An
Internet Discussion:
Aquarian Rite of Passage
Copyright © Avery Davis, 1997
I am participating in an
email list discussion group that is associated with the First Millennial Foundation and is devoted to discussing the
society of space and sea colonies as presented in Marshall Savage's book, The
Millennial Project. The following is a thread that I started on the subject of
whether the society of the first colony, a sea colony named "Aquarius",
should have a rite of passage. Most of the following remarks are my own, those of others are in italics.
At 03:25 PM 4/23/97
-0700, Ingrid wrote:
About a year ago we discussed the "arbitrary voting age" issue. My
personal feeling is that anyone who can demonstrate a certain level of
intelligence and maturity should be allowed to make the step to contributing
adulthood with all rights and responsibilities thereof. A program like the
aforementioned could be used for the independent 16-year-old who, though still
in school, wishes to be emancipated and become a contributing member of society
(through voting, working, etc.). Or for the 16-year-old who zoomed through
school at lightning speed and graduated at 16, and demonstrates maturity and
the capacity for adult responsibility, but is still considered a child....
I agree that anyone who
"demonstrates maturity and the capacity for adult responsibility"
should have full adult privileges and responsibilities, i.e., is considered to
be fully human. The most common means of performing this demonstration in human
societies is now referred to as the Rite of Passage. Modern Western society has
no single explicit rite of passage, but instead has a number of different
stages in the process of becoming an adult (i.e., fully human).
Examples of these stages,
in reverse order, are the following events: reaching the age of 21, obtaining a
high school diploma, obtaining a driver's license, obtaining an elementary
school diploma, entering elementary school, obtaining a birth certificate. The
question for FMF and Aquarian society is, do we want
to have an explicit event for qualifying individuals as adults and citizens
(i.e., a rite of passage)? And, what do we do with individuals who fail the
qualification test/examination/demonstration?
At 05:29 PM 4/24/97
-0700, Elvin Reamey wrote:
I agree with much of what Avery said but I find myself being grossly offended ( my problem, not Avery's ) at the implication that children
are "not fully human" just because we do not expect them to bear the
same burdens as adults. If we reword the remark to be "not fully
citizens" then it is obvious that the issue is with the relationship to
our "civilization" rather than some perceived lack of worth intrinsic
to the individual.
My position is a logical
conclusion based on the philosophy behind the Constitution of the
None of this is a judgment
of "worth intrinsic to the individual". Individual sovereignty
implies that all individuals have identical intrinsic worth and are judged by
their actions and to lesser extent by their words. Besides, the concept of
inalienable rights sets the value of any "intrinsic worth" as
priceless for every human being.
At 07:55 PM 4/24/97
-0700, Ingrid wrote:
To me, a rite of passage is a ceremony that involves the participants (so that
they experience some sort of change or epiphany or something), that draws from
community and/or cultural values, and in some cases reflects a common belief or
symbolizes a common belief. I have a wealth of examples. Too
much anthropology. As for what we do with those who fail the
qualifier...keep them in "the program" until they are ready.
What I had in mind was an
actual, scientific test of humanity. One illustration of this is a scene from
DUNE by Frank Herbert (one of the few scenes that came off well in the movie)
where Paul is told to put his hand in a box and not take it out until he is
told. This is a test of willingness to defer gratification and undergo
immediate discomfort for the sake of long term benefit and to make a personal
sacrifice for the community. Another example is the tribe on the
At 08:28 PM 4/26/97
-0700, Ingrid wrote:
I didn't think the drive’sr license was a rite of
passage but now that you mention it, it kind of is a personal rite of passage
of sorts. It does require preparation, an "exam", and active
participation on the part of the "initiate". It's not a ceremony /per
se/ but the whole process is very ritualistic.
Ingrid,
You seem to think of a "rite of passage", or
any ceremony or ritual, as a celebration or recognition of something
accomplished, like a graduation ceremony, or of an inevitable event, such as a
birthday party. But a true rite of passage consists of trial and accomplishment
that is recognized by society through bestowing adult privileges and
responsibilities upon the individual. The drivers
license fits this definition very nicely.
