Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 22:58:53 -0700 From: rsrchsoc@ionet.net (John Wilde) Subject: [lpaz-discuss] Re: Hanson's SB1297 Response To: AZRKBA@asu.edu (Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Arizona) Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
you keep saying that you don't want to compromise rights. But everything you have suggested leads exactly to that. FREEDOM IS FREEDOM. MY RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE IS A PROPERTY RIGHT AND IS ABSOLUTE. Anything limiting that property right is compromise of the principle. PERIOD.
Here is the goal (the principle) Vermont Style carry or better. Anything less is failure and is compromise of the principle of the right to self-defense. To take your analogy from your previous post. My goal is Vermont Style. Essentially what "Vermont Style" says is "Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone." It also says that "I will not initiate force. I won't start the fight, but by God I will finish it." THAT IS FREEDOM, THAT IS LIBERTY!!! Anything less is compromise of the principle.
So my starting position is a provision in Arizona's Constitution and statutes that make "Vermont Style" look like "Arizona Lite". I will take the proposal about 5 steps past "Vermont Style" with the rationale that I am willing to "settle" (for sake of a better term) for the lesser of "Vermont Style." BTW, I have filed two initiatives that do exactly that. It makes "Vermont Style" look like "Arizona Lite."
Everything you have suggested Enrico will bring Arizona to less than Vermont Style. Please explain how your idea of compromise will bring us to the goal of "Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone." Nothing I have seen you post to date achieves that goal.
g'day John Wilde
Enrico Rodrigo wrote:
> >Every time we 'compromise' a RIGHT, we ourselves cause
> >the erosion of that right. Every time we compromise we
> >tell the other side we are willing to live with less
> >freedom than we have.
>
> You still don't seem to be getting it. I, perhaps unlike
> Mr. Hanson, don't advocate compromising on rights. I advocate
> compromising on, for example, whether we can throw people
> into prison for going about unarmed. You'll agree that we have
> no inalienable right to imprison people who chose to go unarmed.
> Therefore, if we give this up in a negotiated compromise, we
> haven't "compromised a right."
>
> >The erosion of liberty will continue precisely because of
> >compromise of Constitutional Rights such as the 2A. In fact,
> >it is the compromising of the 2A that will lead to an accelerated
> >erosion of the rest of the BoR.
>
> I don't mean to be unkind, but it's as though the sight of the
> word "compromise" destroys your higher mental processes and
> throws you into some sort of automated defense mode. At least
> CONSIDER the simple point that, by properly choosing your initial
> bargaining position, it is possible to reach a compromise with an
> acceptable outcome. If you don't want to give up X (e.g. the BoR)
> your initial bargaining position must be X+Y. Notice that if you
> compromise by giving up Y, you've nevertheless succeeded in
> preserving X. This isn't rocket science.
>
> I completely agree with you, however, that IF we compromise on
> rights bad things happen.
Community email addresses: Post message: lpaz-discuss@onelist.com Subscribe: lpaz-discuss-subscribe@onelist.com Unsubscribe: lpaz-discuss-unsubscribe@onelist.com List owner: lpaz-discuss-owner@onelist.com Web site: www.ArizonaLibertarian.org
Shortcut URL to this page: http://www.onelist.com/community/lpaz-discuss
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/