The journey from there to here
Published on June 6, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

When I was a kid, I got in trouble. A lot.

The simple fact is, there were a number of rules for which I truthfully did not see the purpose. Sure, there were many rules against theft, or bodily harm to others, or even not cutting in the cafeteria line, whose purpose was the orderly function of the community. But there were just as many rules that served no greater community good and were put in place by the prejudices of the school administration. In that category, I would put rules such as those governing hair length, etc.

As I grew older, it came increasingly to my attention that many laws were equally arbitrary. They weren't established for any betterment of society, but because of certain perceptions within the community. Before my time, they were laws such as "Jim Crow" laws, and the like. In my day and age, they varied from the insipid ("dry" counties and communities, for instance) to the outright oppressive (laws such as those against chickens being raised within city limits that limit your ability to be self sufficient on your own property). But what didn't change was my indignation at such laws.

You see, the rights of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" were considered by our founding fathers to be INALIENABLE (meaning, you can't take them away). They were put in the Declaration of Independence, but not added to the Constitution because, well, they had already established the fact that they considered them "inalienable". Laws enacted because of personal bias or prejudices fall in the category of harassment as regards those who believe otherwise. It's a use of the attitudes and opinions of the majority to oppress the minority. And it's not right, and it's not just.

You see, what "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" says to me is that I shouldn't have to indenture myself to feed my family. This means that if I own land, I should be able to make a living off of my land if it is within my means, without unreasonable restrictions on my endeavours. And that when I decide that a relationship is right with another person or persons, provided they are consenting adults, there should likewise be no restrictions. Even if your values differ from mine.

Sometimes, yes, it feels as if I'm urinating in the wind. But I still feel that it is my moral duty to speak out against laws I consider to be stupid. And I intend to exercise that moral duty with regularity.


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jun 06, 2005
Recently I have been seeing alot of commercials about the wearing your seat belt. The main emphasis of the commercial is that they just want to protect our life and health. Personally I think that should be up to the individual. I feel freestyle mountain climbing is a great deal more dangerous then not wearing your seat belt, so how come that's not illegal and they make climbing with safety equipment mandatory.

And how long before they decide that people obese people that eat in McDonalds should also pay a fine. After all more people die from complications due to obesity then from not wearing their seat belt.
on Jun 06, 2005
Mick, the seatbelt laws do at least server a clear and obvious purpose (as stated, protecting lives and health). That's not an arbitrary law by any stretch. What's more, your failure to wear your seat belt can and does cost ME money, in the form of higher insurance premiums. If you fall off a mountain, then unless I have the extremely great misfortune of accidentally standing beneath you, your tumble affects me not at all. If you get in a car wreck without a seatbelt, then my insurance premiums will most likely go up (or have gone up already) in order to cover your medical expenses.

I am required by law to have that insurance if I wish to drive. So I see no reason why, in order to control the costs of the insurance, you should not be encouraged (nay, required!) to wear your seatbelt if you also wish to drive.

Driving is a privilege, after all. Too many people treat it as a right, along with life, liberty, jury trials, due process, etc.
on Jun 07, 2005
While this sounds good in theory, the line between "my right to LLH" sometimes becomes a large grey area when placed alongside other people's rights.

The problem ensues when ONE stupid person causes a problem, then that "right" is moved from a "freedom" category, to being monitored and controlled by laws.

For example, one guy lets his chickens run wild, leaving his home an eyesore and lowing his neighbors property values. The chickens are free to roam and they peck at small children, The noise and/or smell infringes upon his neighbors. I'm not saying YOU do this, but if one guy does it, the city may decide that it is a health issue and ban it. Maybe they outlaw it because of one person who abuses OTHER people's right to live a life in peace and quiet.....

Do I think it is right? Well, I think that as long as you do not infringe on other's people's right to breathe clean air (all you smokers out there), live in peace and quiet (the guy who plays his music loud enough to be heard 4 houses away, with my doors and windows shut) and worship without harrassment you should be given as much rope as you want.

I agree with "Dry" laws and seatbelt laws. My health insurance and car insurance goes up when drunk drivers have to be treated at the ER. And we have two towns here, one on either side of the military post. The one with a "dry" law, has fewer DUIs and a reputation for being "a good place to raise a family". The other? Well, lets just say that there are a lot of "unsuitable areas" because of the drinking issues. DUIs, violence etc. So it is a choice....you have the right NOT to live there.

