[The following text is not in the "ISO-8859-1" character set] [Your
display is not set for the "US-ASCII" character set] [Most characters
won't be displayed incorrectly]
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Johan Roos wrote:
> Peter Seymour writes of employers:
> "His freedom is a consequence and necessary condition for all of his
> rights."
>
> Come now. Since when is the ADA, which limits the freedom of employers who
> are covered by it, unconstitutional in the United States of America?
Just becasue something is "Constitutional does not make it moral or
consistant with the philisophical premises of the Decloration of
Independence. (In the actual history of the Anistad, John Quincy Adms made
a great contribution to jurisprudence when he pointed out the glaring
contradiction between "All men are created equal" and the Constitution's
provision for slavery.)
The prohibition of alcoholic beverages was Constitutional, as was its
repeal about ten years later. Either slavery used to be moral and morality
can change every ten years or the Constitution is not necessarily a moral
document.
Because of my and most people's understanding of what is moral and
ethical, I must conclude that the Constitution is a political and legal,
not a moral, document. It is subject to political pressure and the
opinions of politicians and judges. Not only is it historically
inconsistant, but it is logically incoherent, as well.
What
> society has ever subscribed to the notion of limitless freedom?
No society, as far as I know, nor am I advocating limitless freedom. If I
am free to do whatever I choose with my property, but not with your
property, because you are also free to do whatever you want with your
property, but not with my property and so on, I do not call this
"limitless freedom."
Each person's freedom's should only be restricted by the volutary
contractual obligations that he privately makes with others. Any other
obligations are necessarily imposed on him from outside and without his
consent. If you don't have a problem with this, and if you think that
government is a civilized means of redistributing wealth, enforcing
preferences and obligating strangers to one another without reference to
fundamental moral principals, go for it. The Constitution won't stand in
your way. If slavery can be justified in the Constitution, surely we can
force employers to hire us.
> By all means stand up for employers if you must, but let us not get carried
> away by philosophical rehtoric which is not grounded in reality!
I was standing up for the rights of all people, not employers. When my
grandfather was put in an internment camp, it was for many practical
reasons that were "...grounded in reality." A thoroughly moral society is
an ideal that is worth striving for, and not to be compromised by
self-interest that is too often disguised as "reality."
> JR >
Peter Seymour
|