From: kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: DWI
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:56:46 GMT
Distribution: seattle
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<

In article <2851@voodoo.UUCP> mnb@voodoo.boeing.com (Mike Burr) writes:
>In article <1992Jul17.170029.4378@fnx.uucp> del@fnx.uucp (Dag Erik Lindberg) writes:
>>
>>It is not reasonable, if the govenment does so by passing 'prior
>>restraint' laws.  [...]
[...]
>Oh come on Dag, you can't be serious.  It appears to me that your position
>would lead to total anarchy.  From your positon you call it "restraint"
>but from the potiental victems position it's called "protection".

Calling it and getting it are two different things.  The US is one of the
most "risk-adverse" societies in the world, and at the same time, one of
the most risky.  When everybody is regarded as "potential victims", they
*all* become *real* *victims* of their collective "need for protection".
They then *lose* the capability of functioning without restraint, and
therefore *require* restraint to prevent self-injury.  Do you see what's
going on here?  It's a positive feedback loop, or self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you start off with belief systems that *assume* inherent evil in humankind,
what you wind up with is a lot of evil that then must be regulated.  If you
*assume* that people are too stupid to restrain themselves, and require an
iron hand to keep in line, you wind up with a lot of stupid people that have
to be ruled with an iron hand.  If you do people's thinking for them, you wind
up with a lot of people who can't think for themselves.  This plays right into
the hands of the control freaks.  This is what we have now.

>                                                                   A lot
>of our laws could be considered "prior restraint".  What about traffic
>laws?  Should we be allowed to ignore stop signs and red lights as long
>as we don't injure person or property?

Well...yes.  The stop signs and red lights should be guidelines, not
inflexible absolutes.  They should be regarded as navigation aids and
amenities, placed there for the *convenience* of drivers, intended to
*facilitate* the business of getting from point A to point B.  They should
*not* be checkpoints.

The law makes no allowance for any wisdom (it assumes I have *none*) that
I might have, nor for any life experience that I may have acquired (it assumes
I have *none*).  It does not take into account any needs that I may have,
or subordinates them to an abstraction whose needs are assumed to override
mine own.  As a result, if I get caught "running a red light", the fact
that the intersection was completely empty is no defense at all, despite
common sense saying that it would be safe to cross the intersection, since
there is no danger of collision; the implied "disrespect of the law" endangers
the foundations of society.  I am sorry, but I find that unacceptable.

>                                        Should I be allowed to store
>dynamite on my propery... as long as I don't blow up the neighborhood?

A: Where else would you store it?

B: Why can the state maintain ammunition dumps and not you?  The state's
   ammo dump can blow up (and has), yet the state is immune from liability.

C: If it were illegal, what limits on the use of force by the state to
   enforce the law would be acceptable?  Would it be merely a regrettable
   incident if the dynamite blew up in the course of enforcing the law?
   Would that be "the price we must pay for an orderly society"?  Do you
   think that's OK?  Remember MOVE in Philadelphia?

D: I avoid, or sidestep the problem by being lazy and hedonistic.
   I have no compelling need to fragment large, durable objects.

>Under your concept, our society could do nothing to protect anybody as
>its hard to protect someone after the fact.  What if someones idea of
>fun on Friday nights was to put 1 bullet in their gun, give the chamber
>a spin, hunt you down, and pull the trigger?  No problem as long as 
>they don't *actually* shoot you right?  Somehow I find it hard to believe
>you would be unwilling to "restrain" the individual prior to him
>actually shooting you.  

Look.  You only run into the sort of problems that you pose when you have
societies like ours, which produce people with funny ideas of what's fun
to do on Friday nite, in great numbers.  We have this right now, and the
society you are sticking up for is totally unable to cope.

One example is the War on Drugs.  Keeping drugs illegal, and sanctioning
drug users and drug sellers produces people that thrive under those
conditions, and guarantees that those conditions will persist.  Keeping
a tight, intolerant society with little slack guarantees a need to consume
those illegal drugs (besides the legal ones consumed now).  Positive
feedback.

>In a perfect society where everyone considers the potiental consequences
>of their actions and puts the safety and well being of those around them
>before their own desires, I might buy your argument, but get real....
>thats not the real world (unfortunatly).

To get the kind of world you want to live in, you have to start living it
*right now*, not in some mythical hereafter or future paradise.

The real world reproduces itself daily, and replicates it's necessary
preconditions.  We all, as a result, have to cope with the resulting
postconditions.  As long as we all go around saying, "that's reality and we
must cope with it", we guarantee that that's what our children (the ones
that survive) will say, too.  Great legacy.
-- 
kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)