janw@inmet.UUCP (07/21/86)
[linda@rtech.UUCP ] >*Government* certainly has some right to dictate what actions are >permitted. This is amply demonstrated in areas of civil and >criminal law, including both laws concerning the behavior of in- >dividuals and of corporations; and in regulation of industry and >commerce. Or shall we dismantle all of these, too? Is it unac- >ceptable to include social goals as an area in which government >is permitted to act? Then of course we must dismantle ALL wel- >fare, public health insurance, etc. Your argument is essentially this: we've extended the government power a lot; why not extend it indefinitely? Do you draw the line *anywhere* ? 1st amendment, maybe? Has the government the right to tell you what opinions to express? Why not, if "societal goals" are advanced? Speech is an action, too... If and when you recognize *some* boundary limiting government's power over individuals - independent of "societal goals" or "public policy" - you'll have common ground with your opponent; the position of this boundary can then be discussed. As it is, you seem to defend totalitarian government; and the best refutation is the history of such governments worldwide. Jan Wasilewsky