From: roc-owner@xmission.com To: roc-digest@xmission.com Subject: roc Digest V2 #18 Reply-To: roc@xmission.com Errors-To: roc-owner@xmission.com Precedence: roc Digest Thursday, 4 July 1996 Volume 02 : Number 018 In this issue: RE: What new world order? RE: FW: What new world order? [none] ACLU Calling the Kettle Black Happy Independence Day... Re: ACLU Calling the Kettle Black See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the roc or roc-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: eschelon@eschelon.seanet.com (E. J. Totty) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:26:08 -0700 Subject: RE: What new world order? >On Friday, June 28, 1996 12:04 PM, Jack@minerva.com wrote: >> >>There is an interesting book that relates very well to your thoughts. >>It is called: The Origins of Order by Stuart Kauffman ISBN 0 19 505811 >> >>In particular with thousands of computer simulations it points out that order >>rather than being difficult to obtain is an inherent goal of all structures. - ---snip--- >Larry Tate replied: > >There is no doubt that anarchy is the ultimate in libertarianism. There >is great >doubt however about its practical viability. In all of recorded history there >have been no examples of any anarchist (non-)society, let alone a viable one. >Anarchy may be the ultimate in libertarianism but it would also be impossible >to maintain. People will realize the advantages to the individual in pooling >resources. As soon as you get a gang of two, anarchy is out the window. >Pooling >resources requires management of those resources. Jack, One must consider the source/s of the computer program, and the biases of those sources. Since computers do not program themselves for such high level tasks, the programER must be a prime consideration. If the ultimate result is a propensity towards a certain solution, then the program will seek that solution. Computers of the digital type are inherently of logical process. However, the program can be anything but, and produce a result consistant with the bias of the program. And since computer programs are an 'ordered process', it can be argued successfully than an orderd process cannot viably assess a chaotic process. Consider the axiom: No civilized man can truely understand the motivations of an uncivilized man, unless the civilized man lives as an uncivilized man. Chaos is a natural state in most natural processes. In fact, I would hazard a guess that chaos is an 'ordered' process, and 'order' can be a chaotic process. It all very much depends upon just where you are viewing a process. Larry, The definition of anarchy ( American Heritage Dictionary, V4.0) is: 1.Absence of any form of political authority. 2. Political disorder and confusion. 3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose. Based upon those above definitions, Libertarianism is *definately not* anarchy. Consider if you will, that in order to *maintain* a fixed set of limits whereby government must not exceed, then order of a sort is a necessity. Granted that the order is limited, but nonetheless, there is still order. Anarchists by definination abhor any form of order, but will use limited order (ie, minor regimentation - coordinated force) to dispatch the offending parties. One must be aware of any attempt to associate libertarianism with anarchy. It is an attempt to poison the Libertarian movement. The threats arrive from both the so-called 'liberal' as well as the so-called 'conservative' movements. The Left says it tolerates, but it does not. The Right says it must not tolerate, but it seeks ways to do so. The libertarians accept all who would not act as impediments to a more free society. Ed - ------------------------------------------------------- In the land of the free and the home of the brave, we have more laws against freedom than those that protect it. If this country is so damned free, why are there so many things I can't do without breaking some idiotic law? >>>eschelon@eschelon.seanet.com<<< - ------------------------------------------------------- The 2nd Amendment IS THE reset button for the United States Constitution. >>>("Doug McKay" ) <<< - ------------------------------------------------------- The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights -- These are the ORIGINAL Contract with America. Beware of Imitations. Accept No Substitutes. Insist on the Genuine Articles. >>>Thanks in part to: John Gear (catalyst@pacifier.com)<<< - ------------------------------------------------------- "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters >>>A hearty thanks to: foolery@bright.net<<< ------------------------------ From: "Larry A. Tate" Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 00:01:07 -0500 Subject: RE: FW: What new world order? On Tuesday, July 02, 1996 4:25 AM, boydk wrote: >I've re-wrapped this text from Larry, my comments are in seperate >paragraphs starting with "bk-" > >> There is no doubt that anarchy is the ultimate in libertarianism. > >bk- Hmm, well my initial reaction is shock, but then I ease into >agreement. I have not doubt about this because I so completely >disagree with it. As I understand Libertarianism it is individualism with >(-only-) voluntary community. Nothing could be more an enemy to the sort of >disorder called anarchy then that, actually (IMHO) nothing would create >stronger communities