[at-l] Property rights, aka showing my own level of ignorance

[yumitori@montana.com (Ron Martino)]

> This part is simply not true, it is close in a somewhat nihilistic way, but
> still not true. "Rights" as in "The Bill of..." are defined by the People.
> The "government" did not exist when this was written. The government did not
> define those rights. They were defined by people, like you and I. Those same
> people also built in some protection mechanisms whereby it is extremely
> difficult to change those rights without the agreement of a LOT of people.
> They realized that failing to do so would produce that "unstable society"
> you were alluding to. The words of Patrick Henry were probably fresh in
> their minds...

	Uh, I think you may need to go back and read up on your early American
history.

	The 'government' certainly already existed. Not only was the
Constitution in force by the time the Bill of Rights was attached to it
(that's why they are the first 10 amendments), but the Constitution
itself was the second attempt at creating a federal government, when the
Articles of Confederation failed (at least in the opinions of some) to
meet the needs of the fledgling country.

	Certainly the Bill of Rights were defined by 'The People', but only
because the members of the government who believed in the need for such
protections considered themselves a part of The People, not above them.
If anything, there was less consensus among the governmental leaders
then than there is today. Those who wished a strong central government
worked to create the Constitution. Those who wished to protect
individual and states rights created the Bill of Rights.

> > We all live on stolen land...
> 
> Of course we do, that has been true of every person since people existed. So
> why cry about it?
> 
> Lee I Joe

	Perhaps because those who currently own the land don't want it stolen
again...

-- 

yumitori(AT)montana(DOT)com