[extropy-chat] The Consensus :Expressio unius est exclusioalterius

[Dirk Bruere]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>
To: "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com>; "ExI chat list"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 1:26 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Consensus :Expressio unius est
exclusioalterius


>
> --- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "R.Coyote" <etheric at comcast.net>
> > > BTW this is the same policy that Russia curently has, Notice the
> > >word "allowed", it is considered a permission granted, and not
> > >inherent in humanhood. Again I think Ill keep my freedom thanks,
> > >but if you want to live in a police state that "allows" you to
> > >defend your life, good for you.
> >
> > Then why do you need it written into your law if it's so obvious?
>
> Only to instruct statist idiots to keep their hands off. Unlike you, or
> the UK, we recognise rights as prexisting any constitution or other
> document or contract. If you need a governments permission to be

Unless you're a theist then you must acknowledge that Rights are a contract
between the individual and society.
In a democracy that society is represented by the govt.

> 'allowed' to do something, it isn't a right, it is a privilege, one
> that they can take away at whim. Rights are an inherent part of your
> constitutional being, not a piece of whimsey to be negotiated for on
> sufferance.

They are always a balance of power.

> Our Constitution does not give us our rights, it tells the government
> only what it can do, and no more. That which government is not
> specifically empowered to do are powers retained by the people as
> individuals. This is the difference of a government of citizens and a
> government of serfs.

Seems Bush has a rather flexible idea about your 'Rights', since they can be
suspended by govt decree.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org