At 09:18 PM 4/26/97
-0700, Ingrid wrote:
Wouldn't it just be easier on your argument to say "citizen"? Then
you wouldn't be conjuring up visualizations of mutant alien children who
suddenly morph into an adult human. Everyone is a citizen of somewhere; in the
Actually, the minimum age
for full unrestricted citizen privileges is 21. The citizen argument has a
vital flaw: the assumption that "rights" are actually privileges
bestowed upon deserving individuals by the state. The philosophy of
"inalienable rights" is that the rights are intrinsic to individuals,
and the state can only infringe on these rights. A constitution is a tool for
limiting the power of the state to infringe upon individual rights to the
"due process of law" (in the phrasing from Article 5).
At 09:18 PM 4/26/97
-0700, Ingrid wrote:
The only thing literal in "human rights" is that it refers to our
species on the basis that all *people* are created (born) equal (in rights and
potential). Children and prisoners, though restricted in those
"inalienable rights" you mention, are obviously still human, and they
are still subject to internationally-common human rights protection; hence a
limitation on the kinds of punishment allowed.
The difference between a
convicted criminal and a child (if the child is to be considered fully human)
is that the convict has had the benefit of "due process of law"
before his rights were infringed, whereas the child has not. Even a mental
patient has the benefit of "due process of law" before being
committed to an institution. But a child is expected to earn freedom from
infringement by surviving to a certain age without getting into serious trouble
and completing certain important accomplishments. It seems logical to conclude
from this that a child is not considered human enough to have inalienable
rights until the age and accomplishments have been achieved.
At 09:18 PM 4/26/97
-0700, Ingrid wrote:
Although the U.S. has TRIED to create an environment in which these human
rights are founded and enforced (witness the abolishment of slavery, the
efforts of Dr. MLK, certain protections within the Bill of Rights), making a
bases for *humanity* on the U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights is as
ethno-centric a mistake as assuming that we need to impose our U.S. standards
of "human rights" on other nations, as if the U.S. is the ultimate
international authority.
But the U.S. Bill of Rights
is an eloquent embodiment of the very concept of human rights. If it is
ethno-centric, then it is due to the ethno-centricity of the whole concept of
human rights. Any nation that espouses protection of human rights will have
constitutional protections very similar to the U.S. Bill of Rights. Remember,
this document was not created in a vacuum. Its framers picked the minds of the
best philosophers Europe and
At 09:37 PM 4/27/97 EST,
Emily Hanna wrote:
On the matter of immigrants, at least (since I assume that, at least in the
beginning, there will be a lot), would be simply to offer free courses to learn
what's needed for the test. Not a cramming course, exactly, but something to
help them catch up to what the natives have probably had the chance to learn
throughout childhood in a reasonable amount of time.
My point is that to be a
true "rite of passage", the test has to be more than just a test of
knowledge or skill, it must be a test of character, and character is not
something that can be learned, it must be built.
At 06:51 PM 4/28/97
-0700, Ingrid wrote:
Well, you're right, in simplistic terms I do think of it that way. And yes, the
drivers license is a good rite of passage. Rites are
two-way streets. They help the individual feel that sort of change within
themselves in a symbolic way. They also help society recognize that change so
that they can treat and have expectations of the initiate appropriately.
Excellent comments, and I enjoyed your digression. The two-way street
aspect is exactly what I intend for a rite of passage. The problem I am
grappling with is with trying to reconcile the concept of a rite of passage
with the philosophy of inalienable rights. Logically, if you are born with
rights, then you shouldn't need to prove yourself in order to exercise them.
But most human societies demand that individuals born of woman prove themselves
before being allowed full privileges and responsibilities of an adult citizen.
I am at a loss for a logically consistent philosophy that will allow both
inalienable rights and rites of passage.
At 09:31 PM 4/30/97
-0700, Ingrid wrote:
I do not disagree with most of what Avery says, until this last part... "female circumcision" is a /norm/ for many cultures and
has been for many years; why is it listed among the atrocities? This in itself
is an example of the ethnocentrism by which we judge the standards and
practices of other societies. Is it really any worse than male circumcision,
other than the fact that the cultures that practice this act do not use the
sterile and surgical methods that Western cultures use?
