From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Tue Aug 06 2002 - 02:48:13 MDT
Kenneth Hurst wrote:
> It seems to me that both sides of this argument have their points, but
> neither is entirely correct. Freedoms (personal, economical, etc.) haven't
> all gone up or all gone down. We seem to have made a trade-off. We can't
> choose what to put in our bodies (drugs--prescription or prohibited) but
> aren't subject to being slaves.
If you really want to know the answer then look at the number
and kinds of laws on the books and the restrictions on and
practices of the judiciary. That will tell the tale of the
corruption of an real notion of inalienable rights, equality
under the law and so on. Trading anecdotes does nothing.
Pointing out groups that were not included in freedom and equal
rights at particular times does not say whether the concept of
what freedom and equal rights are and why and how to defend them
was *less* then than now. Before we distinquished a lot of
excluded special cases, yes. But the concept of what a
citizen's rights are was richer and the notions of the proper
roles and powers for government were much more restrictive.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:55 MST