Re: I think the rationale behind the permit thing is
- From: "Sanity" <sanity-clause@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Jan 2006 21:30:43 -0800
rastapatch@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> swan wrote:
>
> > The thing that bothers me about the "incident management" and permit
> > aspect of this is the presumption of guilty until proven innocent. If
> > an "incident" happens or there is some problem - like excessive trash
> > or traffic in a protected area - then i can see that being legitimately
> > addressed by the public servants we hire to watch the place. That's a
> > whole different deal than setting up road blocks and bringing in
> > "teams" to prevent the "incident" from happening in the first place.
> > That's like a pre-emptive strike. The rule of law is "innocent until
> > proven guilty." I think the rationale behind the permit thing is
> > pre-emptive.
>
> > me. . . . . . wildflowerly . . . . . swan . . . . .
>
>
>
> In truth 'they' have a reason to believe 'our' guilt pre-emptivly.
> It's called the "tragedy of the commons". That is not in question among
>
> many professionals taken seriously in recorded history.
> In practice, pre-emptive association of guilt is also fully
> accounted for in the 'contract of compliance'.
Yielding to extortion.
> To be specificic, and
> short, 'we' pay taxes so a bureaucratic officers can represtent the
> public interest in leiu of 'our' shortness of common sense.
Presumes 'they' have common sense.... Common Sense {Thomas Paine's
nickname} said: "government even in its best state is but a necessary
evil in its worst state an in tolerable one"
> This, in
> general, is also more or less consensed upon by all who participate in
> the 'benefits' of 'the state'.
Ignores the concept of popular sovereignty and replaces it with Big
Brother. No sale.
> What i read in it is; the gov has the right, derived from need, to
> appoint officers in advance to regulate the commoners and their use of
> the commons, and has taxed in advance for the resources to fund those
> officers. This does include the lawful and moral right to set up
> roadblocks, and again this is in little question among the largest
> majority of all print on the matter.
Government founded upon the consent of the governed has no right to
even exist, its existence is a privilege licensed by the agregate
populace, whether they vote or not.
>
> I see the crux in a different place. The question i wonder is, why
> can't they come to the counsel circle and give advice like any other
> person? Do 'they consider 'their' knowledge infallible? Is there no
> confidence left in the government in the ability of the populace to
> self regulate?, because that's a circular argument (if the people can't
>
> self govern then why do they vote?).
> Underlying this whole issue is the funny smell that maybe folks do
> need to be told what to do (for instance, look at voting. It doesn't
> work that well). There are however very inspiring instances in history
> where faceless masses have taken a stand and performed extrordinary
> acts of clarity and unity, and it will happen again.
I don't like mobs.
>
> of course it's complex and it can't be explained in a few paragraghs.
>
> namaste' #
.
- References:
- I think the rationale behind the permit thing is
- From: rastapatch
- I think the rationale behind the permit thing is
- Prev by Date: Re: WE OWE IT ALL TO THE HIPPIES
- Next by Date: Fwd: [NYTr] Alito and Opus Dei: Jackboots of the Church
- Previous by thread: I think the rationale behind the permit thing is
- Next by thread: Today's Astronomy Picture of the day ~(APOD)~
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
