Monday, May 07, 2007
The Mob House Rules.
Comments from a previous post, transplanted here.
Pretending that society has no way of determining between proper and improper behavior -- between behavior that is proscribed for definable reasons and behavior that's proscribed because some people don't like it -- is only a means for substituting mob rule for legal judgment. We haven't descended that far in this country for a while, Rick Santorum notwithstanding.
Thankfully, neither proper legal judgment nor "inalienable rights" are up for popular vote. That's what the words "inalienable rights" mean, and why they were written down on the document that forms the basis of our liberty.
It's why we have a document in the first place: so that justice, and not the whimsy of men, rules. "Inalienable rights" aren't subject to a popularity contest.
This is pretty basic stuff.
Of course, we take freedom pretty seriously here at 201k, so we reserve the right to take shots, cheap or otherwise, at whoever would presume to cast it aside in pursuit of a myopic personal agenda.
Why? Because those willing to limit someone else's freedom must surely realize the same mechanism could be turned against them; they must either foolishly believe themselves above risk, or be so driven by personal animosity that they're willing to gamble everyone's freedom to actualize it. That's a pretty despicable mindset -- don't you agree?
- Anonymous said...
Regarding Miller's letter to the editor and your litany of possibilities: you've apparently based your comment on a wildly broad definition of "inalienable rights" --which makes your derision a cheap-shot.
Why shouldn't fathers have the inalienable right to marry their daughters? Why not permit man-boy marriages? Where do the "inalienable rights" end? That's the issue.
10:04 AM, May 07, 2007
Pretending that society has no way of determining between proper and improper behavior -- between behavior that is proscribed for definable reasons and behavior that's proscribed because some people don't like it -- is only a means for substituting mob rule for legal judgment. We haven't descended that far in this country for a while, Rick Santorum notwithstanding.
Thankfully, neither proper legal judgment nor "inalienable rights" are up for popular vote. That's what the words "inalienable rights" mean, and why they were written down on the document that forms the basis of our liberty.
It's why we have a document in the first place: so that justice, and not the whimsy of men, rules. "Inalienable rights" aren't subject to a popularity contest.
This is pretty basic stuff.
Of course, we take freedom pretty seriously here at 201k, so we reserve the right to take shots, cheap or otherwise, at whoever would presume to cast it aside in pursuit of a myopic personal agenda.
Why? Because those willing to limit someone else's freedom must surely realize the same mechanism could be turned against them; they must either foolishly believe themselves above risk, or be so driven by personal animosity that they're willing to gamble everyone's freedom to actualize it. That's a pretty despicable mindset -- don't you agree?
