Andy Driscoll wrote: > How truly sad it must be to be so alienated from one's own > country, one's own city, to hate government as something > other than a creature of the people.
My children have ancestors who were Native Americans, should I teach them to blindly trust their government? My children have ancestors who were Chinese, should I teach them to blindly trust governments? My children have ancestors who were Jewish, should I teach them to blindly trust democratically elected governments? > The Bill of Rights was not written to protect just > the individual, it was enacted to ensure that bad > government not be allowed to overstep its bounds. > The courts have gone back and forth on interpreting > those rights, of course, but the Bill of Rights does > not relieve either government or you of our > responsibility to care for the "other" in society. You > don't have to like it and you have the right to vote > against it, but you will, I earnestly trust, be defeated > at every turn when you do. Could you cite what part of the Declaration, Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any other legal requirement that specifies that I have a responsibility to care for others in the society? I don't believe that any legal or constitutional requirements exists. Of course I might be willing to accept or acknowledge a social responsibility, but not under the threat of criminal or civil penalties. You must have confused some aspect of Socialist doctrine for American law. It is our government's responsibility to care for others, it is not my responsibility as an individual. On the other hand, the Declaration of Independence clearly identifies an unalienable Right for the pursuit of Happiness. I think that it is regrettable that the Framers failed to include it in the Constitution. It one of many compromises that we have been working to correcting ever since. > It must be a bitter existence for any American citizen who views his > republic as the enemy. At one time, half of the country viewed the republic as their enemy and fought a bitter war over individual rights (and other issues). Why is it unusual for me to believe that at times the republic maybe my enemy. At one time the republic and a majority of the electorate wanted to send me to kill people and repress a struggle for independence. Would I have been wrong for refusing? > The lack of participation in representative government is a > free-society choice, not a creature of the government > itself. The voter turnouts in Minneapolis primaries are far > too low to be considered truly representative, but that doesn't mean > voters can't vote. In any event, a bare majority is still a majority. > What would have - election and governance by minority? Sounds like > oligarchy to me. I am not arguing for an alternative form of government, I am arguing that individuals who don't agree with the prevailing majority should not have their rights violated. > Mr. Atherton defeats his own argument when he asserts: > > If you believe in the founding assumptions of this country > > you'd best believe that other people are entitled to pursue > > happiness in whatever way their (sic) see fit, so long as > > it doesn't directly impact your right to do the same. I don't defeat my own argument. If a business installs a ventilation system that reduces cigarette smoke to safe levels, then I believe it would no longer impact your right to happiness in an unreasonable way. Therefore your attempt to ban smoking in these circumstances is unreasonable. > We might not agree on the "founding assumptions" of this > country, especially when the founders themselves hardly > agreed (Hamilton v. Jefferson, 1787); but one thing is certain, > the entitlement to the pursuit of happiness cannot > come at the expense of others' happiness, and that is > precisely what the smoking ban addresses. Well that's obvious, but a ban (rather than a compromise) ignores the Rights of one group, namely smokers. > In any event, of course, it's a true statement that a smoking > enterprise cannot shield its employees from the smoke in which > they must work. It's na�ve in the extreme to believe that > employees toiling in an environment of smoke-filled air can > be insulated from that air - even minimally exposed. I don't believe that it's na�ve, I think that it's rational. You haven't addressed any of the proposals that attempt to solve the problem of secondhand smoke. > There are no negligible levels of smoke in an enclosed > environment where smoking is allowed. And your evidence is...? Besides, I've proposed enclosed smoking areas within enclosed environments. > Anarchy is just that: the rights of the individual > overwhelming the welfare of society at-large. I've never heard this definition of "anarchy" before. Perhaps you can cite your source. > This is a nation in which individual rights may > necessarily be subordinated to the common welfare, another > minor provision along with defense of the whole of the country > - not just individuals. I would agree that in extreme circumstances that individual rights may be subordinated to the common welfare, but only rarely. Most of the instances of the subordination of individuals to the common welfare in the past can be classified in retrospect as repression and injustice. You need look no further than Homeland Defense. > You have a responsibility to ensure everyone's health and safety > even if at the expense of your immediate "happiness" or short-term > gratification. Does this mean that I should give up my driver's license because there a possibility that I might injure someone while operating a vehicle? > In other words "Me IS We, especially if you think "We" is "Me." I suppose that this is our fundamental difference. I believe that you can only provide for the General Welfare by honoring the Rights of individuals. The subjugation of Rights to the General Welfare has been used throughout history to justify totalitarian governments. Michael Atherton Prospect Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
