From: kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrm 762-6417)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: music censorship in WA state now in effect
Summary: getting into theories of governance
Keywords: fascist censorship (shudder!)
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:36:58 GMT
Distribution: seattle
Organization: Cores 'R Us

In article <1992Apr12.082901.24025@u.washington.edu> il@bambam.u.washington.edu (Il Hwan Oh) writes:
>kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrm 762-6417) writes:
>> il@bambam.u.washington.edu (Il Hwan Oh) writes:
>
>>>                                  There is nothing morally or ethically
>>>wrong or right about this, in my opinion.
>>Does this opinion apply WRT the music law?
>
>Yes.  Like I said, many parenting theories abound, and none have been
>proven to be superior over the others.

Then all this foofaraw is over a ***morally or ethically neutral topic***???
Why? What's going on here? Is this a full-employment plan for "controller-types"
or what?  This seems perilously close to "action for action's sake".

>>A while back you saw no problem with the idea that the purpose of government
>>is to force us all to obey the will of the majority.  Is the "will of the
>>majority" an imperative that transcends moral or ethical judgements, in
>>your opinion?
>
>Isn't it this idea that the government of this country was founded on?

No!  Probably the best source for ideas of that sort are the Federalist
Papers (although I haven't read `em) and the Declaration of Independence.
The ideas were not originated here, though.  A number of Continental and
English philosophers contributed, and many ideas come from "Judeo-Christian
heritage".  The sentiments expressed in these publications, like the later
writings of JS Mill, I suspect were never intended to be taken literally,
particularly by the hoi polloi.  The ideas are philosophically diverse and
sophisticated, and of course, colored by the fact that their believers were,
99.9% of the time, wealthy white male human beings with a healthy idea of
where their interests lay, mixed in with a little sweet milk of human
kindness.  Machiavellians with conscience (varying amounts), in other words
human beings.

I'm not sure how long the idea of "majority rules" has been around, but it's
a lot older than the 18th. c.  The idea must be nearly as old as the concept
of "body politic".

>Personally, no, I don't believe that majority will is always right.
>However, most of the time, it isn't that harmful.

Are you saying that here, perhaps the people should be given free rein,
this not being a direct matter of concern to the body politic (those matters,
by definition presumably, being matters of ethics or morals)?  I can see
where it might be considered expedient to "channel" the "willathepeeple"
in ways which serve to defuse societal pressures.  I don't think people
take kindly to being thought of in that way by the minions of government,
however (rightly so, IMO).

>>>                                           Back to the music censoring
>>>issue, I don't believe we have enough information to determine if the
>>>majority of parents are in favor or against this.
>>Are you admitting the lack of wisdom of the policy?  Is there something
>>wrong with the process?
>
>What everyone seems to be skipping over is the parts where I state my
>position.  I don't think there anything inherently wrong or right with
>this policy.  I am arguing that position, not the position that it
>is a moral imperative.

Well, I can see that position as one that the top management of a large
conurbation (>5 million proles, say), responsible for the smooth functioning
of the infrastructure, might conceivably take, if it made things run smoother.
It's an underlying theme in zillions of science fiction stories (mostly in
the form of cautionary tales, which, alas, are ignored).

>By the way, some of you have started to get silly.  I'm only answering

At this point it looks like your discourse got chopped by a wild .sig.

kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Newsgroups: seattle.general