Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site wucs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!afinitc!wuphys!wucs!esk
From: esk@wucs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: The Annotated Humanist
Message-ID: <213@wucs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 28-Apr-84 21:26:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: wucs.213
Posted: Sat Apr 28 21:26:33 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 1-May-84 08:16:33 EDT
Organization: Wash. Univ. in St. Louis, CS Dept.
Lines: 51

[Does this bug still exist?]

Sorry if this got posted twice, I screwed up the first time.....

Some of Rich Rosen's interpretation of Larry's "The Annotated Humanist"
article:

> 1) human beings are scum; disgusting creatures who will stop at nothing
> to get their way if unchecked by the will of god, 2) the only way to
> prevent society from degrading to this sort of level is to impose rigid 
> laws, ....

Now, I'm not sure whether that was what Larry really meant or not, but
in my experience, your interpretation is not too far off track.  That
is, in general, human beings are pretty nasty creatures.  Without these
"rigid laws", human societies often (not always, mind you, but a lot of 
the time) degenerate into total anarchy.  I just don't see, looking at
the "human experience" of the last few thousand years, where you get
your very optimistic view of humanity and human nature....

> How many times do I have to sit here and describe a society that
> exists on the premise that rights end where imposition on another
> person begins, and that further restrictions on rights that would 
> exist solely for the purpose of "keeping the society together" are 
> bogus because a society should exist as a means to serve the
> individuals in it and not the other way around???

Sounds great, but I'm sorry, I just don't think the society you describe
is a real possibility.  Without restrictions for "keeping the society
together", the society won't stay together!  By living in a society, you
are going to have to surrender some of your rights to the principle of
ensuring the continued existence of the society.  Assuming that you
desire to live in a society of some type (if you don't, I'll be happy to
debate the merits of total anarchy with you later...), you are going to
be forced give up some of these rights.  (An obvious example is the
right to spend your time as you wish.  This must often be violated by a
society, for military service, and also in times of natural disasters,
to protect both the society as a whole, and its individual components.)

Although I agree that the people that make up a society are much more
important than the society itself, I think that if you desire the
society as a good thing, you are going to have to be willing to pay for
its continued existence.

Sorry if this has gotten too long, but it's late.....

						Eric Kaylor

No! I'll stop....  Please, not the thumb screws....  Noooooo.....
ihnp4!afinitc!wucs!esk