🚀 go-pugleaf

in article <1915@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) says:
> 
>> in article <3313@sphinx.uchicago.edu>, cute@sphinx.uchicago.edu (John Robert Cavallino) says:
>> > In article <162@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes:
>> >>In article <6780@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.UUCP (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes:
>> >>>demonstrates the common fallacy of thinking that anything you can do
>> >>>can be turned into a right:
>> Legally, the only "rights" guaranteed you are those in the Constitution and in
>> the various laws which have been passed by Congress over the years (e.g., the
>> Voting Rights Act, etc.). What society thinks is irrelevant, except insofar as
>> it is reflected in legislative action.

> Amendment IX
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
> to deny or disparage others retained by the people.  
> 
> Amendment X
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
> prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
> the people.

Very interesting. But doesn't define what a "right" is.  Do artists have a
right to make a living at practicing their art? That's the question on hand.

Practically, a thing isn't a right unless it's defined as such, either by the
Constitution or by Congress. Theoretically, well... in my view, the only right
we should have, is the right to do anything -- that doesn't physically harm
someone. But that's most definitely not considered a right by the various
governments (e.g. seatbelt laws, which restrict me from hurting myself).

Followups to talk.politics.theory?

--
Eric Lee Green  elg@usl.CSNET     Asimov Cocktail,n., A verbal bomb
{cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg              detonated by the mention of any
Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191              subject, resulting in an explosion
Lafayette, LA 70509                    of at least 5,000 words.