From: mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com (Bill Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Society's 'right' to remove your own.
Bcc:  mitchell
Reply-To: mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com (Bill Mitchell)
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: seattle
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 16:59:25 GMT

in seattle.general, donn@brat.UUCP (Donn Pedro) said:

>In article <1992Apr10.142521.25860@mdd.comm.mot.com> mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com (Bill Mitchell) writes:
>>
>>The majority of our society holds values, for example, that it is
>>wrong to rape, pillage, cheat, steal, murder, etc.
>
>I won't bore you with all the examples, but 'society' also thinks
>many perfectly harmless things are also 'wrong'.
>

You, of course, get to define what is 'harmless'.  The opinion of the
rest of society doesn't matter.  Right?

>>Thru our representative system of government, we've also as a society
>>set other limits.  Minimum drinking age, minimum age to buy tobacco
>>products, prohibition of recreational drug use, speed limits,  seasonal
>>bans against watering the lawn during a drought, etc.
>
>"Take care of me, oh Society, for I have not the brains to do it myself."
>
>>We've forfeited the civil liberties which would allow members of society
>>not agreeing with these value judgements to ignore them, and created
>>governmental agencies to enforce the values on those who would exercise
>>the forfeited civil liberties by murdering, raping, pillaging, or driving
>>over 55 mph.
>>
>>Are you seriously saying that this whole system is a _bad_thing_?  
>
>I do.  It is an overgrown monster, feeding off the labors of it's 
>members in an effort to keep itself alive.  It's one function 
>has been changed - perpetuate the 'society/government' at all costs.
>

Actually, I agree with the thrust of this.  I think many of the restrictive
laws and regulations we suffer under are stupid unnecessary.  I think it's
pretty clear that many of these restrictive laws and regulations, though
well-intentioned, are counterproductive.  I'm fearful (yes, fearful) when
government acts like Big Brother, and I think it's at least as bad for
government to act like Big Mother.  And we seem to be bound on a course of
Big Motherism - The music censorship law being just one example of this.

However, to misquote someone famous, "our system of government may not
be perfect, but it's way ahead of whatever is in second place."

>> What
>>would you suggest to replace it?
>
>A world where you can do anything, be anything, go anywhere you want,
>as long as you bring harm to no one.
>

Great ideal.  It's not so simple when you try to put it into practice, though.

When you say "you", do you mean "me"?  Do you mean "me and my friends"?
Do you mean "everybody"?

Do you plan to have some mechanism to protect the Sharon Tates of the world
from the Charles Mansons?  Is your friedly neighborhood child molestor free
to go anywhere and do anything?  How about the strung-out druggie looking
for a way to finance his next fix?  How do you plan to deal with these
people?  Wait until they do harm somebody, then lock them up for a while,
then let them out again?  Yes?  No?  That's pretty much how it's handled
now.  What alternative do you suggest?

How about the drunken 13 year old who takes the family car and drives
up and down main street at 90mph?

What if he's 18, only slightly tipsy, and only driving 80?

How about 21, cold sober and driving past your kid's school at 70?

How about 35, on the freeway, dressed conservatively, and driving 58?

Would you let all of these people continue going where they like and
doing what they like unless/until they hurt someone?  Any of them?
Which ones?  What would you do about the others?

How would you implement whatever you suggest regarding the above?
Who is going to carry out your policies for dealing with Charles Manson
or the guy in the next apartment playing his stereo at defening volume
at 3AM?  Do you plan to handle it all personally?  For yourself?  For
everyone?  Do you expect everyone to handle it for him/her self?  Will
your society have a police force to enforce any strictures it places on
individuals?  How will that differ from what we have today?

>Simple - isn't it?

Not really.

>
>I live by this one law every day.  It seems to cover most of our society's
>redundant, conflicting, confusing, arbitrary laws quite well thank you.
>

The problem is that you can't rely on everyone else in society to live
by the same law.  Remember, you have all those laws you disagree with
and the police forces you wish weren't there to protect you.  They don't
do a perfect job (ever been mugged?), but their mere existance acts as
a deterrent.  Somehow I don't think doing away with all laws and all
police forces would also do away with all violence and other antisocial
acts.

>>Oh, BTW, I think this music censorship law is silly and stupid.  However,
>>I'm not about to suggest reworking our entire society because of it.
>
>Why not?  It certianly needs it.
>

Our society provides mechanisms by which it can be reworked.  They're slow
and cumbersome.  If you're young and impatient, they're probably not
attractive.  The mechanasms do exist, however, and they're open to you.
Convince enough people that you've got the One True Answer, and you can
change the world.  Starting out here in the U.S., work to elect
candidates who support views aligned with yours.  Work to defeat
candidates supporting opposing views.  When you get enough candidates
elected to Federal and State governments, work to amend the constitution.

Once you've achieved your free and open society here, and if it proves
stable, and if it proves able to survive foreign agression, you can
work to spread it throughout the world.

>
>
>
>     Donn Pedro ....................a.k.a. uunet!nwnexus!brat!donn
>         			     else:  uunet!uswnvg!dfpedro
>	
>	       "You talk the talk.  Do you walk the walk?"

Do you?

-- 
mitchell@mdd.comm.mot.com (Bill Mitchell)