Subject:
|
Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Jun 2003 16:18:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1406 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva wrote:
| |
Having said all that...
The mere fact that I can break the law means I run my life. The fact I
choose not to do so means I run my life in a socially acceptable fashion and
thus can expect respectful treatment from my peers.
|
I guess when it gets to the details, there’s the rub: “socially acceptable.”
There’s a lot of stuff that gets wrap up with that that itself has nothing to
do with whether one obeys the laws or not.
In the U.S., it used to be thought that one had the right “to be left alone.”
It was sufficient, in theory, that if one was complying with the basics of
the common law that one was otherwise free to do whatever.
|
Could you clarify what “common law” is? Especially if it is a deliberately vague
concept or not.
| |
Then comes the idea of regulation.
Like when I ride my motorcycle it is now part of the California Vehicle Code
that I must also wear a helmet. Leaving the question of whether that’s a
good idea or not to the side, I now have the freedom to not wear the helmet
only if I also allow that I may have to submit to paying a possible fine for
not wearing the helmet. That’s not exactly freedom as I envision it.
Government has long since adopted a parental role in the governance of its
citizens. And spreading the cost of things amongst a group has long since
taken hold of our legislators.
|
Well, it could be the case that the government is actually regulating with the
intent of saving your money. They can argue that you’ll probably have to spend
less in the helmet than you’d have to if you required head injury treatment
after an unfortunate accident. And if you think, “yeah, but I don’t care if I
have to spend that money, I want my hair in the wind!”, they can contrapose that
you’d be representing an economic liability for all those using the road in
which you had the accident.
The parental role of the government isn’t necessarily bad.
| |
Somebody was recently commenting that one might have to pay a utility “tax”
for the “non-use” of the electrical utility in the event that one had the
means to generate one’s own electricity. Ridiculous, of course! And again,
not exactly freedom as I envision it.
|
Hey, I’ll go with you all the way in this! I read about it in the paper, and
frankly, that just seems absurd after the summer 2000.
When it is convenient for all parties involved? A balance is reached more often
than not in what concerns the relation between government and governed.
| |
The Declaration of Independence specifies the the grievances of the colonists
against their king, it states: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices,
and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their
substance.”
|
:-)
I can read it in a different way, if I highlight some parts:
“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of
Officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance.”
I apologize in advance for the cinicism, but it may well be the case the folks
who wrote this were just upset they had not been given their piece of the
cake... after all, George Washington did fight for Britain in the French and
Indian War, did he not?
| |
I’ll be keeping my guns, thanks. Both as a means to defend my own rights and
as a moral duty to my neighbors.
|
Fine. Just please don’t shoot me if we meet! :-)
Pedro
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
161 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
