Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!MC.LCS.MIT.EDU!kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu From: kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.politics Subject: Proposed amendment Message-ID: <12226925873.16.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Wed, 30-Jul-86 20:29:48 EDT Article-I.D.: RED.12226925873.16.MCGREW Posted: Wed Jul 30 20:29:48 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 31-Jul-86 17:44:24 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@mc.lcs.mit.edu Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 86 Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu Return-Path: <@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU> Date: Sat, 26 Jul 86 00:38:41 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Proposed amendment To: Hoffman.es@XEROX.COM cc: Reges@SU-SCORE.ARPA, JOSH@RED.RUTGERS.EDU From: Hoffman.es@Xerox.COM I do indeed mean to do away with vice laws (at least so far as they pertain to what I do in private, not on the streets) and other such attempts at legislating "morality". I agree. But why exclude what is done in public? At first I thought I could come up with one quickly, modeled on some existing amendments, but as I wrote it, it kept getting more complicated. What's needed isn't a privacy rights amendement, but a noncoercive activity amendment. How about: No laws, taxes, or ordinances are valid that attempt to prohibit or to single out activities that harm nobody who does not voluntarily consent to participate in said activity. For purposes of this amendment, seeing, hearing, and reading things is not considered harm. For purposes of this amendment, increasing the probability that a someone will commit a crime is not considered harm. Every person who is at least 21 years of age shall be presumed to be capable of voluntary consent, unless he has voluntarily declared himself incompetent, or has been declared incompetent by a court of law after having been convicted of a crime. The period of incompetency declared by a court shall not exceed the maximum sentence allowed for the crime he was convicted of. There are probably some loopholes in this, but it's a starting point. My intention is for it to legalize nudity, loitering, prostitution, driving without a seatbelt, riding a motorcycle or bicycle without a helmet, drug use, drug manufacture, drug sales, gambling, pornography, suicide, voluntary euthanasia, and all other victimless crimes. Please note that I do not necessarily advocate any of these activities, I simply don't think it should be up to government to ban them. I also intend for it to focus the debate on government regulation of business on whether the consumer is giving voluntary consent to the risks of the product. Also, zoning laws, rent control, and affirmative action would be abolished. The part about seeing and hearing needs work. I do not think there is anything wrong with laws against very loud noise. Loud noises can be disruptive and even damaging. Similarly, the restriction on laws forbidding things from being seen should not prohibit a law making it illegal to shine a bright spotlight in someone's window at 3 am. But painting one's house purple should always be allowed. As should dancing naked in one's front yard. I can't quite decide how to make this distinction explicit. It is not my intention to legalize fraud. Fraud is when there is no voluntary consent. It is not my intention to allow children to participate in any such activities. Children cannot give voluntary consent. The amendment neither legalizes nor illegalizes abortion, as the issue in abortion is precisely whether the fetus is 'someone' If the fetus is someone, the fetus must be presumed to not consent to the abortion. The amendment also abolishes involuntary commission to a mental hospital, except for crimes. One terminolgy kludge: The law should change so as to say that someone found to have committed a crime but to not be responsible because he was insane, was CONVICTED not ACQUITTED. If it is found that he was insane, perhaps he should be committed to a mental hospital instead of sent to prison, but it doesn't seem reasonable to call the person innocent of the crime. If he was truly innocent, he should be allowed to go free. But people who commit serious crimes should NOT go free, so they should NOT be found innocent. Comments eagerly awaited. ...Keith [ 'Fraud', as I understand it, is by 'consent', but with the one party misrepresenting him/her/itself to the other. 'Fraud' without consent is robbery, I thought... Also, I've always thought that "not guilty by reason of insanity" was a judgement that the person had performed the act, but was not 'responsible' for it (whatever that means) - not "innocent". -CWM] -------