Yes it is worse, it is actually the female equivalent of castration in
that it destroys a woman's capacity to have any sexual enjoyment or desire.
This is intended to prevent adultery. The men, of course, are not discouraged
from enjoying sex, but for a husband to have sex, his wife has to submit to
what in our culture would be considered rape because she has no sexual desire
or enjoyment, only discomfort and possibly pain. But you are right about my
ethno-centricity, and I admit that it is ethno-centric for me to believe that
women are human beings and not livestock that may be mutilated as casually as
one would geld a horse or spay a cat. It is this dehumanizing aspect that leads
me to group female "circumcision" in with slavery and genocide.
At 09:31 PM 4/30/97
-0700, Ingrid wrote:
Now I'm not condoning this practice and as a female I can't say that I like
that it happens, but who are WE to tell another culture, who might have
thousands of years of tradition and rites associated with this practice, that
they are "bad" or "wrong" or whatever? It is something they
must decide for themselves. "Human rights" that are violated on the
level of torture, slavery, genocide, and even domestic abuse are NOT acceptable
because the victim does not choose to be victimized; in any case it should not
be an acceptable practice for any culture (though it HAS been for many, and
still is, witness Burma/Myanmar). On the other hand, the voluntary
participation of an individual in the ceremonial and symbolic passage to
adulthood according to customs, in that it does not infringe upon her rights
and does not cause, in most cases, any serious damage or harm to her person
(except the one part, barring infection), is an entirely different story.
That's where I draw the line. Everyone has to draw it somewhere.
To me, a culture that
indoctrinates its female children to accept female "circumcision" is
the equivalent of a culture that indoctrinates children of slaves to accept a
life of enslavement. This kind of systematic limitation of individual
self-determination is past where I draw the line.
At 09:31 PM 4/30/97
-0700, Ingrid wrote:
Western culture has a habit of judging all non-western cultures as inferior, in
particular when it comes to things we consider "extreme" or, on a
more emotional note, things we would not want done to ourselves. We assume that
because such practices and beliefs are disgusting, strange, different,
primitive, obscene, etc., they must be "bad" and that the people
involved are trapped by their cultures and do not like what their cultures'
/norms/ dictate. For example, we view Iranian women as being oppressed, and we
assume that they would rather be "free" and live like Western women.
If you ask most of them, they might agree that they are a little stifled, but
so many of them disdain OUR culture--how can we be so obscene to show skin in
public (i.e. bikinis to hair) and how can we speak to our husbands that way
and...so on. These women do not want to live like us.
So, do you accept that a
culture can do anything it wants to its own members while on its own turf?
Including slavery, torture, mutilation and murder? As long as it does not harm
members of other culture (i.e., genocide is out)? And as long as its own
members say that they want what is happening to them (such as agreeing to be a
human sacrifice)? I'm just trying to get a better idea of where you draw the
line. Actually, this is a pretty good metaphor for this entire thread about a
rite of passage for Aquarian/Foundation society, and it gets into new
territory, namely, just how much indoctrination of children is acceptable for a
culture?
At 09:50 PM 4/30/97
-0700, Ingrid wrote:
I wouldn't call it "proving" necessarily. My high school graduation
proved I could sleep in 90-degree sunshine in a black robe and hat and somehow
wake up in time for my row to stand up..... It can be more of an
"acceptance" thing...I "accept" these new responsibilities,
I "accept" the expectations of my society on my behavior; now do you
(society) "accept" me as a capable adult? Again, not necessarily PROVING
but accepting. And it's a symbolic journey in some cases, and an arbitrary
journey in others, but it is a journey from one state of being to another; if
SOME cultures require a test of strength or skill or mind, so be it.
What I had in mind was a
true test of CHARACTER, a real test of an individual's likelihood to behave
responsibly and respect the rights of others. Individuals who fail the test
(rite of passage) would be given the choice to continue to be legally considered
children until the can successfully pass the test (with a limit on how often an
individual can try, maybe once or twice a year), or emigration.