P.S. You never REALLY own anything in this country. Try not paying taxes on your land or driving a car that you didn't pay taxes on. They will take it away and not feel that they are infringing on your "rights".
on Jun 07, 2005
Unfortunatly, most of those "stupid laws" are the result of We, the People demanding the government kiss it and make it all better when we feel slighted, inconvenienced or uncomfortable.
on Jun 07, 2005
If you engage in high risk activities like mountain climbing you will find that insurance won't cover you if you have an accident while involved in those activities. Unless you are willing to buy very expensive coverage. That’s why when a mountain climber has an accident your medical insurance or life insurance doesn't go up.

Do the same thing for seat belts. No seat belt, insurance doesn't pay for you if you are in an accident. You make people responsible for themselves.

There are better ways then creating laws that further restrict our freedom under the appearance of protecting us. If I want to be stupid and take a hammer to my fingers then it's my right. There shouldn't be a law against it. But I also should not expect my insurance to cover my stupidity.

Now drinking and driving, playing loud music that does interfere with other people's safety or "personal space" so there should be laws for that. And I agree about seatbelts being enforced for small kids. You have to buckle them up and keep them safe until they are old enough to be on their own.
on Jun 07, 2005

For example, one guy lets his chickens run wild, leaving his home an eyesore and lowing his neighbors property values. The chickens are free to roam and they peck at small children, The noise and/or smell infringes upon his neighbors. I'm not saying YOU do this, but if one guy does it, the city may decide that it is a health issue and ban it. Maybe they outlaw it because of one person who abuses OTHER people's right to live a life in peace and quiet.....

Life,

So address the problem directly. If one guy lets his chickens run free, enact a law against animals at large, NOT against the ownership of chickens. If they are poorly kept and odor is a problem, enact a law against the improper raising of the animals, NOT against the ownership of such animals. Bans such as these punish the majority of innocent owners who properly raise their animals. And when they do that, they often affect the person's right to try to feed their family.

The fact is, laws against livestock are supported because neighbors don't want what they term to be "inconvenience". They are bully laws, enacted by people who cannot and will not be satisfied by what you do. And they are wrong.

on Jun 07, 2005
Regarding the law about keeping chickens in city limits...

If you ever had to spend 3 months living next to a retard who couldn't understand that 'no, his neighbours did NOT appreciate being woken up at 4am, 5am, 6am each and every friggan morning' by his bird's doing their cock-a-doodle-doo routine then you too would understand why this law exists... it is to stop irrate and semi-rational (due to 3 months of sleep deprivation) neighbours from wrecking bloody murder on stupid incondsiderate people.

Sorry, it's still a sore point, blood pressure is rising just thinking back on this...
on Jun 07, 2005

Mick,

The seatbelt crackdown is a part of a national campaign. It's my feeling that this is the new "quota" system; police officers will be required to write x number of seatbelt tickets per month. But I agree with you.

As for mandatory insurance laws: not all states have them. In the states that DO have them, insurance costs rise. Why? supply and demand. Because you HAVE to have it, underwriters can charge more, when, in theory, if everyone was insured, the costs should be LESS because the risk of uninsured drivers is less. Frankly I think that insurance should only be required in areas where having a motor vehicle isn't a necessity; in other words, areas served by public transportation. When it's required in areas where a motor vehicle IS a necessity, it poses an undue financial hardship.

on Jun 07, 2005

If you ever had to spend 3 months living next to a retard who couldn't understand that 'no, his neighbours did NOT appreciate being woken up at 4am, 5am, 6am each and every friggan morning' by his bird's doing their cock-a-doodle-doo routine then you too would understand why this law exists... it is to stop irrate and semi-rational (due to 3 months of sleep deprivation) neighbours from wrecking bloody murder on stupid incondsiderate people.

Where do we stop, then? Do we ban dogs? (they bark, you know!) Do we ban stereo systems and televisions whose volume controls exceed a certain decibel level? Do we ban power tools?

My point is this: nuisance laws already exist, frankly, to keep a neighbor from taking matters into their own hands. I have no problems with laws that address the nuisance. But chickens can still lay eggs without a rooster present; a rooster is only necessary for breeding. And if someone lives in town that wants to breed their birds, I don't have a problem with them having to have the rooster's vocal cords clipped so it can't crow (that's my loophole here in our town; it bans "any animal capable of crowing", meaning a "clipped" rooster would be acceptable). But to ban people from trying to take measures to feed their family is not only wrong; it further impoverishes people who are already hard hit.

on Jun 07, 2005
If you engage in high risk activities like mountain climbing you will find that insurance won't cover you if you have an accident while involved in those activities. Unless you are willing to buy very expensive coverage. That’s why when a mountain climber has an accident your medical insurance or life insurance doesn't go up.


