[extropy-chat] EU constitution collapses/taxifornian glo-fish

Spike spike66 at comcast.net
Sun Dec 14 22:53:19 UTC 2003


> > Mike I too thought this a curious comment.  Do clarify.  
> 
> France's constitution explicitly states that rights originate in the
> individual and are delegated to government, something that, 
> so far as I am aware, is only stated by the US and Lithuanian
Constitutions.
> Admittedly, France is the weaker of the three, allowing mere 
> majorities to change things, and suffering from a judiciary that is
heavily
> socialist and will legislate from the bench as the need arises, while
> the US and Lith. require supermajorities to amend the constitution.
> 
> =====
> Mike Lorrey

Ja, that is how I understood it.  It is a key point that is
understood all too well by Taxifornians: simple majorities
will often vote away their own rights and vote to raise
taxes.  Supermajorities will seldom do so.  This is a critical
difference.  If rights can be overturned by simple majority,
in most cases they hang by a lender thread indeed.  So in 
the case of the three cases you cited, I would
say that the US and Lithuanian constitutions recognize
natural rights, and the French constitution kinda does.  

Consider the following case of rights being taken away
by means which I would have thought unconstitutional: 
Taxifornia state fish and game commissioner Sam Schuchat 
(not an elected post as far as I know) recently decided 
they would not allow genetically modified glow-in-the-dark 
aquarium fish to be sold here.  The yahoo flatly stated 
that he had consulted *with his rabbi* before making the decision.  

That raised three big red flags: 1) he was acting outside the
capacity of interpreting the state constitution: essentially
making law, and 2) he was making it based on religious
reasoning, and 3) the commission appears to be dictating
in an area in which they have no apparent jurisdiction.
When I hear of stuff like this, I am tempted to go buy
a school of glo-fish in Nevada, bring them here and
release them into the wild.

Schuchat commented:

"For me it's a question of values, it's not a question of 
science," said commissioner Sam Schuchat. "I think selling 
genetically modified fish as pets is wrong."

So *he thinks* it is wrong, so he can dish out law for
the state?  I suppose he believes it is wrong for people
to have their corpses frozen?  I fear those who would 
derive authority based on nothing but *their own* values,
not upon any scientific justification, then impose them
on all of us.  These exercise in Afghanistan and 
Alabama (the 10 commandments judge fiasco) show 
that this world cannot tolerate government authority
in the hands of religion.  Such a government cannot be 
trusted for it resides in the realm of belief, not reason.

This bum needs to be thrown out of office forthwith.

spike


California blocks sales of 'Glofish' pets
Thursday, December 4, 2003 The nation's first genetically altered
household pet is a zebra fish that glows fluorescent. SACRAMENTO,
California (AP) -- Citing ethical concerns, state regulators Wednesday
refused to allow sales of the first bio-engineered household pet, a
zebra fish that glows fluorescent. GloFish are expected to go on sale
everywhere else next month. California is the only state with a ban on
genetically engineered species, and the Fish and Game Commission said it
would not exempt the zebra fish from the law even if escaped fish would
not pose a threat to the state's waterways. "For me it's a question of
values, it's not a question of science," said commissioner Sam Schuchat.
"I think selling genetically modified fish as pets is wrong." The 3-1
vote came moments after commissioners approved the state's 14th license
for research into genetically modified fish. But commissioners drew the
line on permitting widespread sales of a biotech fish for pure visual
pleasure. The normally black-and-silver zebra fish were inserted with
genes from sea anemones or jellyfish to turn them red or green, and glow
under black or ultraviolet lights. Federal agencies have decided they
have no jurisdiction over a bio-engineered household pet that is not
intended for consumption. Given California's extensive review,
proponents had looked to its approval to dampen any concerns from other
states or consumers that the fish might be harmful to the environment or
if consumed by wayward pets or children.





More information about the extropy-chat mailing list