Relatively absolute, II (was: Atheists and freedom of speech)
Wed, 26 Mar 2003 02:41:05 -0800
so only those who can afford a crack atty to get their sentences reduced
should be allowed to vote? "felony" is not a fixed point on a universal
continuum - "pass here and lose your voting priveleges" - it's judgement
passed with huge margin of error, state by state, county by county.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 9:43 PM
Subject: RE: Relatively absolute, II (was: Atheists and freedom of
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of
> Russell Turpin
> Only men and women should marry.
> Felons shouldn't vote.
> Only licensed physicians should practice medicine.
> Only the citizens of a nation
> should vote in its elections. Jews should
> have the right to immigrate to Israel. Etc.
I don't think any of those examples are very good.
Marriage rules against miscregation might be a good example. The one
you picked applies to all men and all women.
Felons not voting is unambiguously a universal rule: Do X you can no
longer do Y. Medicine: You must do X in order to do Y.
The final one might be a better one, but the exact definition and time
period you are talking about is probably critical. Do you mean to
object to a nation controlling its immigration policy, or to a colonial
power trying to exclude people based on their ethnic group from a colony