*I* Human rights...or not?
Gary Webber
This is possibly not the right place to pose this question, but in my
lurking and writing to this group I have come to respect my fellow "AFP"ers
foresight and intelligence. SO, here goes.
I was listening to todays "Any answers?" followup to radio 4's "Any
Questions?" There was a question put, something along the lines of "Do
police have the right to make 'fishing raids', or raids on fellons homes ,
without warning, and without having ' Due Cause' " ?
To start with I thought "NO...a veritable Human Rights Abuse".....but then
I thought further. Why should a person who, for reasons of personal gain,
has violated some other persons basic rights, either by way of robbery,
fraud, violence, or whatever, expect to maintain his/her OWN rights
unaltered. I posset that, although under todays British Justice a "Fishing
Raid" would be illegal, surely it would be reasonable to expect in the
future that, say after a felon leaves prison, for a length of time
afterwards, he/she could expect sudden raids....because after all, if they
are really reformed they would have nothing to hide, and common sense would
tell them that they have to EARN the right to higher "Rights". Maybe, just
maybe, if a fellon knew that he WAS going to lose certain of his/her rights
after a prison sentence it may be a slight deterrant? I really don't know.
At the moment this seems fairly fair.....am I missing something? SHOULD
convicted fellons maintain rights they have denied others? Discuss!!
Gary
--
***********************************************************
The Official MichelEna Riosa Testosterone Brigade
Lance Corporal in charge of Darning Sox
Spam Trap...remove last letter of address when replying
Dick Eney
Gary Webber <Ga...@widow.ftech.co.uky> wrote:
>This is possibly
definitely
>not the right place to pose this question, but in my
>lurking and writing to this group I have come to respect my fellow "AFP"ers
>foresight and intelligence. SO, here goes.
>
>I was listening to todays "Any answers?" followup to radio 4's "Any
>Questions?" There was a question put, something along the lines of "Do
>police have the right to make 'fishing raids', or raids on fellons homes ,
>without warning, and without having ' Due Cause' " ?
>
>To start with I thought "NO...a veritable Human Rights Abuse".....but then
>I thought further. Why should a person who, for reasons of personal gain,
>has violated some other persons basic rights, either by way of robbery,
>fraud, violence, or whatever, expect to maintain his/her OWN rights
>are really reformed they would have nothing to hide, and common sense would
>tell them that they have to EARN the right to higher "Rights". Maybe, just
>maybe, if a fellon knew that he WAS going to lose certain of his/her rights
>after a prison sentence it may be a slight deterrant?
Knowing they would get the prison sentence itself didn't stop them, why
would assume anything else would?
Besides, it would be a Very bad precedent. Camel's nose, when they came
for the ___s, etc.
Speaking as one who sometimes reads the newspapers, there are cases (in
'merica) where sudden raids _with_ probable cause have gone awry, usually
because the raiders got the wrong address, and entirely innocent people
have been badly hurt and traumatized.
=Tamar (sharing account dick...@access.digex.net)
Paul S Winalski
Margaret Tarbet wrote:
>
> As the widow of the late Rev. Williams of Roxbury Massachusetts
> can testify. That inoffensive, 73 y.o. jamaican clergyman fell
> dead of a heart attack as the result of such a drug raid. Oh,
> completely wrong address? Vague tip from an unreliable source?
> Unsupervised cops? So sorry. (The civil service commission
> even overturned the *one-week* suspension given the lieutenant
> responsible for that lethal cock-up)
Or as Steve Jackson of Steve Jackson Games can testify.
He had his company raided and their computer system
confiscated because, entirely unbeknownst to him, a
hacker had placed some codes stolen from AT&T on a BBS
hosted on that machine. Jackson almost went broke because
the authorities refused to return the machine (even though
they never filed any charges in the case), or even to let
him copy off the machine the files he needed to run his
business. This one at least has a happy ending. Jackson
sued for illegal search and seizure and won. It came
out in court that the evidence by which a warrant was
obtained was so flimsy as to almost constitute fraud,
and the proper legal and procedural precautions for
searching a publishing house were not followed (big
first ammendment violation here, as well as the fourth
ammendment search-and-seizure violation). The agents
had in fact raided a publisher without cause and seized
his printing press. The judge was furious and
conducted a long dressing-down of the agent in charge
before his bench. When the agent started to say that
he didn't know a publisher was involved, the judge cut
him off and said, "Oh, you knew exactly what you were
doing. You just didn't think Mr. Jackson would hire
a lawyer and sue you over it."
