Most people are perfectly okay with the notion of the legislature pushing someone around -- just as long as isn't themselves. "Oh, those weirdos? Okay-fine, 'do it to Julia.'"
Militia or drag show, we can usually work up some reason why they deserve it, too. Communist hippie or weekend survivalist, someone somewhere has got a theory why your very existence is problematic, and if they're not holding elective office, they've got the e-mail address or phone number of someone who is. You're a symptom of a sick, sick and failing society, you are -- and never mind that a close look at the history of the United States right back to the the very beginning finds an unending stream of fringe people with goofy ideas, hucksters, wild-eyed political or religious theorists and their equally-askew followers and so on. Yes, and plenty of people who thought they were a Problem and even some violence -- but mostly we let 'em be and the rule of law is the norm, not mob action. We remember the exceptions because they were unusual.
Looking askance at what is strange to us is normal. Trying to outlaw it is not. Decrying the endless proliferation of laws on one hand and coming up with new laws on the other is incoherent and not any kind of a way forward. Heaving bricks and sticks though windows is not legitimate political discourse, no matter who you are or what your reasons might be.
BUILDING A 1:1 BALUN
2 years ago
I don't really care what you believe or how you live...until your actions become a threat to innocent people, especially if your actions become a threat to my family and friends.
Note the word "actions".
Preach, friend. You're spot on.
It's actually really simple. We shouldn't work so hard to make it any more difficult than "are you hurting anyone else? no? Cool, swing away".
Anything beyond that is attempting to legislate a preference on how people live their lives. That's no different than the Kim regime requiring all men to have the same approved haircut.
I think the only slightly difficult part of it is defining what it means to "hurt" someone else. Lots of folks would claim that them really, really not liking something is the same thing s them being hurt by it, and that's not how it works. I'm talking "degradation of property, physical harm to your person, or an actual, measurable cost (either from your pocketbook or otherwise)".
Yup. When I hear someone going on about what Those Other People are doing and There Ought To Be A Law, I’ll ask something like “Can you explain to me how that harms you personally?”. After some harrumphing, the answer is usually along the lines of “Well, I don’t like it.”
Note the word "actions".
We shouldn't work so hard to make it any more difficult than "are you hurting anyone else? no? Cool, swing away".
Problem is, some people believe that mere physical harm is not enough. Whether it's thoughtcrime or the risk of eternal perdition, there's always someone who thinks dunking the witch is in her own best interest as it is for the community. And you cannot reason with them.
Post a Comment