RE: Civil Rights

[Blanc Weber <blancw@microsoft.com>]

As I read the contribution from Jim Choate on the subject of "rights", 
I had some further thoughts & comments on the subject.  Please delete 
if you don't care;  it doesn't address cryptology directly, but some of 
you *are* interested, and if you have further comments please just send 
to me and copy only those others who also have expressed interest.      
     ~ Blanc
----------
From Jim choate:

Seems to me that a 'right' as is being discussed should be 'Civil Right'.
When used in this context I believe a suitable definition would be the
following:

Civil Right

A characteristic granted to a citizen of a country which is beyond the normal
law making ability of that countries governing body. In effect it grants a
citizen the ability to make decisions and act on them without regulation or
permission being required by the government. It in effect says that there are
certain facets of an individual which are outside the normal operations of a
government and can not be regulated or otherwise controlled through
legistlative means.
........................................................................
It is true that the term a "right" can mean different things, depending 
on how one is considering the word & its meaning; in terms of a 
governed society, the meaning should be considered within the context 
of action as limited by agreement/consent, as something that involves 
the group's assessment of what is to be allowed (or not) within the 
organization; what permission will be granted and by whom, for what 
purpose, considering the consequences to all involved.

The ability to determine what shall be considered a "right" depends 
upon the knowledge and intelligence of those who can make such 
decisions, who can achieve a comprehensive view of the situation and 
put individual action into perspective within this sweeping view.  
Given such a requirement, I would question the order of things, in 
concluding what the proper source is for the establishment of what 
these right should be, and give serious examination to the 
interpretation of what the actual nature of our circumstance is, 
(within the context of a society "under" government, but with liberty & 
justice for all, etc.).

It is a bit difficult to make a succinct sentence which comprises all 
of my thoughts into a few sentences, I hope the above is not too 
difficult to understand.   Not to make an example of Jim's 
contribution, but it just so happened that going through the sentences 
in the paragraph offered by him, I found concepts which I see as 
sources ripe for confusion & contention:

A characteristic granted.......
	.  So, the origin of this 'right' is from the decision-making of those 
elected to
	   make considerations of this kind, which no one else is permitted to make.
	   And I wonder:  what qualifies them for this, the exclusive right to 
determine
	   what it is all right to do within the context of a governed body of people,
	   to be the ones who "grant" permissions to move, to do, to act.

	   i.e., the source of an allowance to movement comes not from the ability
	   to think correctly about it, to make valid judgements, but only from a
	   permission *granted* to one by another.

	   This immediately puts an individual's own thinking in danger; there 
is created
	   the possibility of having one's own decisions categorized as without merit
	   because they do not serve the purposes of the government, or because
	   they do not serve the purpose of the governed society (the significance
	   of which is seen as more important than that of being an individual of
	   a singular character - compared to, say, an amoeba which absorbs all,
	   as societies often begin to imagine themselves to be and presume
	   themselves to have the right to demand utter mindless conformity
	   on account of their numerous fears of what wanton individuals might do).

	   It is unreal, that the determination for what is a 'right' is 
thought to come
	   not from the ability to think successfully about life, liberty & 
the pursuit of
	   happiness, but from the position one has been awarded over other 
citizens.
	  This is like the right to a position over their minds, as well.
	   And the ability to think and to serve the purposes of one's own 
interest are
	   seen, then, as a crime, unless first submitted to the State for review and
	   authorization as politically acceptable and therefore allowable.

...it grants a citizen the ability to make decisions and act on them 
without regulation or
permission being required by the government......
	.  who are all honorable men..... :>)  who recognize the merit of being
	   an individual, not simply a "member" or society; i.e., not a
	   lesser being, a minor "element" of the greater good, the Great Society,
	   but, au contraire, who is expected to engage (to the max) in the pursuits
	   explicity named in the Constitution (or was it the Declaration of Intent,
	   Know What I Mean, George).

...there are certain facets of an individual which are outside the 
normal operations of a
government . . . . .
	.  As an exception to the rule? where most of the facets of being an 
individual are
	  *within* the "normal" operations of a government?  This concept does not
	  represent they way that I think of the activities or the boundaries 
of my life,
	  nor what I would wish to impose on others (or no one that I could admire).
	  I'm sure government employees would agree with this, where I would not.

	   It really is necessary to consider what is "normal" for a human 
being first, rather
	   than what is normal for a government.  First there must be someone to be
	   governed......and a satisfactory reason why they should be governed.

...certain facets of an individual... cannot be regulated or otherwise 
controlled through
legistlative means . . .
	.  So there are a "few" things to be acknowledged, after all, as 
existing outside the
	   atmosphere of governmental control.

	   You know, "legislative means" are only the precursors to action; 
legislation only
	   arranges verbally the threat of what will later be done physically 
to someone if
	   they do not comply.  This statement implies that one is only free 
secondarily,
	   but primarily exists within an environment of control (external to 
one's own).
	   I don't think it was intended that citizens of the US think of 
themselves as
	   regulated first and freemen second.  I don't think this is the 
correct way to
	   think about life per se, or about "rights" within the context of an 
organization.

	   Furthermore, the truth of the matter is that legislation alone does 
not control my
	   (or anyone's) actions from some power of its own, and it alone does not
	   automatically convince me of what I ought or ought not do, simply 
because it has
	   been written, and voted agreeably upon, by members of an electorate.
	   They could all be wrong.

	   The control which exists as brought about by legislative means is only the
	   effect upon the mind of those who will fear the consequences, delivered
	   by "enforcement personnel" armed with weapons of subjugation.  And as
	   we all know, legislators themselves have ways of getting around 
this fear and
	   its expected consequences.

	   But this does not necessarily do any justice to reality, the 
cause/effect that we live
	   with in the 'real world', which it is our responsibility to come to 
terms with if we want to
	   live and have a quality existence.   And this is what is left out 
of legislation: that we
	   have to come to terms with it (reality) independently, not only in 
association with each
	   other, and that we have to do this first in regard to our own 
lives, before we worry
	   about those of others.  The direction of the concept of a 'right' 
is set towards group
	   thinking (the collective), whereas the Constitution would set it in 
the other direction.

Gosh, I'm so glad everyone on this list is crypto-anarchist and can 
appreciate the fine details of anti-government analyses.        ~   finis   ~