Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site grkermit.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!larry
From: larry@grkermit.UUCP (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Societal consensus as a basis for law
Message-ID: <547@grkermit.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Aug-83 13:38:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: grkermit.547
Posted: Mon Aug  8 13:38:16 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 8-Aug-83 22:31:40 EDT
References: <5675@unc.UUCP>
Organization: GenRad Inc., Concord, MA
Lines: 31


	From Tim Maroney:
    There are a number of possible alternative bases for legislation.
	I feel that the only fit one is liberty.  

When you say basis for legislation, I presume you mean a set of
criteria for any given person to support the enaction of legislation.
Two people could use the same basis, and arrive at different stands,
because they are different people.

I think the only appropriate meta-rule in this case is the modified
Golden Rule, vis:

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you if you were in
their situation.

Since if I were a smoker, I would make it my business not to
smoke in the presence of non-smokers, and thusly I would support
anti-public smoking laws.  If I were an inconsiderate person, I would
not.

Presumably, the purpose of talking about bases for legislation is to
convince people to use a valid basis as a starting point.  Since Tim's
basis relies on the subjective idea of Liberty, he is not going to get
many people to agree with his interpretation of it.

What is needed is an objective basis, which is free of ideological
tint.  The Golden Rule provides one.-- 
Larry Kolodney 
{linus decvax}!genrad!grkermit!larry
(ARPA)  rms.g.lkk@mit-ai