--PSW
Margaret Tarbet
As the widow of the late Rev. Williams of Roxbury Massachusetts
can testify. That inoffensive, 73 y.o. jamaican clergyman fell
dead of a heart attack as the result of such a drug raid. Oh,
completely wrong address? Vague tip from an unreliable source?
Unsupervised cops? So sorry. (The civil service commission
even overturned the *one-week* suspension given the lieutenant
responsible for that lethal cock-up)
On 18 Jan 1997 15:58:55 -0500,
Mike Knell
In article <01bc0573$640728e0$520c...@widow.ftech.co.uk>,
Gary Webber <Ga...@widow.ftech.co.uky> wrote:
>This is possibly not the right place to pose this question, but in my
>lurking and writing to this group I have come to respect my fellow "AFP"ers
>foresight and intelligence. SO, here goes.
Err, I can see a huge flamewar about to brew here. Might this be best taken
to mail amongst interested parties?
Politics is, well, *not* a good subject for afp.
To quote Colm:
"Politics should be a private affair, like haemorrhoids or coprophilia."
But seriously folks, please *don't* start heavy political discussions. They
start out polite and then turn into "You st*p*d f*ck*ng b*st*ards.."
Mike, running away.
--
Mike Knell -- a Good, Safe Alternative to Wholesale Murder. ((c) jldomini)
Department of Computer Science, The University of Nottingham, UK
A huge green fierce snake bars the way! -=- http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~mpk/
Victoria Martin
On 18 Jan 1997, Dick Eney wrote:
> Gary Webber <Ga...@widow.ftech.co.uky> wrote:
> >tell them that they have to EARN the right to higher "Rights". Maybe, just
> >maybe, if a fellon knew that he WAS going to lose certain of his/her rights
> >after a prison sentence it may be a slight deterrant?
> <snip>
>
> Knowing they would get the prison sentence itself didn't stop them, why
> would assume anything else would?
>
> Besides, it would be a Very bad precedent. Camel's nose, when they came
> for the ___s, etc.
>
I have to agree. Once you start excluding sections of the population from
enjoying certain rights, you leave an opportunity for those in power to
re-define certain other sections as falling into this category. In
Austria (and you'd think they would have learned a lesson from the Hitler
years) the police are allowed to search without a warrant any property
occupied by more than five non-citizens. Just because they're foreign.
This was pushed through as a sop to the extremely vocal radical right,
and I leave it up to you to draw your own conclusions about why it is a
Bad Thing.
Victoria
Terry Pratchett
>This is possibly not the right place to pose this question, but in my
>lurking and writing to this group I have come to respect my fellow "AFP"ers
>foresight and intelligence. SO, here goes.
>
>Questions?" There was a question put, something along the lines of "Do
>police have the right to make 'fishing raids', or raids on fellons homes ,
>without warning, and without having ' Due Cause' " ?
>
>To start with I thought "NO...a veritable Human Rights Abuse".....but then
>I thought further. Why should a person who, for reasons of personal gain,
>has violated some other persons basic rights, either by way of robbery,
>fraud, violence, or whatever, expect to maintain his/her OWN rights
>Raid" would be illegal, surely it would be reasonable to expect in the
>future that, say after a felon leaves prison, for a length of time
>are really reformed they would have nothing to hide, and common sense would
>maybe, if a fellon knew that he WAS going to lose certain of his/her rights
>At the moment this seems fairly fair.....am I missing something? SHOULD
>convicted fellons maintain rights they have denied others? Discuss!!
>Gary
>
paranoid, but it does sometimes seem that there's an agenda somewhere
out there with the purpose of making us so scared of one another that
we'll all vote to be handcuffed (in the latest Maplin magazine you can
now buy three types of disguised pinhole CCTV cameras -- think of the
fun you can have in your own home...)
What do you mean by 'raid'? At four am? With crowbars? How often? To
find what, exactly? Will they put everything back neatly afterwards?
Even if it could possibly be justified by desperate expediency, it would
quickly be 'adjusted' -- you aren't a known criminal, sir? But you
might be, sir. And your neighbour says you keep late hours, sir. So
we're just going to turn over your house, sir, okay? Have you got a
receipt for that TV/VCR/computer, sir? If you're innocent, you've got
nothing to fear...
The trouble is that being civilised means accepting that criminals who
have done their time are once again honest men. Many are. You have to
care about their rights, because they're the same rights as yours.
If you have trouble with this, serious annoy a copper who has had a long
day. You'll find that he has an awful lot of power over you, and that
if you put a foot wrong you're in a kind of spreading puddle of trouble.
