Hi Michael, Extropians,
Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
> "Ross A. Finlayson" wrote:
>
> > Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
> > >
> > > It is covered broadly under the 9th Amendment. All rights and powers not specifically enumerated to the government belong to the people. The 10th Amendment recognises that the residents of some states may choose to delegate more of these powers to their state government under their state constitutions.
> > >
> >
> > Amendment IX is:
> >
> > "Amendment IX
> >
> > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "
> >
> > This does not grant the status of a right to privacy explicitly, thus while it might broadly allow rights beyond Constitutional scope, it does not place privacy and the right of determining the disposition of one's personal data vs. the privilege of others disposing of one's personal data as rights. At which point a certain extent of privacy and personal identity property rights is legally recognized as a right, then Article 9 provides protection.
>
> Because the basis of rights here in the US states that ALL rights originate in the people, and only certain ones are enumerated or delegated to the government, then the proper and accepted position on the 9th Amendment is that ANY rights an individual can conceive of, which do not conflict with those already enumerated, are retained by the people. The reason why these sorts of things are not explicitly stated is because the founding fathers could not conceive of the republic becoming ruled by people so stupid as to not understand and beleive in this rather basic concept. They almost did not pass a Bill of Rights because of this view.
>
> > > >
> > > > On the subject of law enforcement, there are brave men and women who
> > > > each day protect citizenry and other good, Constitutional things.
> > > >
> > > > In regards to "goons" and privacy, there are illegal, un-Constitutional,
> > > > institutional elements which should be abolished.
> > >
> > > Should be would be could be......illegal offenses only end when a citizen takes the appropriate level of force to hand when presented with illegal acts. Don't expect the courts to protect you from anything but the most gross offenses.
> > >
> > I think the courts are an option, another is public exposure of un-American government activities, which leads to popular voting and funds disbursement.
> >
> > Happy day after the day when personal income taxes to fund the government are due!
>
> Public exposure of un-American government activities only is useful when those activites gore enough peoples sacred cows. The recent 'know your customer' rules that the FDIC tried to put into place, ostensibly to help stem money laundering practices, but actually meant as an evidence gathering device for the IRS to make an end run on the Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act, were recently pulled thanks to much public outcry against, and no public support of, the proposed rules. I go a note from Senator Bob Smith thanking me for my input on the issue...
>
"Know Your Customer" was interpreted quite easily as biblical knowledge, "Screw Your Customer". Other industries are not so regulated, so they get quite cozy in knowing their customers. We, as paying customers, should know them more and better, as it were.
Of course, many organizations make hugely profitable use of many citizens' personal data without remunerating them. This would appear to be some funds that are not being returned to their rightful owners.
Consumer advocacy is one thing, another is consumer education. In many cases, there are well-thought laws on the books that provide adequate measures of recourse for such petty thefts as occur institutionally, but it is not in the interests of these institutions to make amends or to make this information available at all. Thus, these institutions do not make this consumer protection information readily available, but when pressed, they generally will acknowledge and serve such items, unless they are some unscrupulous fly-by-night organization, in which case they are unscrupulous.
>
> >
> >
> > Personally, when I drive, I like to drive fast.
> >
> > I am thinking that at some point, we shall have developed a special purpose AI to help us to determine the nature and reality of laws and their interrelations to other laws and actual economic and political activities. This AI will be able to search all Code and determine more or less what the state is on a variety of actions, and help legislators and inform a very large voting populace, so that democracy can return to its Athenian roots where every citizen has a vote.
> >
> > I am not a huge reform advocate, because the system appears to be running, but I am a reform advocate, because some things need to be reformed, and we, as citizens, pay for it.
>
> The only big reform I am for is that a Constitutional Glossary be enacted, to define the terms used in the constitution, their meanings and usage, as the founding fathers intended. When such an amendment to the Constitution is passed, many of the current attacks on our rights will fall by the wayside rather quickly.
>
> Mike Lorrey
Well, legal terms (I am not a lawyer) are mostly founded on the basis of common law. This is law precedence from five or six hundred years and before to today. There is also a legal dictionary, Black's Law, that is generally accepted as definitive. Here is some: http://www.alaska.net/~winter/black_law_dictionary.html. I can not vouch for this listed web site, or any others, except my own and some other unrelated ones.
The Constitution was framed with the Framers' Intent, which is the subject of interpretation. Most rational people interpret the Constitution correctly, as it is a straightforward document. There is a large body of work about the Constitution.
What we are discussing is privacy, and above that reform. In terms of reform, the best way to motivate, enable, and produce it is through the due democratic process, besides a PAC and a huge slush fund. American Democracy, for all its foibles, is still the best form of government on the planet, in my opinion. Due to its basic fundamental strengths, I think it will just get better, and, if anything, Internet convergence has served democracy.
The Internet itself is not a democracy, but it will get there.
Here's to the Bill of Rights!
Now, a moment to say something blatantly unpopular: blehhhhhhh, Ni! The, it. One, two, five, ..., three. Now back to this e-mail.
Cheers,
Ross F.
-- Ross Andrew Finlayson 202/387-8208 http://www.tomco.net/~raf/ "C is the speed of light."