then that though I'm sure that seems perverse from >the modern framework of what community is. > >There is great doubt however about its practical viability. In all of >recorded history there have been no examples of any anarchist >(non-)society, let alone a viable one. Anarchy may be the ultimate in >libertarianism but it would also be impossible to maintain. > >bk- Indeed! This is why I'm used to hearing this equation of >Libertarianism with anarchism from people who dislike Libertarianism. >We have been so thoroughly inculcated with the notion that "Order" must be >imposed on us by "Authority" that it's normal to think that people >wanting to change the nature of "Authority" (de centralize it to the >individuals it comes from) also want to eliminate the "Order" that we are >taught only authority brings. Normal, and as bizarre and illogical as a >trip through the looking glass. > > >People will realize the advantages to the individual in pooling >resources. As soon as you get a gang of two, anarchy is out the window. >Pooling resources requires management of those resources. Management >requires structure. > >bk- Exactly! Glad we're in agreement. And I'm sure that you'll agree that >structure is best (stronger) when supported by all it's elements voluntarily >then when some of those elements are forcibly coerced. -This- is a >Libertarian society to me. Those structures wich cannot attract enough >voluntary cooperation to survive collapse, as very well they should! >Those wich are universally recognized as necessary grow and are >-stronger- for being made of strong individuals who give their authority >freely. What a tremendous future this could be, a vision of unity shaped >by the automatic removal of systems that are coercive or not generally >thought of as beneficial (rather organic dont you think?) and the >strengthening of those things that individuals do best working together. >Individuals, as you say "pool resources" voluntarily all of the time, >it's practically a natural state. What Libertarians want to eliminate is >the gun point "cooperation" coerced out of people by the likes of the IRS. > >Structure requires leadership. Leadership leads to politics and >political struggles. > >bk-You are too used to political systems that absorb power like sponges, >why would leaders struggle to control systems that are only minimally >powerfull? They wouldnt. The problem is that people don't remember back >to when government did only what had to be done through government. In >such a system public -service- was truly service and while honorable >didnt have the siren song of today's all powerfull all coercive IRS >backed government. It worked in this country for a while, I think it can >work again. > >This all leads to where we are now. Back to the >grumbling and groping for answers. In order to force anarchy, you'd have to >organize just to enforce the anarchy! > >bk-Indeed, yet another reason that Libertarianism is not anarchy. > >I just don't see it working. I've yet to see a computer simulation >successfully take into account human nature. I say, let's just resign >ourselves that government is necessary. Let's work to make it what it >should be... a tool for the support and the enhancement of the >individual. We give power to the government only because we want the >benefits that can be had from it. > >bk- We give power to the government only to do the things individuals >can't do alone. Power is best in the most decentralized location >possible. If we give power to the government only because we want the >benefits that can be had from it we end up with medicare, with CDA like >laws and with welfare. If we insist on voting ourselves the "benefits" of >big government, we will -fail- and deserve it. Wasnt it Trench Coxe who over >100 years ago warned about democracies voting themselves largess from the >public purse? It's far less complicated (and probably more efficient) to >rob your neighbors -yourself-. > >If the government starts to stray from that singular purpose, it must be >corrected (since dismantling it is not a viable option). It really is >very simple. Let's get the world moving in that direction also. > > >---------------------------------------------- > Larry Tate > > >I think you and I are generally going in the same direction but have >different words for our destination. Libertarianism is not anarchy. >(the opinions I express are mine alone) > >boydk@wrq.com PGP fingerprint; D0 6E 1E DC 4E 15 AC 4B >Key at BAL's AC 26 40 19 4B 5E 27 44 > > The author of the post that I was responding to stated: >>> Libertarian goals / freedom are best and probably only found in the >>> smallest structures: maybe even only a single individual. I have seen a lot of posts on this, and other lists that are from advocates of "anarchy." I, and others, have used the term "anarchy" to describe a philosophy that is referred to as "anarchy" for lack of a better term. Jack (Jack@minerva.com) did not use the term "anarchy"... I used the term "anarchy." His type of "anarchist" is far removed from the dictionary "anarchist." His type of "anarchist" is more along the lines of our type of "libertarian." Maybe there should be a better term for the philosophy that characterizes his position. "libertarian" in our terminology does not apply to "their" philosophy (although "they" sometimes use it). Neither does the