Because he's human, just like you, and gets pissed off, just like you.
Pretty soon he's going to be armed, even though, just like you, he is a
civilian. So I want him to be answerable for what he does, not to other
coppers, but to dull magistrates and judges and even politicians. If we
think that the way to stop crime is to turn the police into criminals,
we're reading the wrong manual.
--
Terry Pratchett
A Charlie
In article <199701211...@zetnet.co.uk>,
Derek Lavin <sl...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>- No! Come back! We want to eat you!
>
At least, not without mustard.
Charle...@stud.umist.ac.uk
cco...@ps.cus.umist.ac.uk
Say it with flowers - send a triffid
Margaret Tarbet
um, decisions like _which_, Derek?? I can't
recall what Paul wrote, except that i think he was
following my post about the virtual murder of Rev.
Williams.
I hope i'm misunderstanding you (oy do i hope!)
because there _is_ no "good of the many" apart
from that which is assembled, piece by piece,
from the good for each individual. As soon as
we start thinking that somehow there's an atomic
good-of-the-many, existing apart and sui generis,
the next sound we hear is Kristallnacht.
Bugger that for a game of soldiers.
=margaret
On Tue, 21 Jan 1997 16:20:08 GMT,
Derek Lavin <sl...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>I think, though, when making decisions like these, we have to
>ignore individual cases and take a Vulcan "good of the many..."
>stance on the matter.
Derek Lavin
In message <ncbWHLAM...@unseen.demon.co.uk>
Terry Pratchett <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> writes:
> I think we have to be very careful. I never thought I could be this
> paranoid, but it does sometimes seem that there's an agenda somewhere
> out there with the purpose of making us so scared of one another that
> we'll all vote to be handcuffed (in the latest Maplin magazine you can
> now buy three types of disguised pinhole CCTV cameras -- think of the
> fun you can have in your own home...)
There seems to be a bit of a trend in spy toys... For instance, I
have been introduced to several devices which conceal cameras, the
most useful of which was a square clock. This had four black spots,
one in each corner. One of these, apparently, contained a camera lens.
> The trouble is that being civilised means accepting that criminals who
> have done their time are once again honest men. Many are. You have to
> care about their rights, because they're the same rights as yours.
Precisely. The strange thing is, imagine someone is given one of
those poxy life sentences which don't last for lie - perhaps for
murder. When they come of jail, theoretically, they are just as good
people as you are I.
--
My other .sig is amusing.
Derek Lavin
In message <E48Ht...@cs.nott.ac.uk>
m...@cs.nott.ac.uk (Mike Knell) writes:
> Err, I can see a huge flamewar about to brew here. Might this be best taken
> to mail amongst interested parties?
...Possibly...
> Politics is, well, *not* a good subject for afp.
No?
> To quote Colm:
> "Politics should be a private affair, like haemorrhoids or coprophilia."
> But seriously folks, please *don't* start heavy political discussions. They
> start out polite and then turn into "You st*p*d f*ck*ng b*st*ards.."
- Bastaards?
I, personally, wouldn't worry. It isn't a highly sensitive issue
that's going to offend anyone - like the infamous handgun debate
which seemed to swerve past AFP. I'm sure we're all mature enough to
keep it polite...
> Mike, running away.
Derek Lavin
In message <Pine.OSF.3.91.97012...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>
Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> writes:
> I have to agree. Once you start excluding sections of the population from
> enjoying certain rights, you leave an opportunity for those in power to
> re-define certain other sections as falling into this category. In
> Austria (and you'd think they would have learned a lesson from the Hitler
> years) the police are allowed to search without a warrant any property
> occupied by more than five non-citizens. Just because they're foreign.
Racial discrimination is a pretty bad thing. Another bad thing is the
ability of police to raid a property without a warrant. Police aren't
infallible, and really, the removal of the warrant system makes
cock-ups inevitable.
Derek Lavin
Derek Lavin
In message <32e536df...@news.tiac.net>
tar...@swaa.com (Margaret Tarbet) writes:
> I hope i'm misunderstanding you (oy do i hope!)
> because there _is_ no "good of the many" apart
> from that which is assembled, piece by piece,
> from the good for each individual. As soon as
> we start thinking that somehow there's an atomic
> good-of-the-many, existing apart and sui generis,
> the next sound we hear is Kristallnacht.
