Fred Stone wrote:
"John Graeme" <jdgra...@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:1146109645.389909.230990@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"John Graeme" <jdgra...@my-deja.com> wrote in
...wrote

They have whatever right the people decide to let them have.
"The consent of the governed".

Who are "the people" in "whatever right the people decide to let
them have"? Everyone? The majority? If it's not everyone,
then some people did not consent to it. If it's the majority,
what gives the majority the right to impose its will on everyone
else?

If you don't consent to the rules, society is not required to
grant you the benefits of living here either.

That evades the questions posed. And you are confusing "society"
with government. It is not society that imposes laws and puts you
in prison; it is government.

The people, in forming a government, delegate their individual
authority to that government. The government is the delegated power
of the people in the society.

This is basic political science. Libertarian 101.

Quoting from high school civics doesn't address the issue:

1. Even accepting that scenario, the "people" do not delegate all
their rights or authority to the government. The government, in fact,
is supposed to protect the inherent rights of the people. From The
Declaration of Independence: "all men...are endowed...with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men." The 4th Amendment, for example, is supposed to
protect privacy and related rights; the 1st various basic freedoms,
etc.

2. That's not the way government was formed. People never lived as
isolated individuals who came together to form a government. And
government control in the U.S. (and most places) was established by
force--i.e., killing the native inhabitants and seizing their land.

(that doesn't mean that you get to decide which laws you'll
obey, by the way).

So if the government or the majority decided that slavery was
legal and that fugitive slaves should be returned to their
"owners" or that certain minorities should be persecuted or sent
to labor camps (just to take a couple of real historical
examples), you think that everyone should obey those laws? Those
rights have been decided already.

One could say the same thing about slavery and persecution of
minorities at that time. Again, that evades the issue, i.e., that
people have certain inherent rights that government and other
people should not violate.

Those rights were decided by the people at a certain time, and
granted by the people, and enforced by the people. We The People put
them in the Constitution specifically so as to make it clear that we
want them to be enforced universally.

Which again ignores the point raised: Slavery was legal and considered
normal and morally acceptable for many years (in fact most of recorded
history). The Fugitive Slave Act provided for harsh penalties for
anyone who helped a runaway slave. Should people have followed the
law and obeyed it?

Should people have obeyed all the laws in Nazi
Germany?
After all, that was a democratically elected government. That's just
a couple of many examples.

The point is that there are certain areas of individuals' lives
that are private and that people have certain rights regardless
of what the government says, and that these should not be
subject to intrusion by government. This is what the U.S.
Constitution was *supposed to* protect.

That is not carte blanche for an interest group to declare
themselves immune from the lawmaking power of the people and the
states.

The claim was not for a right to violate any law we dislike--only
those laws that infringe on fundamental rights, e.g., the right to
freedom and privacy. What a person puts into his own body in his
own home is about as private as it gets.

The point is that the Constitution says what it says, not what you
say that it is *supposed to* say.

If the Constitution does not protect the basic rights and freedoms
that it is supposed to, what good is it?

Society says otherwise, and via their proxies in the government,
makes the laws that say that you will be punished if you get caught
doing certain things or putting certain things into your body without
permission.

Actually I think the PP's main point (and mine) is that such laws are
morally wrong and should be changed. But your appeal to force
(argumentum ad baculum fallacy) doesn't address the question of
whether a person is justified in ignoring such immoral laws.

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 04:01:55 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:

"John Graeme" <jdgraeme@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:1146109645.389909.230990@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"John Graeme" <jdgra...@my-deja.com> wrote in
...wrote

They have whatever right the people decide to let them have.
"The consent of the governed".

Who are "the people" in "whatever right the people decide to let
them have"? Everyone? The majority? If it's not everyone, then
some people did not consent to it. If it's the majority, what
gives the majority the right to impose its will on everyone else?

If you don't consent to the rules, society is not required to grant
you the benefits of living here either.

That evades the questions posed. And you are confusing "society"
with government. It is not society that imposes laws and puts you
in prison; it is government.

The people, in forming a government, delegate their individual
authority to that government. The government is the delegated power of
the people in the society.

This is basic political science. Libertarian 101.

(that doesn't mean that you get to decide which laws you'll
obey, by the way).

So if the government or the majority decided that slavery was
legal and that fugitive slaves should be returned to their
"owners" or that certain minorities should be persecuted or sent
to labor camps (just to take a couple of real historical
examples), you think that everyone should obey those laws? Those
rights have been decided already.

One could say the same thing about slavery and persecution of
minorities at that time. Again, that evades the issue, i.e., that
people have certain inherent rights that government and other people
should not violate.

Those rights were decided by the people at a certain time, and granted
by the people, and enforced by the people. We The People put them in
the Constitution specifically so as to make it clear that we want them
to be enforced universally.

The point is that there are certain areas of individuals' lives
that are private and that people have certain rights regardless
of what the government says, and that these should not be subject
to intrusion by government. This is what the U.S. Constitution
was *supposed to* protect.

That is not carte blanche for an interest group to declare
themselves immune from the lawmaking power of the people and the
states.

The claim was not for a right to violate any law we dislike--only
those laws that infringe on fundamental rights, e.g., the right to
freedom and privacy. What a person puts into his own body in his
own home is about as private as it gets.

The point is that the Constitution says what it says, not what you say
that it is *supposed to* say.

Society says otherwise, and via their proxies in the government, makes
the laws that say that you will be punished if you get caught doing
certain things or putting certain things into your body without
permission.

Please point out exactly where in the Constitution the federal
government was granted the power to punish a citizen for doing things
to themselves. A crime requires an unwilling victim and the self
directed acts of a consenting adult citizen cannot be found to be
criminal in any rational system of government. The notion that the
government has an authority over my body that is superior to mine
really gives the lie to the very idea of "freedom". If one is not free
to excercise soveriegnty over their very mind and body, then exactly
what freedom can we claim?