term "anarchist," as the dictionary defines it, apply to their philosophy. Jack's philosophy, as I read it, is along the line of the "anarchists" that I have seen participating on these lists. These "anarchists" are more like libertarians, except in a more "individual" sense. I did not intend to insult either Jack's philosophy nor the sensibilities of the libertarians (of which I am one). My use of the term "anarchist" was far too presumptuous in that I thought everyone would know what I meant. My interpretation of this term was culled from my from participation on these lists. As a result, my perception of the term "anarchist" is also far removed from the dictionary's definition. Anyway, I know my point was not lost in my "politically incorrect" usage of "anarchy" (that ought to open a whole 'nother can o' worms :-). The two gentlemen who were kind enough to point out my error in composition (boydk and E. J. Toty) are always welcome to critique my posts. Especially when it leads to another subject such as: We need to come up with a term for the patriots formerly known as anarchists who are libertarians who believe that absolute individual sovereignty is the ultimate answer. (the following definitions are from Microsoft Bookshelf '95.) lib.er.tar.i.an lib.er.tar.i.an (lib?er-tar?e-en) noun 1. One who believes in freedom of action and thought. 2. One who believes in free will. an.ar.chy an.ar.chy (an?er-ke) noun plural an.ar.chies 1. Absence of any form of political authority. 2. Political disorder and confusion. 3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose. sov.er.eign.ty sov.er.eign.ty (sov?er-in-te, sov?rin-) noun plural sov.er.eign.ties 1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state. 2. Royal rank, authority, or power. 3. Complete independence and self-government. 4. A territory existing as an independent state. - ---------------------------------------------- Larry Tate ltate@computek.net "Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of the tyrant and the creed of the slave." - -- William Pitt, 1763 - ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: "Larry A. Tate" Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 02:42:03 -0500 Subject: [none] BTW, Happy Independence Day everyone! - ---------------------------------------------- Larry Tate ltate@computek.net "Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of the tyrant and the creed of the slave." - -- William Pitt, 1763 - ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: "Larry A. Tate" Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 02:50:10 -0500 Subject: ACLU Calling the Kettle Black On Tuesday, July 02, 1996 12:38 PM, Bill Vance[SMTP:noban@xpresso.seaslug.org] wrote: >On Jul 2, Larry A. Tate wrote: > >>The point is that I am confident that what I am doing is right. My mother >>and my wife might remind me of the fact that there are those who would >>rather I not speak the truth. I cannot help but speak the truth. I think >>the fable about George Washington and the Cherry Tree did not intend to >>imply that Washington NEVER told a lie, but that he could not lie about >>those things that truly mattered. Small lies are one thing, but truth >>in one's philosophy is another. > >Then there's the one about the pre Revolutionary War troops he led, who were >to receive land as payment for their services until he embezzeled it out >from under them..... Guess he decided to change his ways. > >-- >An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep >weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your >hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder >on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. > > (Changing this subject to: ACLU Calling the Kettle Black) Bill, Thanks for reminding us what an a'hole George Washington was. After all, he was a politician :-). I was talking about "philosophical truth". How many of us humans would like our credibility to be determined by how steadfastly we avoid the trap of "do as I say, not as I do". I certainly am no "Thomas Jefferson", and neither he nor I were angels. However, I do believe that as long as I embrace his (and the other founding father's) philosophy I might be able to turn my pitiful human sole into a respectable pitiful human sole. Let's not abandon our founding father's principles simply because they could not live up to them. By the way, your point was well taken, and I enjoyed the counter- point. My reply is not intended as a rebuttal to your point, as it was a valid response. This reply is a clarification what I was trying to say and your response gave me the opportunity to do so. I'd like to open a new topic that is related to this arguable hypocrisy. I've just recently browsed some of the Internet offerings of the ACLU. There is an air of discontent within the ACLU regarding the Framers of the Constitution. My analysis of their position is that they think the Framers were hypocritical because they were slave owners. They imply that the Framers never intended the constitution to apply to "blacks", "American Indians", etc. It is a fact that the Framers were slave owners and that they discounted any claim that the original inhabitants had to the land. I find it strikingly profound, however, that the documents of freedom (the Declaration and the Constitution) make no specific exclusions to "slaves" or other "non-white" peoples. This exclusion could mean that these wise men realized that the practicalities of their time should not soil their intent. On the flip-side, it could also mean that they thought that "non-whites" would never be seen as "people". This second supposition is ridiculous due to the fact that the argument about slavery was hot at the time (however legal). These men would have been fools had they intended to exclude "non-whites" implicitly and NOT explicitly in the Declaration and the Constitution. These men were not fools. Therefore it is my opinion that they intended to NOT exclude those who's rights were, at the time, non-existent. This, in my opinion, is indicative of the amazing extent of these men's vision. I'd like to hear some other opinions about this. If it turns out that this is a valid (and supported) argument, I'd like to see it presented to the ACLU as part of a campaign to get them to be a little less selective in their support of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. (By the way, I don't know if it is ACT or ROC, but a lot of replies to posts that were intended to be posted to the list are getting posted to the author instead. When a message that is received from a list is replied to using the "reply" option of a list user's mail software, the "recipient" is set to the author. This does not happen with the other lists I participate in. Can we fix this? BTW, I know I am not the only one having this trouble.) - ---------------------------------------------- Larry Tate ltate@computek.net "Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of the tyrant and the creed of the slave." - -- William Pitt, 1763 - ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: "Donna J. Logan" Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 06:05:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Happy Independence Day... - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 4 May 95 16:48:12 EDT Subject: Words or a warning? - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION OF THE THIRTEEN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands. He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers. He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature. He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation: * For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: * For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states: * For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world: * For imposing taxes on us without our consent: * For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury: * For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses: * For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies: * For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments: * For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In Jefferson's draft there is a part on slavery here In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends. We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. JOHN HANCOCK, President Attested, CHARLES THOMSON, Secretary New Hampshire JOSIAH BARTLETT WILLIAM WHIPPLE MATTHEW THORNTON Massachusetts-Bay SAMUEL ADAMS JOHN ADAMS ROBERT TREAT PAINE ELBRIDGE GERRY Rhode Island STEPHEN HOPKINS WILLIAM ELLERY Connecticut ROGER SHERMAN SAMUEL HUNTINGTON WILLIAM WILLIAMS OLIVER WOLCOTT Georgia BUTTON GWINNETT LYMAN HALL GEO. WALTON Maryland SAMUEL CHASE WILLIAM PACA THOMAS STONE CHARLES CARROLL OF CARROLLTON Virginia GEORGE WYTHE RICHARD HENRY LEE THOMAS JEFFERSON BENJAMIN HARRISON THOMAS NELSON, JR. FRANCIS LIGHTFOOT LEE CARTER BRAXTON. New York WILLIAM FLOYD PHILIP LIVINGSTON FRANCIS LEWIS LEWIS MORRIS Pennsylvania ROBERT MORRIS BENJAMIN RUSH BENJAMIN FRANKLIN JOHN MORTON GEORGE CLYMER JAMES SMITH GEORGE TAYLOR JAMES WILSON GEORGE ROSS Delaware CAESAR RODNEY GEORGE READ THOMAS M'KEAN North Carolina WILLIAM HOOPER JOSEPH HEWES JOHN PENN South Carolina EDWARD RUTLEDGE THOMAS HEYWARD, JR. THOMAS LYNCH, JR. ARTHUR MIDDLETON New Jersey RICHARD STOCKTON JOHN WITHERSPOON FRANCIS HOPKINS JOHN HART ABRAHAM CLARK - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 96 03:53:48 PST Subject: Re: ACLU Calling the Kettle Black In <01BB6953.9125DB80@ltate>, on Jul 4, Larry A. Tate wrote: >On Tuesday, July 02, 1996 12:38 PM, Bill Vance[SMTP:noban@xpresso.seaslug.org] wrote: >>On Jul 2, Larry A. Tate wrote: >> >>>The point is that I am confident that what I am doing is right. My mother >>>and my wife might remind me of the fact that there are those who would >>>rather I not speak the truth. I cannot help but speak the truth. I think >>>the fable about George Washington and the Cherry Tree did not intend to >>>imply that Washington NEVER told a lie, but that he could not lie about >>>those things that truly mattered. Small lies are one thing, but truth >>>in one's philosophy is another. >> >>Then there's the one about the pre Revolutionary War troops he led, who were >>to receive land as payment for their services until he embezzeled it out >>from under them..... Guess he decided to change his ways. > >(Changing this subject to: ACLU Calling the Kettle Black) > >Bill, > >Thanks for reminding us what an a'hole George Washington was. After >all, he was a politician :-). I was talking about "philosophical >truth". How many of us humans would like our credibility to be >determined by how steadfastly we