If we do introduce this bugging (or should that be buggering?) law,
it is pretty certain that there are going to be some mistakes, and
innocent people may even die from it. However, if, in the long run,
the benifits of this outweigh disadvantages - if it saves more lives
than it kills, due to the more effective irradication of organised
crime - we have to take that route.
For instance, let's say we have a community of 1000 people (figures
out of the air around me; these are not at all intended to be
realistic) and every year, three of those die due to the effects of
organised crime - say, drugs. Now, say we introduce this bugging
system, and, every year, 1 person dies because of cock-ups - *BUT*!
they manage to reduce the annual death due to organised crime to just
one person. A lot of people would complain about the one that dies
due to the cock-ups - but, surely, less people die this way... So
which would you go for?
Dick Eney
In article <199701221...@zetnet.co.uk>,
Derek Lavin <sl...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>....irradication of organised crime...
eradication
=Tamar ("I'm doing it again")
MJ DIMMICK
Murky B (mu...@lspace.org) wrote:
: As Terry Pratchett was talking in alt.fan.pratchett, a cockroach
: crawled across the screen...
:
: >I think we have to be very careful. I never thought I could be this
: >paranoid, but it does sometimes seem that there's an agenda somewhere
: >out there with the purpose of making us so scared of one another that
: >we'll all vote to be handcuffed (in the latest Maplin magazine you can
: >now buy three types of disguised pinhole CCTV cameras -- think of the
: >fun you can have in your own home...)
: This is one that should be squeezed into the apf I feel.....
: wholeheartedly agree...
:
Umm, being someone who worked for Maplin over the summer and on
Saturdays for about two years before that (just a job,
OK!) I'll have to say that we found them very useful when stock was
mysteriously disappearing from locked locations. It's amazing how
much discount you can get if you're using them instore...
--
Michael Dimmick | dimm...@aston.ac.uk | http://www.aston.ac.uk/~dimmicmj
"Madam, your fur stole is eating my chocolates!"
"Just show him the map in the lid, he's only after the truffles."
I really must get out more...
Derek Lavin
In message <5c53vm$a...@access1.digex.net>
dick...@access1.digex.net (Dick Eney) writes:
> In article <199701221...@zetnet.co.uk>,
> Derek Lavin <sl...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >....irradication of organised crime...
> eradication
- Granted. A sort of sub-conscious joining of the words "eradicate"
and "irradiate".
What is this, anyway? Trying to score cheap points in the
English-Vs-American-Lingual-Ability debate? I'm afraid, with me,
you're flogging a dead horse. Being but a child, I can't be expected
to maintain correct English *ALL* the time... Can I? :)
Dave Stone
Derek Lavin <sl...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> ... it does sometimes seem that there's an agenda somewhere
> > out there with the purpose of making us so scared of one another that
> > we'll all vote to be handcuffed (in the latest Maplin magazine you can
> > now buy three types of disguised pinhole CCTV cameras -- think of the
> > fun you can have in your own home...)
When I skimmed this I just saw 'handcuffs' and 'fun you could have in
your own home.' Ah well, while I'm here I might as well respond to:
> The strange thing is, imagine someone is given one of
> those poxy life sentences which don't last for lie - perhaps for
> murder. When they come of jail, theoretically, they are just as good
> people as you are I.
Assuming that these life sentences were supposed to last for life
instead of lie, I have the partially formed notion that the fact that
they *don't* is precisely what puts us above stoning people for
adultery, sawing off their hands for stealing bread and summarily
topping them for shouting 'let him have it' while there are jittery
police marksmen about.
It allows for extenuating circumstances, the correction of mistakes and
even compassion - qualities that might not be necessary in an Ideal
world, where The Innocent Have Nothing to Fear [TM], but are vital in
this one.
The prison system, incidentally, simply does not work. The only way it
possibly could, in terms of its stated objectives, is to put absolutely
everybody in it and never let 'em out.
--
Take care. Have Fun. Bring your own banjo.
Dick Eney
>> Derek Lavin <sl...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> >....irradication of organised crime...
>
>> eradication
>
>- Granted. A sort of sub-conscious joining of the words "eradicate"
>and "irradiate".
>
>What is this, anyway? Trying to score cheap points in the
>English-Vs-American-Lingual-Ability debate? I'm afraid, with me,
>you're flogging a dead horse. Being but a child, I can't be expected
>to maintain correct English *ALL* the time... Can I? :)
No, dear, (of course I am ;)) but it makes a difference in how you are
perceived by others, and that makes a difference in how your arguments are
perceived - as the ill-considered ramblings of a child who has only
overheard some adult comments and Can't Even Spell The Words Right, or as
the carefully-thought-out judgements of an adult who has carefully studied
the subject.