No exactly true. When a person gets certs for skydiving, climbing, scuba, etc, their insurance goes up some (but mine never went up that much), after we have been doing if for a few years thought, most insurance companies lower the rates back to where they'd be if you didnt. Just thought you 'd like to know.
on Jun 07, 2005
ParaTed2k: I shouldn't have made that blanket statement. I just know my friend mountain climbs but his insurance will not cover any claims that result as a result of that activity. That probably varies from state to state and different insurance agencies.


But it still bug me that law like the seat belt law is probably a new "quota" system like Gideon mentioned. Just be honest with me and say it's just another way for the police department to make money and doesn't have much to do with our safety.

I worked in Michigan for 3 years (just 5 minutes down the street from the old Stardock office) and traveled to Toronto every weekend. One thing I noticed it that police seemed to let tailgaters and people driving erratically just cruise by. Also saw a mini van pulled over only once for speeding during that time even though they always seemed to be the ones blowing by me. But sports car and high end cars like BMW were regularly pulled over. I don't know about you but I think it's safer for a sports car to be speeding then for a mini van that is not as stable or as safe at the higher speeds then a car designed for that. So it never was about safety, just money.
on Jun 07, 2005
Mick, that is why I included the words "most insurance companies", to avoid the dreaded "blanket" statement.

Either way, your friend's can still get insurance right? His insurance premiums didn't go up, right? The agent just told him they wouldn't underright those activities. So I wasn't exactly wrong now, was I! ;~D

To tell you the truth, I think the whole insurance thing against "high risk" activities is based on nothing but stupidity and ignorance anyway. The most dangerous activities in the U.S. are driving, eating and sex. I don't see them going after those! ;~D
on Jun 07, 2005
Do the same thing for seat belts. No seat belt, insurance doesn't pay for you if you are in an accident. You make people responsible for themselves.

Unfortunately, people can't always afford to replace a vehicle if someone else hits it. And if the person who hits them is not wearing a seatbelt? Get some lawyers involved and sue the person you ran into. (I'm dealing with it right now) so people will not simply "be responsible for themselves".

Do we ban stereo systems and televisions whose volume controls exceed a certain decibel level?

Yes. My community bans any music or noise that exceeds a certian decible. But the rule of thumb is....if other people can hear it outside of your vehicle or home, then you must respect them and turn it down. But the cops will measure the decibles in a dispute....

But it still bug me that law like the seat belt law is probably a new "quota" system like Gideon mentioned. Just be honest with me and say it's just another way for the police department to make money and doesn't have much to do with our safety.

MVAs where the occupants are not wearing seatbelts incur more costs than those where people do wear seatbelts. The cost of cleaning up the body thrown from the vehicle, treating the injured, ambulances, cops to direct traffic, investigate and then clean up afterwards in higher when seatbelts are not used. ERs must do more costly proceedures because the people are usually more severly injured. Someone pays for it. If the person does not have insurance, we do, through higher insurance and taxes....and driving tickets.

One thing I noticed it that police seemed to let tailgaters and people driving erratically just cruise by. Also saw a mini van pulled over only once for speeding during that time even though they always seemed to be the ones blowing by me. But sports car and high end cars like BMW were regularly pulled over. So it never was about safety, just money.

A friend of mine is a cop. He understands that everyone tends to bend rules now and then. He knows it's hard to pay for a ticket. He doesn't want to argue with every person he sees, so he looks a few things. Are they speeding? Blasting music? Leaning WAY back in the seat so they can look cool? Extremely young? On a cell phone? Eating? If the person is speeding and everything else is within norm....he might let it slide if they are not going too fast. The more "warning signs" present, the more likely you are to get pulled over.
That's just the way it is.
on Jun 07, 2005

 

Yes. My community bans any music or noise that exceeds a certian decible.

You actually SUPPORTED my point right there...your community bans the NOISE, NOT the instrument. 500 Watt stereos are still legal for purchase in your community, right? You just can't play them at an unacceptable level if your neighbors object.

 

The more "warning signs" present, the more likely you are to get pulled over.

Actually, that depends a lot on the particular police officer. To some police officers, my collar length hair is a MAJOR warning sign. Go figure.

 

 

on Jun 08, 2005
Tony Benn, a UK politician I have quite some time for, once said something to the effect that if we hold the law as a concept in any regard whatsoever, then we have a right - nay, a DUTY - to oppose vigorously any laws that we believe to be bad.

The popular uprising against the poll tax in the UK in 1990 was a fine example of this in action. A national campaign of resistance led to a huge swing against the ruling Thatcher government in by-elections and local council elections, the eventual reversal of a patently unjust law, and - just as an added bonus - this doubtless contributed to the replacement of Margaret Thatcher as leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister.
2 Pages1 2