindered by others, to the opportunities that life
presents. personal hindrances such as sloth and a feeling of entitlement are a
personal problem left to the individual to get over.

>>>and assist us in continuing to do so.
>>
>>no. that's equal outcome; a differently-colored horse.
>>
>>
>>>When that fails, we typically end up re-enacting mankind's worst moments
>>>of inhumanity.
>>
>>no. we free up personal wealth and allow individuals to direct it toward
>>the charities of their conscience instead of the demands of an inficient
>>government and the sensibilities of others with (potentially) conflicting
>>intents.
>
>
> One is benevolent, the other is thug force.

exactly. i think we're in violent agreement.

Re: Smoke two...

In article <66nguuF2k7s63U1@mid.individual . net >,
"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in
> message
> news:Misc-920B9C.08554316042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net ...
> > In article <66m1plF2l544lU1@mid.individual . net >,
> > "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> OK, specific example. You have a severely autistic
> >> child. You and your
> >> wife die. There is no money. Your kid is utterly
> >> incapable of providing
> >> for himself. At that point, do you really say "hey, let
> >> the kid take his
> >> chances with charity, he has no right to live" or will
> >> you agree that he is
> >> a human being and has the right to the very basic means
> >> of ensuring
> >> survival?
> >
> > False dilemma.
> >
> > We say "the kid has a right to live, I *do* so hope that
> > someone will be
> > charitable and help him do so."
> >
> > What we do *NOT* say is: "Alex, you are hereby responsible
> > for providing
> > for this child in the manner that we feel he deserves."
> >
> > ...Because that would be stealing. It would be WRONG.
>
> I'm not talking about "the manner that we feel he deserves".
> That's welfare. That's doing stuff to make someone's life a
> little more comfortable, and it goes way beyond making sure
> this kid actually gets to live.

As the old joke goes: "now we're just haggling about price."

> I am defending the fundamental right to life,
> the right not to starve, freeze or bleed to death, the right
> without which all other rights (entitlements, privileges
> etc) are meaningless. If you make my very survival
> contingent on your generosity alone, you essentially deprive
> me of my human dignity and you deny that I, as a human
> being, have the *right* to live independently of your
> charitable impulses.

This would be true *IF* I could make your survival contingent on my
generosity. And, in fact, that is *WHY* we have special exception laws
for children, because their survival IS contingent on their parents'
generosity! That's why we have laws, and children have rights, that
don't apply to the rest of us.

YOU, on the other hand, lying bleeding in the gutter (let's just say),
do NOT depend on my generosity for your survival. In fact, it's not
even assured that I'll be anywhere around! (See how this is different
from the laws which protect a child's right to have parents watching
them at every moment?) You're largely dependent on LUCK, at this point,
and that includes being lucky enough to have a generous & capable
samaritan walk by.

Hey, check this out: In California, I have the right to accidentally
kill you, if I was trying to help. So, there you are, lying in the
gutter, bleeding from a punctured lung (let's say you fell & a rib poked
through (no offense -- I certainly don't wish any of this on you!))
Along comes generous I, an begins to administer CPR (because it's what I
know.) ...

...

Ooo, here's an interesting one: Do you have "a [basic, fundamental]
right" to deny me my [so you say I have an] obligation to render aid...?

...

So, anyway, punctured lung, broken rib, CPR, and a few minutes later,
I've managed to inadvertently squeeze that last breath of life out of
you. Under California's "Good Samaritan" law, I'm ok because I was
trying (however incompetently) to help.

Sorry, got sidetracked. But I think all the key points were covered, in
there... :)


> Do you really want to go there? When
> you get right dow to the very edge, the survival of each and
> every one of us depends on others recognising our right to
> live and assist us in continuing to do so.

Huh? I'm afraid you lost me, there.

Are you going the "without doctors, firemen & police, you'd be dead a
long time ago" route...?

> When that fails,
> we typically end up re-enacting mankind's worst moments of
> inhumanity.

The Benny Hill show...?!

> >> This is not an issue of welfare fraud.
> >> It's a fundamental point of natural and human rights.

> > I believe this argument is centred around your confusing
> > "must not deprive" with "must provide."

> At the extreme and the very basic end, they are one and the
> same, Ted.

Sorry to seem dense (it's a gift! ;), but I'm just not getting this
point. Rather, to the extent that I think I get it, I disagree,
strongly. (Hence, I'm considering the possibility that you mean
something else.)

> If you refuse me that which is absolutely
> essential for my survival, you effectively deprive me of
> life; in reverse, this means that you -- personally and
> communally -- must provide those fundamental needs because
> the failure to do so will directly impact my fundamental
> right.
>
> And no, "fundamental needs" does not mean free turkey
> dinners and cable TV.

What if you're one turkey dinner & an Oprah-enlightening-moment away
from death, hmmmm...?!

<G>

--
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.