Personal Autonomy : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

I've tried to post the text from this site three times now, and each time I receive the message that the server has been reset. Oddly enough, I was able to RESPOND to a thread, so I'll try and simply post the link.

Although disappointed with the author's occasional misspellings and incorrect use of syntax in this essay, I think it encompassed several topics that have been discussed here of late, and would be interested in your opinions.

Personal Autonomy

-- Anita (, July 26, 2000


" constipate the running of individualism and meritocracy into Darwinian entropy."

Darwin was constipated? No wonder he wrote "Origin of the Feces"

-- (, July 26, 2000.


I hate to correct you but that is "Orgy of the Feces".



-- DB (, July 26, 2000.


Whatever flips yer skirt.

-- (, July 26, 2000.


Although I haven't read the entire essay yet, I've read much of it and skimmed some of it. In general, I find it very interesting, and agree with a great deal of it, although I do have a few concerns. Thanks for posting it.

Where it gets difficult is on the pivotal question of whether we need a separate constitutional right to privacy. I'm convinced it's already there, in the fifth and fourteenth amendments, implicit in the rights to life and liberty. Also, I see it as part of the right to the pursuit of happiness, in the Declaration of Independence.

More than this, though, these rights are natural for us in that we as human beings need them to allow us to survive, flourish and to attain happiness to our fullest extent, as free individuals in a society. And since these rights apply to all, they keep us cognizant of not trampling on others' rights; to the extent we don't respect others' rights -- well, that's when government steps in -- and should.

The tough thing here is that the courts, including the Supreme Court, have not fully recognized this right to privacy, especially with respect to consensual sexual conduct between adults, in the home. The eminent case (wrongly decided, IMO) here is the Supreme Court case Bowers v. Hardwick, at Bowers v. Hardwick

Given the difficulties our courts have with regard to divining a right to privacy (often referred to "the right to be let alone") from the Constitution, the more specific reason being that too many of our justices have been unable or unwilling to see it within the other, broader categories of rights that we already have -- I would have no problem with a new amendment explicitly affirming, defining and delimiting that right.

By the way, Anita, pay special attention to the dissenting opinions in the case; they should give you a lot of insight into how the case should have been decided, IMHO.

As I work my way through the essay, and get the time, I'd like to comment on more issues as well.

-- eve (, July 27, 2000.

Thanks, Eve. I can't say I blame you for not getting through the essay in one sitting. I felt like I was reading FOREVER yesterday when I ran across it. In contrast, however, you're the first poster who even tried. Reading thoughtful material seems to be a lost art.

My time is limited today as well, so I must get back to you later on the legal reference you provided.

-- Anita (, July 27, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