Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, December 26, 1994 TAG: 9412270051
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Sounds ridiculous? Well, think again. Under the disguise of ``property rights,'' such legislation is being pushed by its big-business sponsors in more than 30 state legislatures. It's included in Gov. George Allen's Blue Ribbon Strike Force recommendations, and hidden in the Republicans' ``Contract with America'' under the section on the capital-gains tax cut.
The Fifth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution guarantees that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Now, an alliance of chemical manufacturers, mining companies, land speculators, logging companies and others want to expand the common-sense guarantees of the Fifth Amendment to cover expenses or hypothetical profits lost as a result of compliance with laws enacted to protect the health, safety and welfare of the populace.
The outrageously misnamed ``Wise Use'' movement, funded by the above-named special interests, is trying to sneak this legislation into law using such code words as ``property rights,'' ``takings'' and ``unfunded mandates.'' The arguments sound reasonable on the surface, but the results actually mean a loss of property rights for the average citizen.
ERIC SHEFFIELD BUENA VISTA
Take a second look at Proposition 187
CALIFORNIA'S Proposition 187 (a proposal to eliminate medical and educational benefits for illegal immigrants) was given a red light by court order from Judge Mathew Byrne who questions its constitutionality. This gives us a chance to examine this proposal and judge it accordingly. Halting it is a good sign for democracy and basic human survival.
How many people who voted for it on Nov. 8 knew details of the proposal, read summaries or abstract about it, or even reflected on how its approval would impact illegal immigrants and America? Did they consider that if illegal immigrants are denied basic medical assistance, epidemics in the work place might occur? Denying education means that some illegal immigrants could find themselves in the work place unable to speak or write in English in a situation endangering other workers' lives.
The above problems show we cannot conclude that there's an informed public in America. If there were, I don't believe Proposition 187 would have passed. There's a need for information and education, especially since the proposition's passage affects the fate of human beings whose only demand is for a better life.
KENNETH L. VENZANT BLACKSBURG
Libertarians focus on accountability
ON THE subject of crime and punishment, John M. Garvin (Dec. 17 letter to the editor, ``All tolerance and no order darken our society's future'') expresses a popular sentiment: Actions must have consequences, and we need to come to a consensus on what those consequences will be. But in his view, overemphasis on individual liberties gets in the way of establishing effective deterrents.
A closer look at American jurisprudence shows that it's seldom concerned about individuals other than the accused. Crimes are committed against ``the state'' or ``the people'' rather than against individuals. An identifiable victim isn't even necessary for some crimes. And ``victims' rights'' is no more than a catch phrase signifying they have none.
The real problem is that relationships between actions and consequences are all too often determined by political opinion and subject to the logic of misguided sentiments. Unfortunately, in the present climate, sheer toughness and brutality (a la Singapore) are the only things we've come close to agreeing on.
Is Garvin only pondering this dilemma due to his misconception of libertarianism, which actually offers a solution? No one denies that actions have consequences other than those arbitrarily imposed by decree. Central to the libertarian philosophy is the idea that perpetrators of crimes should be held accountable for these consequences, regardless of motive or intent. In other words, they should have to make amends for damages, etc., as in a civil suit.
Where artificially contrived consequences are allowed to overshadow real ones, responsibility takes on a narrower meaning. The situation may be more perilous than one in which people are exposed to the full meaning of responsibility, a la libertarianism.
ANDREW AKERS SALEM
Why must mythical Santa be white?
I CAN believe that such a statement was made by someone of the majority (Dec. 21 letter to the editor, ``More confusion concerning Santa'' by Claire E. Sanders), which just proves the ignorance of most. It's true Santa is a mythical character, so why is it that he should only be white in the print media?
Sanders needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Her attitude is exactly the type that continues so much dislike toward another race. God put humans on this Earth as equals. However, according to her, the African-American race isn't equal simply because Santa isn't portrayed as white in many black households. If she had any kind of parental concern for her child when and if asked about the ethnic Santa, she should tell her child the truth, and not continue the lies that are passed down from generation to generation within her own race. A young child doesn't see color. He or she is only taught it.
KAREN PAYNE ROANOKE
by CNB