Re: "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail"

[This discussion was originally about the "right" of governments
to read people mail.  As is natural and appropriate, it immediately
became necessary to discuss the general question of rights.]

>On Thu, 25 Jan 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>> I am a funny sort of person. I don't believe that governments should
>> be able to do anything that individuals cannot.

At 07:00 PM 1/25/96 -0500, Alan Horowitz wrote:
>   So violent criminals should never be jailed?

Probably he believes they should be shot instead.

The principle that governments have no special moral rights beyond
those of normal men leads logically to the conclusion that men
have a natural right to engage in just retribution, provided of
course that such retribution can be seen to be just.

John Locke has written at some length, attempting to justify limited
government on this principle.



>
>
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
              				|  
We have the right to defend ourselves	|   http://www.jim.com/jamesd/
and our property, because of the kind	|  
of animals that we are. True law	|   James A. Donald
derives from this right, not from the	|  
arbitrary power of the state.		|   jamesd@echeque.com

> The principle that governments have no special moral rights beyond
> those of normal men leads logically to the conclusion that men
> have a natural right to engage in just retribution, provided of
> course that such retribution can be seen to be just.

It's extrememely difficult (impossible?) to come up with ideological
principles which can't be used as a logical basis for stupid, dangerous,
and even suicidal proposistions. 

That's why ideology always has to be tempered with pragmatism.  In school 
I was accused of anti-intellectualism when I made this point, and I'm 
sure someone will say that to me again, eventually.  

"There are more things under Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of
in your philosophy."

No matter what your political or economic theory says and how solid it
seems, you are never relieved of your duty to keep your eyes open, of
trying to evaluate in simple human terms the effects of policy on the
people around you.  This is where privacy and free speech ought to be
defended. 

Perry is right, people shouldn't be reading each other's mail, and the 
government shouldn't be able to either.  I'm not sure I could justify 
that with a rigorous logical argument built from a handful of axioms 
concerned with the nature and role of democratic government, natural law, 
or whatever else it was that John Locke was all hopped up on.  (No 
disrespect to Locke intended.)

I don't need a political theory to tell me that it's in my best interest
to have privacy, and neither do most other people.  Everyone wants privacy
-- if you don't believe me, grab a clipboard, stand on a street corner,
and ask around.  The government claims it works for us.  That's all there
is to it. 

(I was a math major my first time through school, and I was particularly 
interested in formal logical systems.  The limits of formal and 
especially pseudo-formal reasoning have always interested me -- but it 
ain't cryptography, so I'll spare you.)