Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)

see below, plz Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" <cisin(a)xenosoft.comTo: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.orgSent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 6:09 AM Subject: Re: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor) simply 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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.