important than the laws themselves.
-Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Haggerty, Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 1:07 PM
Subject: RE: More Breaking News
> That's the Declaration of Independence. It has no legal signifigance nor
> is it a legitimate source of authority. At best, it is a historical
> document.
>
> Look at the Bill of Rights is you want to see what you are entitled to.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 1:59 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: More Breaking News
>
>
> "WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
> equal,
> that they are endowed by their Creator 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, deriving their just
> Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of
> Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the
> People
> to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
> Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form,
> as to
> them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
>
> Our government was established to protect the people's safety and
> happiness.
> That, in a nutshell, is where the responsibility to provide for the
> people
> comes from.
>
> -Kevin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Haggerty, Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:35 PM
> 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/
> >
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
