Fight For Your Right To...

Greetings:

First of all, I just need to mention that I'm listening to The Beatles again today. I just can't get enough of Abbey Road.

Ok, on to the actual subject of the day. I want to spend a bit of time discussing rights today. I think it may be appropriate since there is a "health care summit" going on in Washington DC today.

(I think that the title "Health Care Summit" is a bit of a misnomer, btw. It's really just a bunch of greedy old white guys in suits trying to figure out how to swim through a shit pool and come out smelling clean on the other side.)

First of all, I guess that I should state that one of my basic assumptions here is that "rights" are COMPLETELY made up and do not exist in nature. Not one single living thing in the natural world has the "right" to ANYTHING. Not even life. Therefore, for the purposes of this blog, we will assume that "rights" are not sacred or Divinely sanctioned. They are constructed provisions which are agreed upon by the framers of a constitution at the time it is written, or by legislators at a later date.

Here in the United States, we elect the people who get to agree upon those provisions for us. When we first declared our independence, however, the framers disagreed with my basic assumption. They contended that all people were "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." The government then decided that even though these rights were Divinely sanctioned, it needed to provide for them in its framework. Thus the "Bill of Rights" was born.

Now, because the government is nothing more than a framework by which a group of human beings keep each other in line, I am all for the Bill of Rights (even if I do disagree with it's foundational assumption).

Wait a moment... I guess I should have done a little more foundation-laying at the beginning of this post. This whole line of thought started because of a post I saw on Facebook this morning about a musician friend of mine who was accosted for peacefully performing music with a guitar and his voice, un-amplified, and free of charge to the crowd of people standing around him at the city subsidized STA bus plaza. The city of Spokane has had a long history of requiring "performers permits" for musicians and artists who wish to use public property to perform their art. I disagree with this law because I think it's unjustified.

Ok, let's talk about justification for a moment. One of the statements that I hold as gospel truth is that in a free society, one does not need a reason to make something legal - only illegal. I don't think the city of Spokane has a good reason to restrict these performances in the manner that they have. I could find it reasonable to restrict performances for which a fee is charged (and please note that I used the word "charged" there and not "collected" or "expected" - because I think it would be fine for these performers to accept donations), or if the music was amplified. But I think that restricting free, un-amplified music is a violation of the first amendment to the US constitution. I feel this way because un-amplified music is not significantly louder than a loud conversation when it takes place in an outdoor, or crowded public location.

I can hear the arguments against me mounting even as I type this. "But it could be disruptive to the peace!" I say, "Bullshit!" I go to the STA plaza quite frequently and there are people who hang out there that are WAY more disturbing and disruptive than a guy playing music.

The other argument is "but they're not prohibiting it... they're just making you get a permit." Again, I say "Bullshit!" They are restricting it which is effectively the same as prohibiting it.

Ok. I'm starting to get bored with this post now, so I guess the bottom line here is that even though rights are made up, we HAVE made them up and since we've gone to all that trouble, why not protect them? The musician I spoke about is organizing a sit in scheduled for April to protest the law. I am very seriously considering attending.

I am the Reverend Humpy and I have approved this message.