At 09:50 PM 4/30/97
-0700, Ingrid wrote:
Well, we could do two things: 1) DEFINE inalienable rights, so that we all
agree upon them. (We can do this just as a small-group exercise for now, as we
might obviously make some changes in 20 years.) 2) DEFINE
citizen/adult/un-citizen/etc. What do you expect in the behavior of adults that
differs from children? etc. When we're all clear and
we can reach some kind of consensus or majority or something, we can find a
solution.
These are both great
suggestions. My initial answer to number 1 is the text of the U.S. Bill of
Rights. Certainly, we should tailor this for Aquarian/Foundation society,
especially with consideration of the concepts in TMP chapter 8. For number two,
my answer is to invoke the principles of a free society, common law, and valid
contracts. That is, respect for the rights of others, and fulfilling the terms
of valid contracts that are entered in to. Children are not expected to be
strictly respectful of the rights of others, nor are they expected to honor
valid contracts, but any damage caused by a child is the responsibility of the
parent or legal guardian to make good.
At 12:47 AM 5/2/97
-0700, Jason Marshall wrote:
Who has the right to decide what is right for everyone else... Let me put this
in a different light. So far, we have stated a desire to have a true democracy.
In a true democracy, the majority (be it simple, 2/3rds, or whatever form you
choose) decides what is best, for those things of the laws they can change.
Large special interest groups swing votes their way
all the time.
Once again, Dave Barton
beat me to the punch. Let me give an alternate quotation on the subject of
democracy, from "Excerpts from the Notebooks of Lazarus Long" in Time
Enough for Love by Robert A. Heinlein:
"Democracy is based on
the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I
missed something."
"Autocracy is based on
the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over
again, too. Who decides?"
"Any government will
work if authority and responsibility are equal and coordinate. This does not
insure 'good' government; it simply insures that it will work. But such
governments are rare - most people want to run things but want no part of the
blame. This used to be called the 'backseat-driver syndrome.'"
What Marshall Savage
describes in TMP chapter 8 is a system that he calls "true
democracy", but it is really something different from any other form of
government practiced on this Earth. IMHO, the above quotations are highly
consistent with what
At 12:47 AM 5/2/97
-0700, Jason Marshall wrote:
So what can we do? Well. First of all, I think abstaining should count
automatically as a "nay". So everyone votes even if they don't get
off their duffs and not abstain. If votes are by simple majority, then you have
to get half the population - not half the people who care - to agree to your
referendum. I've been trying to puzzle this out and I can't. I think certain
classes of votes should require a larger margin to pass, similar to amendments
in the states, but I can't say for sure if that covers everything I consider
"important".
This is what a constitution
is for in a constitutional democracy. Yes, I agree that some decisions require
more than a simple majority, but I do not agree that abstentions should be
always be counted as "no". All proposals
should have to carry by the constitutional prescribed majority of the entire
voting citizenry in actual votes. And "status quo" proposals should
be disallowed by the constitution, that is, you can't word a proposal in such a
way that changes and actions would be made if the proposal does not succeed.
For example, I could submit a proposal that says I cannot help myself to the
treasury with impunity, which, if defeated by a majority of abstentions, means
I could help myself to the treasury with impunity.
At 12:47 AM 5/2/97
-0700, Jason Marshall wrote:
And in a majority direct rule, can a judge rule a law unconstitutional?
In true majority rule (also
called "mob-ocracy"), there is no
constitution for a judge to make decisions with regards to. Whatever the
majority decides, goes, and the majority is the only
authority to decide questions of interpretation. The impression I get from TMP ch. 8 is for something very similar to the
At 10:26 AM 5/1/97
-0400, Chaz wrote:
This brings up something I have been thinking about. Age, I believe is not a
good measure of adulthood. I have known high school and even junior high school
kids whom are more adult like than a lot of the adults I know. So, how could
you pick a point, say 18 years old and say that is the line between this and
that. I believe that maturity, which is a product of one's experiences and
environment, to be the basis for adulthood. But, how does one define maturity?
