disagree, however, that the consequences of that
are so dire as to justify refighting the War of the Southern Rebellion.
Equality
(the principal idea introduced by the 14th Amendment) is not about result
(which would arguably be slavery) but about equal treatment and equal opportunity.
For
example, Jackson, Mississippi, is ordered to integrate its municipal swimming
pools. Instead, the pools are closed down. No problem, say
the Supremes. There is no right to have a swimming pool provided
by the government, and a lot of cities have no such thing. But if
you have one, it must be open to all.
3.
There is no such entity as society unless a working majority of us agree
that there is and conduct ourselves as if there is. And that state
of affairs exists. There is no such thing as an Internet, either,
by your apparent standards--but I bet you get this e-mail.
|
There was a young woman from Deal
who said "Although pain isn't real,
when I am harassed
and kicked in my ass
I dislike what I fancy I feel!" |
4.
It is appropriate to call "privileges" rights when others similarly situated
in all relevant respects already have them. See, swimming pools.
I tried a case involving a place of public accommodation throwing out gay
people for dancing with each other. When the jury nailed the bigots,
it was reported in the media as "court upholds right to disco." Nonsense.
There is no such right. Just a right to equal treatment when similarly
situated in all relevant respects. Is that reading of the 14th so
hard to live with, or is it that the feds are given the authority to enforce
it? (As you point out, such authority did not exist before the Civil
War. This, of course, does not mean that the rebels were right and
the states could secede outside the context of a con-con.)
— Steve; San Antonio, Texas
1.
People who think for themselves are less likely to mindlessly obey government.
Whether or not they agree with me is irrelevant. They will still
resist the deceptions attempted by government and be more difficultto control.
2. Equality was not the principal idea introduced by the 14th amendment.
That amendment defined a citizen as being subject to the jurisdiction of
the U.S. government. Jurisdiction means power and control.
After that, citizenship was indistinguishable from slavery. That
was the principal idea introduced by the 14th Amendment. Furthermore,
equality isn't necessarily a good thing. Ants are equal. 3.
A government or a corporation is an individual, a party. It has boundaries
and identity. It can sue or be sued. Society has none of these
things. The opinion of a "working majority" is irrelevant.
Society isn't a body politic, no matter how many people incorrectly believe
otherwise. Actions taken in the name of society are actually taken
by and for the benefit of some individual or group, usually government,
using "society" as an excuse. As an entity, society doesn't exist.
It has no rights. Only people have rights. 4. It is never
appropriate to call a privilege a right. A right is something that
is within your ability, for which you don't need permission, and which
will be generally or customarily condoned or tolerated. If you need
permission, then it isn't a right. It's a privilege. Courts
don't grant rights. They grant privileges.
— editor
Dear Sam
The
Independence
Day article is very nice. The Declaration situation was apparently
similar to the current European Union. If the current US were such
a union of 50 sovereign states, they would certainly be less of a burden
to US oppressed citizens, & to the world.
School
violence is indeed a symptom of a sick society. The numbers involved
are considerably smaller than the CIA orchestrated slaughters in places
like Rwanda. Nonetheless, if school shootings become a regular habit
of psychopathic US life, it will reflect poorly on the country's reputation.
Certainly arming teachers &/or students is not a solution. Libertarians
as well as liberals should be able to understand that when pointless violence
is a product of social oppression, the only solution is the removal of
that oppression, by force if necessary, rather than institutionalizing
a state of perpetual violent chaos in "educational" institutions.
Similarly, I would agree with you that no education at all would be better
than the US system of brainwashing which is called education. But
real education is a human thing, & it does indeed take an education
system as rotten as this country's to make your anti-public school attitude
sound like it might have some justifiable point.
Similarly,
it takes a society as rotten as that of the contemporary age to make arguments
like Cormier's,
in favor of the struggle for survival as superior to a life of culture,
seem like it might have a point. Fortunately, Cormier's argument
fails on the point so important to us aesthetes: contemporary society
is absolutely anti-culture, & that is its primary problem.
Only such oppressive barbarism could make animal existence seem superior.
Cormier has another basic philosophical flaw: he doesn't practice
what he preaches. If he were really a libertarian egoist who believed
that animal existence is superior, he would go live in the woods, &
not try to help us deluded believers in human civilization. He would
not interfere with those trying to express more human values. Both
he & we would be happier. That he does so interfere, rather than
living the life of the rogue ape he preaches, is transparently anti-libertarian.
Aristotle
believed in absolute monarchy, an idea which his pupil Alexander the Great
used to justify his own attempt to become the solitary master of the world.
Who knows how far he would have succeeded if he had not been struck down
by cosmic forces in his early 30's? What if he had lived to be 80
or more, like Stalin? The monarchic concept of Aristotle, followed
by Alexander, Julius Caesar in destroying the Roman Republic & setting
up the tyrannical Empire, giving power to psychopaths like Nero, Domitian,
& Heliogabalus, & also preached by Dante, would seem to be the
furthest thing from libertarianism. And Aristotle's belief in the
oppression of women was much in accordance with his tyrannical political
philosophy. Plato's Republic is much more humanistic, & included
social, economic, & political equality for women.
— Elliot; N. Merrick, New York
1.
I don't oppose public schools. I oppose tax supported schools and
mandatory attendance requirements. 2. Why should the rights
of women be the same as the rights of men? The belief that they are
isn't a law of nature. It's an assumption. As such, it should
not be coercively imposed by legislation. Rights do not arise from
legislation, but from custom and exercise.
— editor
Frontiersman@ida.net |
Frontiersman,
479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see The Pharos Connection at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/ |
July 1998
Page 3
|
|