(Did I misspell anything? <worry> I can't even explain that I'm dyslexic
because I'm not.)
:)
=Tamar (sharing account dick...@access.digex.net)
Sheesh, this being perfect thing is hard to keep up
Derek Lavin
In message <5c5ld4$5...@access4.digex.net>
dick...@access4.digex.net (Dick Eney) writes:
> No, dear, (of course I am ;)) but it makes a difference in how you are
> perceived by others, and that makes a difference in how your arguments are
> perceived - as the ill-considered ramblings of a child who has only
> overheard some adult comments and Can't Even Spell The Words Right, or as
> the carefully-thought-out judgements of an adult who has carefully studied
> the subject.
Hmm, all spelt correctly, and grammatically sound - but it doesn't
really flow. The sentence structure is all rather clumsy...
> Sheesh, this being perfect thing is hard to keep up
:)
I don't need to bother. If I slip up and someone has a go at me, I
just produce a couple of my published works and stick my tongue out -
like so :-P
Paul S Winalski
Pete Darby wrote:
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're talking about SUSPECTED felons here,
> right?
No. This thread was discussing CONVICTED felons who have served
their sentence and are no longer incarcerated. The idea being
proposed was that convicted felons should not regain the right
of immunity to unreasonable searches and seizures when their
other civil rights are restored. The rationale is apparently
that convicts who are released after serving their time will
continue to commit crimes and therefore the police need the
right to search them at whim.
--PSW
Carl Zetie
I'm going to mess up the exact wording but...
"Those who would give up an essential liberty
for the sake of a temporary security deserve
to lose both".
or something like that. Points for name, place
& date. (And it wasn't Vimes)
Pete Darby
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're talking about SUSPECTED felons here,
right?
Is my memory getting bad, or didn't we used to have this thing about having
to presuming innocence until proof of guilt was uncovered?
How, then, do you propose to decide wether someone has abrogated their rights
or not, when you are about to infringe their rights in the hope of proving
their guilt?
This whole section of the criminal justice bill was a clear denial of the
principal of innocence until proof of guilt, and cut at the basis of a fair
legal system.
Yes, I agree that by perpetrating criminal acts, one abrogates certain
rights. But the police would have been empowered to infring the rights of
people as a pre-cursor to trial, or even charges!
--
*********************************************************
Pete Darby |Saying, I would know.
|Do not know so cannot say
p.j....@cant.ac.uk|http://www.geocities.com/Area51/7587
Paul S Winalski
Derek Lavin wrote:
>
> I think, though, when making decisions like these, we have to ignore
> individual cases and take a Vulcan "good of the many..." stance on the matter.
That depends on whether you think society exists to
protect the rights of individuals, or that individuals
exist to serve society. The traditional view of English
common law and legal systems derived from it is the former.
The potential for the state to abuse its privileges of
search and seizure is considered high enough, and
individual privacy important enough, that
constraints are put on search and seizure by the
law enforcement authorities, even if that means that
sometimes crimes go unsolved and criminals unpunished.
The name for a "good of the many..." social system is
totalitarianism.
--PSW
Richard Kettlewell
Derek Lavin <sl...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>I think, though, when making decisions like these, we have to ignore
>individual cases and take a Vulcan "good of the many..." stance on
>the matter.
...a common excuse used by those more concerned with the ill-being of
the few.
--
Richard Kettlewell http://www.elmail.co.uk/staff/richard/
Peter Bleackley
In the nick, Derek Lavin writes:
|> For instance, let's say we have a community of 1000 people (figures
|> out of the air around me; these are not at all intended to be
|> realistic) and every year, three of those die due to the effects of
|> organised crime - say, drugs. Now, say we introduce this bugging
|> system, and, every year, 1 person dies because of cock-ups - *BUT*!
|> they manage to reduce the annual death due to organised crime to just
|> one person. A lot of people would complain about the one that dies
|> due to the cock-ups - but, surely, less people die this way... So
|> which would you go for?
|>
Pulling made up figures out of the air like that is a most specious
argument, or, to put it bluntly, you're talking utter rubbish. You
have no way of knowing how many innocent people would die as a result
of such a law, and so you can't ignore the possibility that it would
be more than the lives saved. On top of which, "It is better that ten
guilty men go free than that one innocent man suffers." (Attribuiton?)
To punish an innocent man mocks justice- for an innocent man to die in
the name of the law murders justice.
