differ greatly on our interpretation, specifically the weight that the tenth
amendment should hold. I think, and historical writings support this idea,
that the federal government should be limited in scope to only those things
specifically mentioned in the constitution.
--
Timothy Heald
Web Portfolio Manager
Overseas Security Advisory Council
U.S. Department of State
571.345.2319
The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S.
Department of State or any affiliated organization(s). Nor have these
opinions been approved or sanctioned by these organizations. This e-mail is
unclassified based on the definitions in E.O. 12958.
-----Original Message-----
From: Haggerty, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 1:37 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: More Breaking News
Simon -
I am talking about the reality of the situation, you are dealing with
ideal notions.
The government is in no way obligated to provide a minimum wage, human
rights, or rights of citizens outside of what it provided in the
Constitution. Even then there are wide variances in what those
obligations are supposed to mean. I believe it should provide for most
of these things, but that in no way makes it 'right' to provide for
them. This is simply my opinion.
Now, when we talk about morality and ethics, it is often helpful to know
what each means. Morality is the study (and sometimes application) of
right and wrong. Ethics is the codification of morality, and is often
limited in scope to a single pursuit (i.e. lawyers and doctors have
their own ethics which are each very different). In each case, they deal
with what one should and should not do.
A constitution, on the other hand, is a means of limiting the sovereign
authority of a government over its subjects. It places limits on the
application of power and puts rules around what can and cannot be done.
'Right' and 'wrong' are only meaningfully discussed in terms of
government when you look at whether a claim about an action is or is not
consistent with the constitution. Otherwise you are simply stating an
opinion, which has no bearing on politics except as it guides action
within the government. Even then it is only properly judged according to
its outcomes.
Our constitution provides for the right to conscience free speech, the
right to vote, the right to bear arms, and other 'human' rights. It
provides that there will be a federal government that protects our
borders. It does not say there will be a minimum wage, or a balanced
budget, or national parks and landmarks, or even 'equality' in the sense
the founding fathers meant it. The constitution provides that we can
make up our own minds on these subjects, and can institute or repeal
laws as we see fit. We judge the outcomes of these laws and, when laws
are judged to be producing bad outcomes, we put the people in place to
change those laws. This process does not rise to the level of making
anything 'right' except in that it is following the parameters set forth
in the Constitution.
Responsibility for one's fellow man is an interesting concept. It is one
I support in various ways, and one I believe in based on my religious
outlook. But it is in no way 'right', absolutely. Governments, political
entities, hordes of Mongols, empirates, etc. have thrived for 1000s of
years without modern notions of right and wrong, and the assumption that
these ideas are 'right' in and of themselves is ridiculous from several
perspectives (think about it, if there were a huge disaster, would you
really be interested in the property rights of others, or feel wrong if
you took food to feed your children).
In short, we have notions of right and wrong expressed in our laws, but
the laws themselves are never right or wrong except in looking at
whether or not they conform to the Constitution. Notions of right and
wrong are never absolute, just because you think something is good does
not make it good all the time. Absolutes exist in religion and
trigonometry, and really no where else. A 'moral right' is so subjective
a thing it is almost meaningless, and it probably does not make sense to
discuss it as 'right', a 'right', or anyone's 'right'. Human dignity is
not a given, and no one should expect anything they are not willing to
personally stand up for. Conversely, they get what other people impose
on them when they fail to act.
M
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Horwith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:26 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: More Breaking News
you say you believe it is "right to have a minimum wage, because it
promotes
a multi-tiered economy and increases wages overall" - but that is not an
opinion about a moral "right", it is an opinion about an economic
"right".
"Multi-tiered economy" and "increasd wages" have nothing to do with
morality. The responsibility of the government to guarantee these
things
and the right of every citizen to demand these things - now that is a
question of morality (ethics, really). I suppose one problem here is
that
there is a difference between human rights and citizen rights - and the
legislation is supposed to define and legislate one and simply guarantee
the
other. That might not make much sense... I've had a long day and my
ead's
wrapped around too much code right now. It's an interesting topic,
though.
~Simon
Simon Horwith
CTO, Etrilogy Ltd.
Member of Team Macromedia
Macromedia Certified Instructor
Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer
Certified Flash MX Developer
CFDJList - List Administrator
http://www.how2cf.com/ <http://www.how2cf.com/>
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
