RE: Civil Rights

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   ~

The problem I see with your comments, in particular in reference to the
source of the rights I mentioned, is the original contact that defines the
government. In your reply you used references to both of the documents that
define and establish our government, these documents are what define the
rights of the individual, not the legistlative body who makes laws ex post
facto. In short, the rights are granted when the government is created and
not later, unless of course the original documents define a method of change
through some process. The rights have to be granted, or defined in some
manner, before any laws can be enacted by any legislative body.

The whole idea of the Declaration of Indipendance and the Constitution is
that there are some facets of an individual which they have simply by
existing. These characteristics are beyond the normal law-making powers of
that body. In short it is the realization that individuals have certain
characterisitics which are damaging to any form of government if they are
allowed to be regulated in any manner by that government. No matter how
heinous, uncomfortable, or silly these actions may be. The only caveat which
might be applied to such rights would be that they harm a person or their
property w/o the owners prior consent. Without this there is no basis for
government in the first place. It simply breaks down to who is bigger and
willing to use more force to get what they want and hopefully can keep it
when the next 'billy bad-ass' comes along (in short this is anarchy, pure -
plain - and simple). There is no place for any form of anarchy in any form of
human organization. There is a place for non-structured interaction, but
calling that 'anarchy' besmurches all of our intelligences.

In our specific case our founding charters (I feel to talk about the
Declaration of Indipendance or the Constitution w/o mentioning the other is a
slight of hand and a  civil disservice) make it plain that we should be able
to make any public statement no matter how unpopular w/o regards to any form
of legal ramifications from the governing body. All our other rights stem
from this single idea. As to anonymouse statements, the founding fathers used
the pen name 'Publius' in several of their writing, it has a long and
respected history in our country and should be fully supported. The bottem
line being people should be able to say whatever they please and it is not
any government regulatory agencies business in any manner, shape, or form. If
people feel that they want to use crypto then so they shall, in any form they
choose. The people of the US are guaranteed by general consent (ie you keep
your citizenship) to abide by these rules of action because while they may
cause short-term discomfort they provide long-term security.

Our charter provides a means to alter it in a reasoned and controlled manner
where the citizens must decide themselves, the Constitutional Amendment.
Nowhere in our charters are the government given the power regulate drug use,
crypto, sexual service sales, etc. w/o asking us first. For them to have such
powers they MUST have an amendment added. The last time the US government
acted legally in such manners was concerning the prohibition and right to
vote amendments. The present laws that control many of our actions are un-
constitutional becuase there is no amendment giving the legistlative powers
that be the right to control them in the first place. An added protection was
the 9th Amendment which says that if the right is not specificaly listed then
it belongs to us to do with as we please, and not the governing body. At no
place in the charters does it provide a means or method to bypass this, and
with good cause I believe. Personaly, I believe that this whole mess started
during WWII because of the need to act as a cohesive whole against a commen
threat, that situation no longer exists and really is not even probable.

The government belongs to us, we don't have to ask their permission for a
damn thing. We do tell them what we want and basicly how to go about doing it.
We dont owe them one penny in tithe, they owe us.