[119040] in Cypherpunks
Re: Prison & Liberty (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Choate)
Wed Oct 13 14:15:02 1999
From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-Id: <199910131812.NAA25572@einstein.ssz.com>
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:12:05 -0500 (CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
----- Forwarded message from Sten Drescher -----
Subject: Re: Prison & Liberty (fwd)
From: Sten Drescher <sten.drescher@support.tivoli.com>
Date: 13 Oct 1999 11:40:45 -0500
Right. One question I have though is whether you have the
right to choose to accept or reject the basic contract of the society
you happen to be born into? In practice, the answer is no, but is
that proper?
[ Absolutely, you can give up your citizenship and/or live elsewhere. Of
course this assumes the person isn't motivated to change the society
through civil disobedience. ]
If you should, how should a society deal with someone who does not accept
it's societal contract? Is it appropriate for it to restrict the rights of
someone who did not agree to have their rights restricted if they violated
the societal contract?
[ Revoke their green card? I'm assuming we're talking a democracy here. In
that case it still falls under self-defence. If the act is harmful to
others, their property, or a public trust then whether a person is a
citizen or not is really irrelevant, we believe rights are inalienable
to people in general. If it's not harmful then I would say no crime and
therefore no justification for action exists. ]
JC> The question becomes *how* one constrains a person after an
JC> infringement, who pays for that constraint, and how do you tell
JC> when the constraint is no longer needed.
With the last being the most problematic, I think.
[ Agreed in spades. That happens to be the aspect I'm mulling over now. As
soon as I finish the first draft of my rights paper I'll send it to you. ]
I would agree that it is a problem, and with an accompanying
problem that judges have ruled that some types of forced labor (like
chain gangs) are cruel and unusual punishments, and therefore
unconstitutional. I'm just not sure that a failure to force
restitution is unconstitutional, as the Constitution permits seizure
of property and forced labor, but it does not require it.
[ The Constitution specificaly doesn't allow *private* property to be
seized in *any* case. I've come to think 'punishment' is the wrong word.
unfortunately most people are more interested then punishing others than
protecting themselves, distinctly different animals there. ]
----- End of forwarded message from Sten Drescher -----
____________________________________________________________________
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full
of passionate intensity.
W.B. Yeats
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