avoid the trap of "do as I say, not >as I do". I certainly am no "Thomas Jefferson", and neither he nor I >were angels. However, I do believe that as long as I embrace his >(and the other founding father's) philosophy I might be able to turn >my pitiful human sole into a respectable pitiful human sole. Let's >not abandon our founding father's principles simply because they >could not live up to them. That should be "soul", not "sole". >By the way, your point was well taken, and I enjoyed the counter- >point. My reply is not intended as a rebuttal to your point, as it >was a valid response. This reply is a clarification what I was >trying to say and your response gave me the opportunity to do so. > >I'd like to open a new topic that is related to this arguable >hypocrisy. I've just recently browsed some of the Internet offerings >of the ACLU. There is an air of discontent within the ACLU >regarding the Framers of the Constitution. My analysis of their >position is that they think the Framers were hypocritical because >they were slave owners. They imply that the Framers never intended >the constitution to apply to "blacks", "American Indians", etc. Many intended it so, but there wasn't the numbers to vote it in. I'm not sure about the Revolutionary War period, but at the time of the Civil War, there were only about 10% who were rich enough to own slaves, and most of those were large plantation owners. It truely was a States Rights/Unfair Taxation issue. Here's some info Ken Holder gave me that might be of some help, concerning the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers and the debate on the Constitution: Several of the local chain bookstores here have a mass-market paperback selection called _The Antifederalist Papers_. There is also at least one trade paperback edition (a.k.a. "quality" paperback). There is a big 4 or 5 volume omnibus scholarly hardcover edition. Laissez Faire Books carries at least one of these. They're on the web at http://www.lfb.org/ (hum ... seem to be down right now). Call toll-free 1-800-326-0996 or (415) 541-9780, fax (415) 541-0597 or write to: Laissez Faire Books, Dept. L50, 938 Howard St., #202, San Francisco, CA, 94103. However the best edition now is in the "Library of America" series. 2 volumes called _The Debate on the Constitution_ that includes pro- and anti- essays. Just about any bookstore can order this for you. They're about $20 or $25 a volume, but these are very high quality productions on archival paper that you can pass on to your greatgreatgrandkids. LFB may carry it, come to think of it. Good hunting! - --Ken kholder@liberty.com http://www.liberty.com/home/kholder/ > It >is a fact that the Framers were slave owners and that they discounted >any claim that the original inhabitants had to the land. Of course they did. They had after all Militarily conquored it. > I find it >strikingly profound, however, that the documents of freedom (the >Declaration and the Constitution) make no specific exclusions to >"slaves" or other "non-white" peoples. > >This exclusion could mean that these wise men realized that the >practicalities of their time should not soil their intent. Indeed. > On the >flip-side, it could also mean that they thought that "non-whites" >would never be seen as "people". There were some of those too. Even if some of them weren't of that disposition, then, as now, money fuels politics. >This second supposition is ridiculous due to the fact that the >argument about slavery was hot at the time (however legal). These >men would have been fools had they intended to exclude "non-whites" >implicitly and NOT explicitly in the Declaration and the >Constitution. These men were not fools. Therefore it is my opinion >that they intended to NOT exclude those who's rights were, at the >time, non-existent. This, in my opinion, is indicative of the >amazing extent of these men's vision. > >I'd like to hear some other opinions about this. If it turns out >that this is a valid (and supported) argument, I'd like to see it >presented to the ACLU as part of a campaign to get them to be a >little less selective in their support of the Constitution and the >Bill of Rights. Check the Federalist/Debate references I gave you above for that. >(By the way, I don't know if it is ACT or ROC, but a lot of replies >to posts that were intended to be posted to the list are getting >posted to the author instead. When a message that is received from >a list is replied to using the "reply" option of a list user's mail >software, the "recipient" is set to the author. This does not happen >with the other lists I participate in. Can we fix this? BTW, I know >I am not the only one having this trouble.) It ain't broke so please don't "fix" it. You would trade a minor inconvenience for a lot of unecessary work. - -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------ End of roc Digest V2 #18 ************************ To subscribe to roc Digest, send the command: subscribe roc-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@xmission.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-roc": subscribe roc-digest local-roc@your.domain.net A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "roc-digest" in the commands above with "roc". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from ftp.xmission.com, in pub/lists/roc/archive. These are organized by date.