that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure
these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Our government was established to protect the people's safety and happiness.
That, in a nutshell, is where the responsibility to provide for the people
comes from.
-Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Haggerty, Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:35 PM
Subject: RE: More Breaking News
> Simon -
>
> I am talking about the reality of the situation, you are dealing with
> ideal notions.
>
> The government is in no way obligated to provide a minimum wage, human
> rights, or rights of citizens outside of what it provided in the
> Constitution. Even then there are wide variances in what those
> obligations are supposed to mean. I believe it should provide for most
> of these things, but that in no way makes it 'right' to provide for
> them. This is simply my opinion.
>
> Now, when we talk about morality and ethics, it is often helpful to know
> what each means. Morality is the study (and sometimes application) of
> right and wrong. Ethics is the codification of morality, and is often
> limited in scope to a single pursuit (i.e. lawyers and doctors have
> their own ethics which are each very different). In each case, they deal
> with what one should and should not do.
>
> A constitution, on the other hand, is a means of limiting the sovereign
> authority of a government over its subjects. It places limits on the
> application of power and puts rules around what can and cannot be done.
> 'Right' and 'wrong' are only meaningfully discussed in terms of
> government when you look at whether a claim about an action is or is not
> consistent with the constitution. Otherwise you are simply stating an
> opinion, which has no bearing on politics except as it guides action
> within the government. Even then it is only properly judged according to
> its outcomes.
>
> Our constitution provides for the right to conscience free speech, the
> right to vote, the right to bear arms, and other 'human' rights. It
> provides that there will be a federal government that protects our
> borders. It does not say there will be a minimum wage, or a balanced
> budget, or national parks and landmarks, or even 'equality' in the sense
> the founding fathers meant it. The constitution provides that we can
> make up our own minds on these subjects, and can institute or repeal
> laws as we see fit. We judge the outcomes of these laws and, when laws
> are judged to be producing bad outcomes, we put the people in place to
> change those laws. This process does not rise to the level of making
> anything 'right' except in that it is following the parameters set forth
> in the Constitution.
>
> Responsibility for one's fellow man is an interesting concept. It is one
> I support in various ways, and one I believe in based on my religious
> outlook. But it is in no way 'right', absolutely. Governments, political
> entities, hordes of Mongols, empirates, etc. have thrived for 1000s of
> years without modern notions of right and wrong, and the assumption that
> these ideas are 'right' in and of themselves is ridiculous from several
> perspectives (think about it, if there were a huge disaster, would you
> really be interested in the property rights of others, or feel wrong if
> you took food to feed your children).
>
> In short, we have notions of right and wrong expressed in our laws, but
> the laws themselves are never right or wrong except in looking at
> whether or not they conform to the Constitution. Notions of right and
> wrong are never absolute, just because you think something is good does
> not make it good all the time. Absolutes exist in religion and
> trigonometry, and really no where else. A 'moral right' is so subjective
> a thing it is almost meaningless, and it probably does not make sense to
> discuss it as 'right', a 'right', or anyone's 'right'. Human dignity is
> not a given, and no one should expect anything they are not willing to
> personally stand up for. Conversely, they get what other people impose
> on them when they fail to act.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Horwith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:26 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: More Breaking News
>
>
> you say you believe it is "right to have a minimum wage, because it
> promotes
> a multi-tiered economy and increases wages overall" - but that is not an
> opinion about a moral "right", it is an opinion about an economic
> "right".
> "Multi-tiered economy" and "increasd wages" have nothing to do with
> morality. The responsibility of the government to guarantee these
> things
> and the right of every citizen to demand these things - now that is a
> question of morality (ethics, really). I suppose one problem here is
> that
> there is a difference between human rights and citizen rights - and the
> legislation is supposed to define and legislate one and simply guarantee
> the
> other. That might not make much sense... I've had a long day and my
> ead's
> wrapped around too much code right now. It's an interesting topic,
> though.
>
> ~Simon
>
> Simon Horwith
> CTO, Etrilogy Ltd.
> Member of Team Macromedia
> Macromedia Certified Instructor
> Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer
> Certified Flash MX Developer
> CFDJList - List Administrator
> http://www.how2cf.com/
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
