From: despair@netcom.com (Scott Hanson)
Newsgroups: alt.angst
Subject: Re: freedom angst (was a new source of angst)
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:43:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <umm...> jeff@is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp writes:
>
>In article <something> despair@netcom.com (Scott Hanson) writes:
>
> >I agree with everything excepting one point:  freedom = 1/security
> >
> >This is an inexcusably optimistic opinion, but I think if people are
> >given freedom and at least a chance at a happy life there will be little
> >crime.  People commit crime because they do not respect their life or others,
> >and if they had this reverence for life no amount of freedom would make
> >criminal behaviour tempting.  Please excuse the liberal use of "crime" here,
> >I am not in the mood to change it.  What a pitiful, idiotic way to feel about
> >human nature, but I'm a fool.
>
>I *think* I disagree.  You seem to talk about two concepts; freedom
>and reverence for life as though they are separate.  My reverence for
>life dictates that I live it with as much freedom as I can get.  They
>are the same thing.  I don't try and hurt anyone.  I don't try and
>commit crimes.  Sometimes it happens.  But I don't NOT do things because
>someone may get hurt or a law broken.  If I break a law why is it that
>immediately I have done something wrong?  Why is the law not
>questioned?
>
I do not believe freedom and reverence are the same.  I can love life in
America, and I certainly am not free.  What I meant was this:
If people are content with life, if they have a reverence for it, the
freedom to do harm to others will not be exercised often.  We do not need
to restrict people, we need to make them want something else.  

>What is crime anyway?  Today's definition seems to be something like
>"anything out of the norm" or "something not deemed socially/morally
>acceptable".  It occurs to me that if we had more freedom, (and
>admitted others to have this freedom) the definition of "crime" would
>change.  As freedom increases the number, things defined as crimes
>should decrease.  Unfortunately (for the concept) our responsibility
>for our own actions and happiness would increase.  I don't think many
>people would/could accept this.
>
>Sadly, we seem to maintain our concept of crime and create more laws.
>Look at Kanata, an anal retentive yuppie city near Ottawa (sadly in
>Canada.  Perhaps Kanata will vote to separate :-) There was so little
>"crime" happening there that they decided to invent new ones.  So now
>they have laws against what color you can paint your house, the color
>of your roof, your mailbox, parking trucks in your driveway, putting
>your car on blocks for repairs, ...  They actually pay people to go
>around and give out ticket for this stuff.  What's WORSE is that your
>neighbors call the city and complain and get them to come out and give
>you a ticket.  It's like living in one huge condominium! Get a life!
>
This is very true and very depressing.  If only people would mind their
own business.  But they have to like their life for this to be any fun,
and that is not the case.

Regards.

-- 
Scott Hanson		This has been a recording.
despair@netcom.com