That is one of the problems
for the designers of the rite-of-passage test. If the rite-of-passage is to be
a test of character, one aspect to be tested is maturity and whether an
individual's level of maturity is sufficient for adult responsibilities.
At 10:26 AM 5/1/97
-0400, Chaz wrote:
One more, what does a child gain when he/she becomes an adult?
Full
adult rights and responsibilities. This includes access products that are restricted for
minors, such as intoxicating substances and adult entertainment, as well as
voting and serving on juries and entering into valid contracts.
At 10:26 AM 5/1/97
-0400, Chaz wrote:
This brings up another point, something I see in the
Certainly, a consistent systems of laws and procedures is requisite for a free society.
At 10:26 AM 5/1/97
-0400, Chaz wrote:
Example for Aquarius, a 24 year old bids on a job with only one other
candidate, a 16 year old who is the exception to the rule to the 18 year old
rite of passage. The 16 year old gets the job and the 24 year old feels that he
should of gotten the job due to his age. We are still
very much human and I see resentment of the 16 year old from the 24 year old's eyes. The 24 year old starts to speak publicly about
the 18 year minimum rite of passage test...then you get a conflict started.
In a free society where
almost all citizens are mature adults, the 24 year old in your example above
would be regarded as an immature whiner, and some might start a petition drive
demanding that he be retested for maturity (i.e., re-do the rite-of-passage).
At 10:26 AM 5/1/97
-0400, Chaz wrote:
What I am trying to say is that if a rite of passage is to be used on Aquarius,
then let the people decide when they want to take the test. If a 14 year old
decides they want to try it, then so be it. And on the other hand, if someone
decides to wait until they are 20 years old, then they made the choice to delay
there advancement within the society. If this island is to be based on the
rights of the individual, then let them decide their own time for the rite of
passage.
I think this is an
excellent suggestion. In modern
At 03:41 PM 4/30/97
-0700, Elvin wrote:
This can be simplified if you keep in mind that the
As Dave pointed out, you
are confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Bill of Rights. Here are
relevant passages:
Declaration of
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,
U.S. Constitution:
We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity,
provide for the common defence, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Bill of Rights, from
Article I:
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press...
Article II:
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
shall not be infringed.
Article V:
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law...
At 03:41 PM 4/30/97
-0700, Elvin wrote:
It is important to keep the concepts of "Rights" and
"Privileges" separate.
Yes, I agree with your
statement, but in mine I meant to say "rights and responsibilities"
where I typed "privileges and responsibilities". Privileges are
bestowed by a higher authority, whereas rights are "inalienable", or
intrinsic, and can only be infringed or abridged. If individuals are allowed no
rights, but instead only have privileges bestowed by the state, then the state
is playing God.
At 03:41 PM 4/30/97
-0700, Elvin wrote:
In summary;
Rites are for Privileges
and Responsibilities.
Rights are for being
alive.
This has an appealing simplicity,
but I think it conflicts with my basic premise that only adult/citizens have
full rights, and that individuals are established as adult/citizens by rites of
passage.
At 03:41 PM 4/30/97
-0700, Elvin wrote:
Say, that means dolphins and whales qualify for Life, Liberty and the Pursuit
of Happiness even if they can't get driver's licenses or have to stand Seacrete Maintenance duty on the breakwater ! Hmmm !
Reducio ad absurdium,
you prove my premise.
At 05:06 PM 5/4/97
-0700, Elvin wrote:
You are absolutely correct, I do not accept your premise. The very distinction
that you make here is in contradiction to what you said above about
"Rights" being intrinsic while "Privileges" are bestowed by
a higher authority. It is this very ability to bestow or abrogate a freedom
which defines that freedom as a "Privilege" and not a
"Right", at least in my dim little mind. As to "appealing
simplicity", I hope that what ever system is put in place on Aquarius has
"appealing simplicity". If our freedoms are not simple and obvious
enough to be understandable without the need for lawyers it will be pretty hard
for individuals to prove that they are or are not getting their due freedoms.
Yes, I agree that there is
an apparent inconsistency between the premise behind the rite-of-passage and
the premise behind inalienable rights, and I have stated several times that the
resolution of this inconsistency is my primary goal for this discussion thread.
