nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/29/86)
Just one sour note to add to Don Kinzer's posting about the erosion of rights in the name of "society's benefit". When people propose certain sorts of laws and it is shown that the justification they advance would lead to lots of BAD laws if consistently applied, they poo-poo the idea. The "poo-poo" has a way of boomeranging: we're seeing this now with the anti-porn types, arguing that since society requires people not to drive drunk, it should require them not to look at porn: either one may lead to bodily harm and therefore... I remember reading about a speech given in Congress during the debate on whether to have an Income Tax. Somebody argued that it was a bad idea, because taxes might get as high as (he stopped to try to imagine this!) FIVE PERCENT!!! Of course, he was poo-poo'ed. And then there was the bunch that argued that the Social Security Number wouldn't be known except to the Taxing authorities, (and, of course, the employers, and, of course, the banks, and now, of course, dentists in New Jersey, who, under a new law, would be required to print the SS# on to dental bridges). The principle is important, folks...
nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/09/86)
Summary: Seatbelt laws are used to illustrate one difference between freedom and slavery. >/* Written 5:28 pm Sep 29, 1986 by howarde@mmintl.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */ >AI don't think that's quite the same thing. If you drive without your >seatbelt, you're not doing it to better your life or somehow improve >society. If you start a company, you are presumably doing so to make money, >make services/products available to the community to better the quality of >life for everyone and in general, add to your surroundings. So stipulated. And now the problem: it is just this quality of "doing it for no reason that others find valid" that is the essence of freedom. If I choose to print up a thousand posters showing myself throwing up, I am free to do so. I need not "convince" anyone (although I must willing suppliers: printers and so on) that this is a worthy thing to do. It is within the domain of actions open to me as a free person to do this: I do not have to justify it, explain it, argue that it improves my life or prevents some evil from happening. I have the *right* to do it. One hears often that the "end justifies the means", but in fact, only the right to employ those means justifies those means. If I now wish to paste those posters all over your shopping mall, I must now convince the owners that this is a good thing: my freedom does not extend to the use of their property. >Driving without >protection from accidents cannot possibly be perceived as an asset to anyone >or anything. Oh, absolutely! Except, of course, it is not "driving without protection" that the seatbelt law debate is all about: most of the people I've talked to who are against it insist they would buckle up anyhow. The debate is whether the State has the right to make you buckle your safety belt whether you choose to or not. Let's get a little more obvious: the state passes a law to make everyone eat all their vegetables. The state may convincingly argue that this will result in fewer people in state-run hospitals and so forth. You may not LIKE a state trooper giving your date a ticket when she refuses to finish her broccoli, but you're bound to accept it, just as you accept seat-belt-laws: same reasoning. >If you start a company, you're putting society's resources at >risk. If you're succesful, everyone wins. If you go bankrupt, everyone >(including yourself) loses. In an accident w/o seatbelts, if you avoid >injury, YOU win. If you get mangled, society (and YOU of course) loses. So therefore, in the case of any risky action, I should be required to take precautions dictated by the state? How about emotional actions, such as breaking up with a MOTOS, or health actions, like not finishing my broccoli? Why not?