Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Sun Jul 8 15:35:17 2001

Reponses inline:


----- Original Message -----
From: "Vance Dereksen" <vance_at_ikickass.org>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)


> Reponses inline:
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
> > I didn't say that. I said that if folks don't want to obey the existing
laws,
> > they should, within the existing legal framework, endeavor to change them,
not
> > simply disregard them.
>
> There are times when endeavoring to change a law is simply not enough.
> Suppose that the law called for your execution for something that was out
> of your control? Like the circumstances of your birth? How about forced
> sterilization due to a genetic abnormality? What if the majority believes
> in this? Without civil disobedience, our black friends would not be our
> black friends. They would simply be the niggers living screwing up our
> neighborhoods. There would still be acceptable scientific theories
> regarding the genetic superiority of certain races.
>
I wonder if you're qualified to discuss this circumstance. As it happens, that
was the practice in the country where I was born.
>
> > > Are you saying that the laws where you are currently make the penalties
> > > for infractions and misdemeanors the same as the penalty for shooting
> > > Dick?
> > >
> > No, but perhaps they should be. The real offense is the violation of the
social
> > contract, not the petty misdemeanor. I didn't say, and certainly don't
believe,
> > that the best thing to do is make all penalties the same, but I do think and
> > have stated that it would lead to better adherence to the law.
>
> Some of the most grave injustices are social contracts that were forced on
> people. Sometimes simply "leaving" is not an option.
>
Why not? That's how I happen to be here instead of there.
>
> > I said that you don't just step off a cliff on a whim, and, therefore, it's
> > reasonble to assume that, since the outcome would be the same, you wouldn't
spit
> > on the sidewalk if the penalty for that were capital. It's not, of course,
but,
> > clearly, if everyone gets to choose which laws he/she obeys and which not,
then
> > we're all in trouble.
>
> But if you accidentally step off a cliff, you still die. Are you saying
> that, through no fault of your own, if you break the law, you should be
> executed? I cannot and will not subscribe to this idea.
>
So, you believe that because a guy who kills with his car because he
"accidentally" consumed that line of coke or third joint, or fifteenth beer,
should be let go?
>
> > Think about it! One guy thinks it's OK for him to spit on the sidewalk.
> > Another thinks it's OK to drive 40 mph in that 25 mph zone. He can afford
to
> > pay the fine. Acceptance of that means that the guy with a 7-figure income
> > basically can ignore the "lesser" laws that carry penalties he can afford to
> > pay.
>
> That's why we have license revocation and demerit points. Do you think
> millionaires *like* to pay fines? No way. Millionaires become
> millionaires (outside of the inheritance case) by being thrift-wise.
>
... and you figure this is working?
>
> > Now, another guy thinks it's OK to have a couple of extra drinks before he
> > drives home from the bar. He figures it's worth the risk, and he can afford
to
> > pay the fines, and he can afford to hire a lawyer to minimize what he does
have
> > to pay. In most states there no significant additional penalty for being
drunk
> > and killing half a dozen people than simply for causing a wreck resulting in
> > jnjury because he's drunk. Is that the right way? Should he be able to
make
> > the choices resulting in the deaths of several people just because he can
pay
> > the fines and pay the lawyers? Should we tolerate that he do it again? How
> > does that differ from the guy who gets drunk and shoots his neighbor in an
> > argument? What about the guy who shoots his neighbor in an argument, but
> > doesn't get drunk first? What if there was no argument first. What if he
just
> > sneaks up on the guy and shoots him? What if he does it in order to rob the
> > guy?
>
> Well, ideally, the public defender should be the best attorney in the lot.
> Ideally.
>
> > > What color is the sky there?
> > >
> > Same as where you are, but I'm really tired of folks ingoring the "minor"
laws
> > we, as a society, have put in place in order to make the community safer and
> > more liveable, only to have some jerk who feels he's more important than the
> > rest of us go off and do somethng that puts us, our safety, and our peace of
> > mind at risk. The business with the illegal fireworks that everybody views
with
> > a blind eye seems a good example. Another one would be the really loud car
> > stereo.
>
> You are aware that most of these "really loud stereos" don't violate noise
> ordinance right? Even the ones with 4 12-inchers in a three-way bandpass.
> You advocate communism. Everyone is the most important. That is what it
> means to live in America. Move to Cuba. Or bettter yet, move to China.
>
Communism is a socioeconomic system not a legal structure. You are running out
of logic, because you've, so far, refused to consider what I've said. I've
suggested a single way, not necessarily the best, or even right, way, but a way
which would get the job done. There have been lots of idle and thoughtless
whines, but no positive contstructs put forth.

It all started with someone's mention of how much fun it is to set of illegal
fireworks. I simply mentioned that because people do that, I have to spend my
4th of July evening at home so I can put out the small fires on my roof and in
my shrubbery because others don't obey the laws.
>
> > What it boils down to is that adherence to the social contract is, for some
> > people, what they expect of others, though they don't expect to adhere to it
> > themselves. I just believe that THAT is wrong.
>
> That is why I say that you value the society over its members. Let me say
> that I don't completely disagree with you. It is just that it is not the
> American way. Period.
>
That's not what they claim, though. It's said that the whole is greater than
the sum of its parts. Your comment has nothing to do with the American way ...
it's just YOUR way you're concerned about.
>
> Peace... Sridhar
>
>
Received on Sun Jul 08 2001 - 15:35:17 BST