I really appreciate your comments on this subject as they are helping me clarify
my thinking.
At 05:06 PM 5/4/97
-0700, Elvin wrote:
>>
>>Reducio ad absurdium,
you prove my premise.
>>
Sorry but all that I see that I have proved is ethnocentricity.
No, not ethnocentricity:
anthropomorphism.
At 05:06 PM 5/4/97
-0700, Elvin wrote:
In our egotism we take for granted the abrogating for other life forms that
which we consider inalienable rights for our selves. I accept that it is wrong
to deprive other creatures of life, liberty and welfare in many ways. I am
guilty of these things as are most other humans. The fact that it is accepted
as normal and convenient to slaughter animals for lunch ( I
had chicken ) does not make it right. I have the ability to keep a written
history. I have the ability to compare my intelligence with that of other
humans if our frames of reference have sufficient common points whether I can
demonstrate the worth of intelligence or not but I have no direct proof that I
am smarter than a Dolphin and I see little to indicate that I have more
intrinsic worth than a Raven or a Humming Bird.
I have one
"Right". I have the "Right" to pursue happiness. I have no
"Right" to demand happiness. I certainly have no "Right" to
life although I have the "Privilege" of life as long as no one else
decides to take it away from me. If I do not work to support my self, I have no
"Right" to be a burden on others. If I stumble and fall, others might
extend to me the "Privilege" of their assistance but they have no
obligation to me other than their own self interest. If I become unable to
support myself, starving to death could ruin my whole day but while I am free
to try to convince other people that it is in their interest to assist me, it
is not my "Right" to demand assistance. All else that I have are
privileges which I have chosen for myself and which I must defend through the
constant exercise of responsibilities. I do work that pleases me because I
choose it. I have an education of sorts because I chose it.
Much of what you say I
agree with. I think we may be arguing semantics more than issues. Let me state
what I mean when I use the word "right" in phrases like
"inalienable right" and "individual right". In this
context, a right is a boundary around an individual whose infringement by other
individuals or by government is improper and unacceptable. I do not believe
that "right to life" means the world owes you a living. IMHO, the
physical universe owes you nothing ("You are a fluke of the universe / You have no right to be here..."). Rights have meaning
only in the context of human society. The purpose of rights in human society is
to form a basis for limiting the predation of humans upon each other. Animals
have no rights since they are incapable of participating in human society. To
attribute rights to animals is to indulge in anthropomorphism, which is a worse
form of ignorance and arrogance than ethno-centricity.
Now, I don't believe in
ruthless and unrestrained exploitation of animals (or plants or minerals
either) due to reasons of enlightened self-interest, nor do I believe in
unnecessary cruelty to animals (or plants or minerals) for human ethical and
moral reasons, because cruelty is cruelty, regardless of whether the victim is
a human or an animal (or a plant or mineral), due to the unacceptable frame of
mind of the person being cruel. I do believe that sometimes cruelty to animals
(or plants or minerals) is necessary, but that the necessity should be well
established and the people should be sad and regretful, and not enjoy the act
of cruelty.
Also, I do not believe in
an indifferent universe ("The universe is not hostile, nor yet is it
friendly. It is simply indifferent." - John H. Holmes).
The Earth and everything on it is made of StarStuff!
Humans are part of the universe, and we are privileged to be that part of the
universe that can comprehend its beauty and magnitude. Since humans are not
indifferent, and since humans are part of the universe, therefore the universe
is not indifferent (at least, not entirely). For reference as to my basis for
this philosophy, please read some books by Carl Sagan and David Brin.
The reason why certain
boundaries were labeled "inalienable right" was to give them status
beyond the authority of the state to challenge. The culture of the framers of
the American Declaration of Independence made phrasing this in terms of a
theological reference appropriate.