And anyway, professional criminals will work out one way or another of
evading the searches.
--
~PETE "QUANTUM" BLEACKLEY~
Daleks! Repent of your evil ways, and live in peace as plumbers!
X-Ray Astronomy Group University of Leicester
p...@star.le.ac.uk ~ Website coming soon
Sanford E. Walke IV
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Place? I dunno.
--
Sandy se...@izzy.net
Honesty is paramount to me. Lying to me to avoid hurting me never works.
Being lied to always causes me more pain than the truth ever could.
I don't speak for anyone but myself, and sometimes not even that.
Derek Lavin
In message <32e77b19...@news.tiac.net>
tar...@swaa.com (Margaret Tarbet) writes:
> I disagree completely, utterly. There's a characteristic called
> "quality of life" that comes into it, and not in any simple way.
Would you liked to me to re-word that? "If it makes more people happy".
Obviously it's not just about life and death. But the basic principal
is the same - the good of the many is always better than the good of
the few. It is always ideal to have the most people possible... *happy*.
Derek Lavin
In message <5c5qpf$272$5...@sfere.greenend.org.uk>
Richard Kettlewell <ric...@greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Derek Lavin <sl...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >I think, though, when making decisions like these, we have to ignore
> >individual cases and take a Vulcan "good of the many..." stance on
> >the matter.
> ...a common excuse used by those more concerned with the ill-being of
> the few.
Accept that I mean what I say and deal with that, rather than what
you think I mean.
Do you really think that the good of the many does not apply? Is it
not pure common sense that suggests that it is always preferable to
have as many people happy at once? Or do you disagree? Do you believe
that there is an elite clique of people somewhere who are more
important than everyone else, and whose happiness is more important
than the happiness other peoples'?
Michelena Riosa
On 23 Jan 1997 11:00:44 GMT, p...@ltsun6.star.le.ac.uk (Peter
Bleackley) wrote:
>Good morning campers! Hi-de-hi!
>Ho-de-ho!
>Oh, come on now, you can do better than that. HI-DE-HI!
>HO-DE-HO!
Errr, do I get a ppint if I mention the nbame "Cab Calloway" here????
Michelena
mri...@visgen.com
"Give me library or give me death!"
Dick Eney
In article <199701222...@zetnet.co.uk>,
Derek Lavin <sl...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Tamar <dick...@access4.digex.net> writes:
>
>> Sheesh, this being perfect thing is hard to keep up
>
>:)
>
>I don't need to bother. If I slip up and someone has a go at me, I
>just produce a couple of my published works and stick my tongue out -
>like so :-P
Gosh. I'll have to save your post - it's a gen-yoo-ine ASCII autograph.
=Tamar (sharing account dick...@access.digex.net)
Accept no substitutes
Victoria Martin
On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Derek Lavin wrote:
>
> For instance, let's say we have a community of 1000 people (figures
> out of the air around me; these are not at all intended to be
> realistic) and every year, three of those die due to the effects of
> organised crime - say, drugs. Now, say we introduce this bugging
> system, and, every year, 1 person dies because of cock-ups - *BUT*!
> they manage to reduce the annual death due to organised crime to just
> one person. A lot of people would complain about the one that dies
> due to the cock-ups - but, surely, less people die this way... So
> which would you go for?
>
Can you guarantee that the bugging law is going to reduce the number of
deaths-by-drugs sufficiently to render the number of deaths-by-state-error
acceptable? The police could start shooting drunk drivers as well, and
they'd probably save a hell of a lot more lives than they took, but
surely an act of murder performed by the state is more worrying than
deaths caused by lawless elements? I honestly don't think numbers
are the issue here.
Victoria
Victoria Martin
On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Carl Zetie wrote:
>
> "Those who would give up an essential liberty
> for the sake of a temporary security deserve
> to lose both".
>
> or something like that. Points for name, place
> & date. (And it wasn't Vimes)
Well it wouldn't be, would it? Given that he supports the Patrician...
Victoria
Derek Lavin
In message <Pine.OSF.3.91.970123...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>
Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> writes:
> Can you guarantee that the bugging law is going to reduce the number of
> deaths-by-drugs sufficiently to render the number of deaths-by-state-error
- No. That's the problem. We have to consider all the alternatives,
and, if we can't prove that it would be better, we would have to
leave things the way they were - given that, at least, the current
system seems to work.
> acceptable? The police could start shooting drunk drivers as well, and
> they'd probably save a hell of a lot more lives than they took, but
This would be a crime because there is no need to shoot the drunk
driver. It would be easier to prevent him driving by putting him in a
prison cell.
