RE: [FT][SG][DS] Canada, the US Civil War II, and the structure

On Thursday, 17 December 1998 03:03, Brian Burger
[SMTP:burger00@camosun.bc.ca] wrote:
> It was written that:
> >I don't kow about that. That presumes that as humans we don't share
> >certain common views on what an inalienable right is and on how we'd
> >like to be governed. I'm pretty sure you'd find that everyone would
> >like a say in their governance, rights to safety and prosperity and
> >the like.

Non scripta non est.  There is a great deal gained by the creation of a
written constitution.  The only thing really lost is the ability for a
government to conveniently ignore or change bits of it.  This is easier
if the parts that they are changing are not written down.  Always get
agreements in writing.

> these are non-controversial rights

Are they?  What does the 'right to safety' mean?  Safe from what?  What
does the 'right to prosperity' mean?  What is prosperity?  How are
rights protected when there isn't a list of them written down anywhere?

> - but when you get Americans of a
> certain type talking about rights, they start yammering about the
right
> to
> own lots and lots of artillery

Must refrain from commenting...must  refrain from commenting.. Aah,
screw it.

> - pardon, the "right" to bear arms, and
> want to tie this into safety, etc etc. ("Yes, I can only be safe in my
> own
> home if I own a big handgun that my 3-year old will blow his brains
out
> with!")

My, how ... *open minded* we are.  You have a problem with others
thinking or acting differently?  Or do you just prefer to personally
insult them by calling then 'nuts'?

> Most of the rest of the world doesn't think this way (thank god) 

Most of the world's governments don't think this way.  Most of the
world's government s couldn't give a damn about the 'rights' of their
citizens.  Most of the world's governments think that 'rights' flow from
the government to the governed, when it is power that flows from the
people to the government.

>so our
> universal NAC rights have hit a snag...

True.  Mainly because most people have no concept of the difference
between 'rights' and 'powers'.

><unless all the gun nuts kill
> themselves off in the 2nd ACW...This is without mixing religion into
> things.

Again with the personal attacks.

> An NAC-wide basic bill of rights would have to have provision for
'local
> amendments that do not contravene the aforementioned Rights of all NAC
> subjects'. 

What is the difference between 'citizen' and 'subject'?

>This way the gun nuts could keep their artillery in
> administrations that had a majority of gun nuts, while the rest of the
> citizenry in other regions wouldn't bother with 'rights' like this. 

Again with the personal attacks.  How civilized.

vargr1							 UPP-8D9B85
---------------------------- Omnia dicta fortiora, si dicta latina.
Meyers-Briggs personality type: ENTJ		    vargr1@jcn1.com
"...the ENTJ is not one to be trifled with."	  dmoody@bridge.com