I think I can agree that
the one true intrinsic right an individual has is the pursuit of happiness. A
free society establishes special boundaries around an individual's possessions
of life, liberty and property because of the special utility these possessions
have for furthering the pursuit of happiness. In the language of the U.S. Bill
of Rights, you don't have a right TO these possessions, you have a right FROM
infringement (i.e., boundary violation) of these possessions by other
individuals or the government (infringement by a natural process, such as a
natural disaster, disease, or various "natural causes", are not
protected at this legal and social level). Other articles in the U.S. Bill of
Rights can also be seen (IMHO) as intending to enhance individual pursuit of
happiness by prohibiting government restrictions on certain citizen activities
and prohibiting certain activities by the government.
So let me sum up what I
hope is an acceptable compromise:
There is one true intrinsic
right: the pursuit of happiness.
Certain special protections
of individual possessions and activities are established by a Constitution to
be beyond infringement by the state or other individuals. The protections from
infringement are called "rights".
Privileges are special
possessions or permissions bestowed by the government or an individual upon
specific individuals.
I think the above three
points establish a context for discussion of the attributes of a free society.
If this context is
acceptable to you, lets go back to the basic question
of how to decide which individuals have rights within a free society (e.g., do
children and foreign visitors have rights?).
At 05:06 PM 5/4/97
-0700, Elvin wrote:
By your definitions, Rights seem to be for all people. To take my daughter's
beach ball with out her consent is a crime even if she is only six years old,
whether we are at home on Aquarius or visiting some old style settlement on the
mainland. As her parent, I am her first line of defense from infringement of
her rights and it is my duty to represent her case to society. At such time as
she feels confident to present her own case I will step aside and allow her to
do that. For a while I will continue to provide assistance if she has
difficulties in assuring her rights but as she demonstrates her abilities to
communicate her needs and her justification for requesting intervention by
society to protect her rights I will provide less and less assistance. As you
can see, I do not limit her rights based on her age. What changes with her age
is my responsibility to her.
As to whether or not
citizenship matters, I think not. The "citizens" of Aquarius have no
more justification to rob or kill tourists than they do to rob or kill each
other. I do think that "Rites of Passage" are a valuable part of
society for granting privileges and recognizing a persons
willingness to assume new responsibility but not as an excuse to limit Rights.
One of my primary goals of
this topic is to examine basic assumptions, such as you taking for granted that
your daughter is a person. How do you KNOW that the individual organism you
call your daughter is truly a human being? I am not trying to cast any
aspersions upon your daughter, I am just trying to
illustrate the assumptions.
Within your cultural
context, I think your actions and attitudes are reasonable and appropriate. But
I am sure your daughter has the common certificate of humanity used by Western
culture, the Birth Certificate. This is proof of passing the initial
rite-of-passage (i.e., being born of woman) that is authenticated by a modern
shaman: a physician.
It is possibly useful to
consider alternative means of establishing the humanity of an individual
organism. Charles Sheffield incorporates one possible alternative in his
"Proteus" series of stories, which Baen
Books has published under the titles, "Proteus Combined" and
"Proteus in the Underworld".
At 05:06 PM 5/4/97
-0700, Elvin wrote:
In several posts you have mentioned a "Right of Property". Could you
elaborate on what you mean by that specific phrase. If
you are referring to the limitation on society that says that property may not
be taken away without "Due Process of Law", then I would perceive
that more clearly if you state it as "Right to Due Process".
You do make an excellent
point, but I have a quible. Remember how the right
was phrased in the U.S. Bill of Rights:
No person shall ... be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...
This is a right FROM
infringement, and the phrase "right to life, liberty and property" is
technically incorrect, but semantically invokes or alludes to Article V of the BoR. You are correct that the "due process" part
is especially significant. This is how we can reasonably restrict a six-year
old from walking into a liquor store and buying a pint of Vodka, or from going
into a bank and taking out a loan to buy a new tricycle, because "due
process of law" has been served in the legislative process that enacted
the statutes to restrict minors from access to alcoholic beverages, or in the
statutes and legal precedence that minors may not enter into valid contracts.
These are infringements of freedom based on the age of the individual that are
enacted by the state. The question is, how do we limit
the scope of such infringements? What about statute limits on the activities of
old people, or people who have certain skin colors or religious practices or
political leanings? Drawing the line and establishing checks and balances are
the critical tasks for the framers of a Foundation colony constitution and
charter. IMHO, the U.S. Constitution is a good example to start with.