Peter Bleackley
In a chalet, (MJ DIMMICK) writes:
|>
|> Umm, being someone who worked for Maplin over the summer and on
|> Saturdays for about two years before that (just a job,
|> OK!) I'll have to say that we found them very useful when stock was
|> mysteriously disappearing from locked locations. It's amazing how
|> much discount you can get if you're using them instore...
|>
Ho-de-ho!
Oh, come on now, you can do better than that. HI-DE-HI!
HO-DE-HO!
--
Rocky Frisco
Derek Lavin wrote:
>
> In message <32e536df...@news.tiac.net>
> tar...@swaa.com (Margaret Tarbet) writes:
>
> > I hope i'm misunderstanding you (oy do i hope!)
> > because there _is_ no "good of the many" apart
> > from that which is assembled, piece by piece,
> > from the good for each individual. As soon as
> > we start thinking that somehow there's an atomic
> > good-of-the-many, existing apart and sui generis,
> > the next sound we hear is Kristallnacht.
>
> If we do introduce this bugging (or should that be buggering?) law,
> it is pretty certain that there are going to be some mistakes, and
> innocent people may even die from it. However, if, in the long run,
> the benifits of this outweigh disadvantages - if it saves more lives
> than it kills, due to the more effective irradication of organised
> crime - we have to take that route.
>
> out of the air around me; these are not at all intended to be
> realistic) and every year, three of those die due to the effects of
> organised crime - say, drugs. Now, say we introduce this bugging
> system, and, every year, 1 person dies because of cock-ups - *BUT*!
> they manage to reduce the annual death due to organised crime to just
> one person. A lot of people would complain about the one that dies
> due to the cock-ups - but, surely, less people die this way... So
> which would you go for?
This sounds like the old "If it saves one life, enslaving you is worth
it."
In the long run, a police state is much more dangerous than crime.
For instance, many times more people are killed every year by the "War
On Drugs" than ever died from drug use, and many of those who die now
are children and other innocent people who were never involved in the
trade or use, but are caught in the turf wars and gang-related activity
always created by prohibition and the resultant black-markets, as well
as the addicts that die from impure or inconsistant drugs. These deaths
were caused by drug laws rather than drugs.
It is estimated that something like 150 million people have been killed
in the last century by governments. Is this who you'd like to further
empower at the expense of the individual?
Just enforcing slightly more stringent driving standards would save more
lives per year than are lost in crimes of all kinds; if you want to save
lives, why not concentrate on that instead of denying basic rights and
individual liberty?
"For the common good" is a bogus slogan when it justifies injustice to
the individual; that which frees and empowers the individual is the real
"common good."
-Rock
--
<rocky...@earthlink.net> http://home.earthlink.net/~rockyfrisco/
Visit my Mini-Cooper page at http://www.geocities.com/~rockyfrisco
Paul S Winalski
Derek Lavin wrote:
>
> I simply mean we must aim to make the most people happy.
The question is where one draws the line between the common weal
and the rights of individuals. For example, if the state were
to confiscate all of Bill Gates's wealth and redistribute equal
shares of it to all citizens of the USA, that would undoubtedly
result in far more happier people than sadder people. But
our society grants individuals the right to hold property
and to accumulate wealth.
To take a very extreme case, most people in Germany in the
30s and early 40s had been persuaded by their government
that they would be happier if their Jewish, Slav, and
Romani neighbors quietly disappeared.
--PSW
Derek Lavin
In message <5c7j7e$r...@falcon.le.ac.uk>
p...@ltsun6.star.le.ac.uk (Peter Bleackley) writes:
> Pulling made up figures out of the air like that is a most specious
> argument, or, to put it bluntly, you're talking utter rubbish. You
> have no way of knowing how many innocent people would die as a result
> of such a law, and so you can't ignore the possibility that it would
<snip>
- Pete, this was not meant to be an augument for the new proposed
laws. I was simply saying that, if this *WAS* the case, we'd have to
adopt the new rules. As it happens, I am *AGAINST* the laws.
I was simply saying that, in a scenario like this, there *WOULD* be a
need for the rules. I was illustrating the fact that there is an
enviseageable situation in which such rules would be useful, and
therefore that we can't dismiss the idea out-of-hand because we think
it's "WRONG".
Perhaps you should look out for key woulds such as *IF*.
'73 Chevy Pick-up
In article 199701232...@zetnet.co.uk, Derek Lavin <sl...@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
[..]
