[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       cypherpunks
Subject:    Re:
From:       Petro <petro () playboy ! com>
Date:       1998-08-31 22:12:03
[Download RAW message or body]

At 1:29 PM -0500 8/31/98, Jim Burnes wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, Tim May wrote:
>> At 5:55 AM -0700 9/1/98, Albert P. Franco, II wrote:
>> >I chuckled reading this exchange... In Spain, one of my constitutional
>> >rights, along with free expression, is the right to work! In Spain you ARE
>> >entitled to a workplace, a pay-check, etc.
>> >Different points of view!
>> "Senor, I insist that you hire me to paint your house...you see, senor,
>> even though you say you have no need to have your house painted, I have a
>> right guaranteed in the Spanish constitution to a job, and I have picked
>> you to provide me with that job."
>> Any country which has a "right to work" written into its constitution has
>> some very basic problems.
>> Think about it.

	As long as people in this country have the right to bear arms, they
have the right to work.

	Think about it.

	No one _gave_ me either my gun, or my Job. Both were earned thru
exchange of value.

	I would then argue reverse, that any country where the RIGHT TO
WORK isn't a basic assumption has some very basic problems.

	This is operating with the same definition of right as used in the
second amendment.

	There is a big difference between having a right to a job, and
having the ability to demand a specific job. People have the same right to
work that they do to eat, or breathe, they just don't have the right to
force me to provide it, nor do I have the responsibility.


>Obvious example, the "right" to an education.  You cannot have the
>right to an education because it demands that you "rob peter to pay
>paul".  YOU must educate me, YOU must teach me, YOU must give me

	There are operant definitions of "right" which do not mean steal
from others at the point of a gun.

	In this country I still have some semblance of the right to travel,
the right to free (political, as opposed to business) speech &etc. I don't
have the right to force the Chicago Sun Times to print my letters to them
(assuming I sent them) much less take me on as a columnist.

	I do have a right to become educated, I don't (or shouldn't) have
the right to force you to pay for it.


	What many people in this country forget is that there are still
places where chatel slavery is legal, where the government can and does
exercise control over where people can live, where they can work, what they
can read & who can go to which schools--not restrictions based on
economics, but on politics, religion, skin color, or any number of other
factors that play little into the task at hand.

>As long as we live in a civilized society, rights cannot compel

	As long as, or as soon as?

>Its almost as if something bought up the United States of America as a
>name brand -- like Coca-cola.  We still have the color and the fizz, so
>many are fooled even now. But just like the scam of "New Coke" the new
>"democracy" lacks the rich flavor of freedom and independence.
>
>Too bad we can't go back to US "Classic".

	Ummm, I think that's wishing for a taste that was never there.

	Remember Senator "I have a List" McCarthy? (did I spell that right?)

	Remember those arrested in the Haymarket Incident? Did they get a
fair trial?

	Remember slavery?

	There have always been enforcement problems with our constitution,
the desire should not be to go back to an old flavor, but rather to try a
new recipe, one with a less bitter aftertaste.

>reboot,
>jim burnes


--
If you think that anything I say is in any way the corporate
position of The Organization I work for, then you are thoroughly
out of touch with anything vaguely resembling reality, and should check
yourself into the nearest Mental Health Facility. Thanks and have a nice day.
petro@p|_@yboy.com

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]