[118868] in Cypherpunks
Oct. 11 column -- making up new "rights"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Hettinga)
Sat Oct 9 10:04:21 1999
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <v04210100b424e475751e@[207.244.110.174]>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 08:33:06 -0400
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
From: Robert Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Reply-To: Robert Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com>
--- begin forwarded text
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 19:49:39 -0600
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 18:44:41 -0700
To: vinsends@ezlink.com
From: Vin_Suprynowicz@lvrj.com (Vin Suprynowicz)
Subject: Oct. 11 column -- making up new "rights"
Resent-From: vinsends@ezlink.com
Resent-Sender: vinsends-request@ezlink.com
Resent-Bcc:
FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED OCT. 11, 1999
THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
The 'right to travel in safety'
Continuing the response to my column of Oct. 3, about "random airport
searches" of my bags even after they've cleared our now-standard metal
detectors and X-ray machines, correspondent T.M. wrote in:
"We have all sorts of rights and obligations that are not listed in the
Constitution. That is why we have elected representatives, laws, and
courts. My right to travel in safety was created by the Federal government
and is no less a real right that your right to carry a firearm. What about
the right of the airline to protect its property? You seem to think
carrying weapons on airplanes does not compromise safety. This is an idea
most people would find hard to accept.
"It's pretty obvious that no Constitutional right is absolute. We have all
heard the one about yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater. Do you accept any
limits on the right to bear arms? I don't find it hard to draw a
distinction between reasonable restrictions on my rights and oppressive
limits to my freedom."
I replied:
In fact, T.M., every constitutional right is absolute, unless some
modifying condition is included in its wording. The Fourth Amendment, for
instance, does not ban searches; it merely says searches may occur only
under a written warrant, issued upon presentation of probable cause to
believe a crime has been committed. Therefore, you would be correct in
stating "The Fourth Amendment's ban on government searches is not
absolute."
The Second Amendment contains no such modifying language. Grammatically,
the introductory clause, explaining why the founders preferred a populace
armed with up-to-date military-style arms and capable of militia service,
as a better guarantor of freedom than any standing army (such as, say, an
armed "FBI," "ATF," or "DEA"), does not restrict the second. It does not
say my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed "unless some
bureaucrat, operating in good faith, feels there is a reasonable risk to
public safety." There is no place you could have possibly been convinced of
such a dangerous absurdity but in a tax-funded government school.
Our "elected representatives, laws, and courts" are not authorized to
discover for us "new obligations" not listed in the constitution. The
Constitution limits government to such functions, duties, and powers as are
(start ital)specifically enumerated(end ital) for them there.
Do you have a "right to travel in safety," which was "created by the
Federal government"? Let's say you die in a hijacking on a commercial means
of transportation. Can your family sue the federal government for failing
to protect you? No, they cannot. The courts will acknowledge no such
"right," nor any federal duty to protect it. This made-up "right" exists
only in the evanescent speeches of politicians. It is very much "less real"
than my right to carry a firearm.
Real rights are restrictions on government action. New, made-up "rights"
can be spotted relatively easily, since they insidiously justify government
coersion. There can be no "right" to free medical care, unless someone
holds a gun to a doctor's head. The guarantee of a "right" for the disarmed
to remain safe is even more chimerical.
It matters not at all that "many people may find it hard to accept" that
I have a right to keep and bear arms on a common carrier, nor the notion
that armed, law-abiding citizens make everyone safer, from freelance
bandits as well as from genocidal governments. (An airline concerned with
safety is certainly allowed to offer passengers color-coded frangible
ammunition, capable of downing a hijacker without penetrating their
pressure hulls.)
My right is not subject to any majority vote, any more than a majority
could vote to seize the jewelry salesman's sample case and divvy its
contents amongst themselves.
You say "We have all heard the one about yelling 'fire' in a crowded
theater." But Mr. Justice Holmes wrote that (start ital)in dissent(end
ital). It is not the law. I do indeed have a right to yell "Fire!" in a
crowded theater. What would (start ital)you(end ital) do if you were the
only one who realized the theater was on fire?
The example is quite apt. If you yell "Fire!" inappropriately in a
crowded theater, you might be charged with disturbing the peace and
incitement to riot. How often does such a deadly riot occur? I can't
remember one in my lifetime.
Similarly, if you shoot someone inappropriately on an airplane, you would
be equally likely to face prosecution. (The Second Amendment grants us only
a right to "keep and bear" arms -- not to brandish a gun in order to get
that darned stewardess to hurry up, nor to shoot anyone in cold blood.) How
often did this happen, back before passengers were searched for weapons?
Hardly ever, except when we were at war, overthrowing foreign governments
and getting their nationals upset.
I call it "The Fred & Ethel Mertz Security System." This summer a
12-year-old cut through the fence at Logan International in Boston and flew
to London without a ticket, let alone passing through any metal detector.
(Feel safer now?)
It makes precisely as much sense to put millions of domestic airline
passengers through all this just-for-show rigmarole to supposedly prevent
anyone from having the (start ital)opportunity(end ital) to use a gun
inappropriately, as it would for the government to hire thousands of nurses
and assign them the duty of shooting a dose of curare or botulism toxin
into the vocal chords of everyone entering a movie theater in this country,
to prevent them from having the (start ital)ability(end ital) to yell
"Fire!" during the movie ... even in that one case in 10,000 when yelling
"Fire!" would be precisely the right thing to do.
Vin Suprynowicz, assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal, is author of the new book, "Send in the Waco Killers,"
available at 1-800-244-2224, or via web site
http://www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html.
***
Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com
"The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it." -- John
Hay, 1872
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and
thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series
of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken
* * *
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have subscribed to vinsends@ezlink.com and you wish to unsubscribe,
send a message to vinsends-request@ezlink.com, from your OLD address, including
the word "unsubscribe" (with no quotation marks) in the "Subject" line.
To subscribe, send a message to vinsends-request@ezlink.com, from your
NEW address, including the word "subscribe" (with no quotation marks)
in the "Subject" line.
All I ask of electronic subscribers is that they not RE-forward my columns
until on or after the embargo date which appears at the top of each, and
that (should they then choose to do so) they copy the columns in their
entirety, preserving the original attribution.
The Vinsends list is maintained by Alan Wendt in Colorado, who may be
reached directly at alan@ezlink.com. The web sites for the Suprynowicz
column are at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and
http://www.nguworld.com/vindex. The Vinyard is maintained by Michael Voth
in Flagstaff, who may be reached directly at mvoth@infomagic.com.
--- end forwarded text
-----------------
Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