So, maybe we can just
"beg the question" on the issue of an explicit rite-of-passage for a
Foundation society for now, and leave it up to the framers of the consitution and charter of a specific colony to decide the
rights, privileges and responsibilities of adult citizens, children of
citizens, foreign visitors, and convicted criminals, along with the hows and whys of bestowing the status of "adult"
and "citizen" and "human being" upon an individual
organism.
Appendix: 2007
On
12/24/07, Elvin Reamey wrote:
Hi, It's late and I was just looking to see
where my name shows up on the web and I noticed that you have an old discussion
from FMF on one of your pages. I realize I am a bit slow but I would like
to point out a few things about the beginning of the discussion.
After my comment, you state, "My position is a logical conclusion based on
the philosophy behind the Constitution of the
** The Constitution, however, in Article IV. Section 2
paragraph 3. explicitly states, " No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into
another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged
from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered
up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour
may be due." By this you can clearly see that any slave, indentured
laborer or contract laborer is essentially chattel property of their employer
until the legal end of their term of service, if any, and that as such, there
is no correlation between being "human" and being obligated to
service. Certainly, there is no distinction based on race or age since
any child or adult of any race could be indentured.
Now, before you start yelling at me, yes, I am aware that Article IV. Section 2
paragraph 3 is superseded and made essentially null and void by the 13th
Amendment, Section 1, but that still does not
make property a right.
Two things about your argument still bother me even after all this time.
1. You show no real concern for the accuracy of your quotations and I am
concerned that this same lack of concern for accuracy may color other areas of
your statements and thoughts.
2. The English language is a rich, vibrant, powerful, yet delicate and
precise tool capable of broad generalizations or minute discriminations to
shame Occam's Razor. English, used in the full
rich beauty of a large vocabulary is a magical device that can shine light into
the darkest cesspools of ignorance, but if you try to simplify the language by
using words with similar or perhaps barely related meanings to mean
"exactly" the same thing, then you might as well jump all the way
back to the dawn of language and try to communicating all of your ideas by
grunting "Ugh". English is a living language and you are in
charge of how it will evolve. You can choose to exercise it's existing
parts to keep them strong, and add new words to describe new ideas; or
you can consign many of it's parts to oblivion while changing the meanings of
other words and restructuring the rules of grammar so frequently that the
language will become worthless as a communications tool.
Actually, I have answered
your question on property right, and it is in the file on my web page at the
end. But I can't resist the opportunity to clarify and expand in light of
further thinking on this topic.
I am concerned about the accuracy of my quotations, but did take artistic
license with my paraphrases. So, when I wrote the phrase about
inalienable rights of life, liberty and property, I was merging phrases from
the Declaration of Independence and Amendment V of the Bill of Rights.
In Amendment V of the Bill of Rights, it is acknowledged that rights may be
infringed upon exercise of "due process of law", specifically
enumerating the rights of "life, liberty and property". The
"right" is not "due process of law", that is just the
mechanism to justify the infringement of the enumerated rights. I think
it is reasonable to concluded that "life, liberty
and property" are the "inalienable rights", and the Bill of
Rights enumerates specific instances or exercises of these inalienable rights
and how they may or may not be infringed. For example, freedom of speech
is a specific exercise of liberty, and restricting speech is one way of
infringing a person's liberty. Notice I don't say "right to"
anything, because that phraseology puts a right on the same level as a priviledge which can be granted or denied. This goes
to the heart of the philosophy of "rights", such as written by John
Locke (e.g., the philosophy behind the Constitution). I would like you to
contemplate Amendment IX of the Bill of Rights: "The enumeration in
the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people." I think this nicely supports my
belief that "rights" are qualities essential to being human, that is,
attributes and behaviors that humans just seem to have. Restricting
(infringing) these essential qualities (rights) can easily be dehumanizing, so
it should only be done with the greatest of care that the restrictions are the
minimum absolutely necessary. This is the main point I was clumsily
trying to make. I don't think we have much disagreement over the main
point I was trying to make, but just about the details of the enumeration of
rights.