>Do you really think that the good of the many does not apply? Is it
>not pure common sense that suggests that it is always preferable to
>have as many people happy at once? Or do you disagree? Do you believe
>that there is an elite clique of people somewhere who are more
>important than everyone else, and whose happiness is more important
>than the happiness other peoples'?
Just before Christmas, as the result of a ludicrous combination of
mistaken identity and general incompetance by the authorities (the details
of which I won't bore you with as I intend to dine out on this
story for a good while yet), I had my drum spun by the busys
*ahem* that is, my house was searched from top to bottom by 5 members
of the Brighton Drug Squad (well, Hove actually:)) over the space of 3 hours,
in search of a large stash of cannabis, apparently. They finally buggered
off with a mumbled 'er.. sorry for the inconvenience' just after lunch.
The annoying thing about this was explaining why I missed a half day
at work. When I told people (who know me) what had happened, the resonse
fell into two distinct categories:
1) Laughter.
2) Outrage.
Oddly enough, those in set 2) are the same people who support more powers
for the police in rounding up criminals, at least by inference (since I
pretty well know which way they vote).
Me? Since I knew it was a ghastly mistake, it would all sort itsself
out.
Wouldn't it?
'73
Jos 'Merlin' Dingjan
Peter Bleackley wrote:
>
<snip>
> be more than the lives saved. On top of which, "It is better that ten
> guilty men go free than that one innocent man suffers." (Attribuiton?)
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent
suffer." - William Blackstone
(Sorry, just stumbled over this in Webster's)
TTFN, Jos
--
<- I deny all rumours about Latvia and me, I never met her! ->
<- Help stop the Wandering Footnotes, mention HEDGEHOGS and ->
<- CUSTARD somewhere in your post, and maybe it'll stop 'em ->
Derek Lavin
In message <32e7d888...@news.tiac.net>
tar...@swaa.com (Margaret Tarbet) writes:
> No, Derek, that's not true except in the most simplistic way.
> Rocky's response is very much to the point. If our goal is to
> actually make the largest number of people happy, then the
> first thing to do is change the laws allowing massive
> inequalities of wealth to develop and persist forever.
Granted, I think we should. I am, by my beliefs, a communist.
Preaching to the converted.
> _That_
> would be a _helluva_ lot more to the point than adding bugging
> laws which --i hardly need point out-- would almost never be used
> against the rich and powerful few.
No, I *DON'T WANT THE BUGGING LAWS*. I was just illustrating that,
when we are deciding whether or not we want a rule like this, that is
the way to decide; TGOTMIAGTTGOTF <gasp>.
Derek Lavin
In message <32E7BE...@earthlink.net>
Rocky Frisco <rocky...@earthlink.net> writes:
> This sounds like the old "If it saves one life, enslaving you is worth
> it."
No, I don't think in those terms. All I'm saying is this: if I have
to coment on the introduction of a law, I look at whether it makes
more or less people happy. I think in important matters such as life
or death, The Good Of The Many isn't really a good yardstick to measure by.
> In the long run, a police state is much more dangerous than crime.
I am not suggesting a police state. I'm not saying that, if The Many
wanted to kill people, we should let them. I am not proposing a
totalitarianist state, or anything like that. I am talking about
police laws which will, in reality, have very little effect on the public.
> For instance, many times more people are killed every year by the "War
> On Drugs" than ever died from drug use, and many of those who die now
> are children and other innocent people who were never involved in the
> trade or use, but are caught in the turf wars and gang-related activity
> always created by prohibition and the resultant black-markets, as well
> as the addicts that die from impure or inconsistant drugs. These deaths
> were caused by drug laws rather than drugs.
Then the drug laws are wrong and should be removed.
All I am suggesting is that we should look at the laws in depth and
see if they would, indeed, do good before making a decision.
I am not proposing a sinister Greater Genetic Glory state, like the
Nazis had. I do not mean we can kill people for a greater glory which
no-one understands. I am simply saying that, if people will get hurt
which ever way we legislate, it is ideal to choose the scenario in
which as few people as possible are hurt. Or do you disagree?
Michael The Roach Janszen
On Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:56:59 GMT, Derek Lavin <sl...@zetnet.co.uk>
shook the Earth by stating:
Put him in a cell - for what? Drunken driving? Do you want to pay the
money that would be necessary to pay all those prisons and the care
and feeding of the inmates? :-) From your 'easier' viewpoint, it might
even turn out to be easier to just put them out of their misery.
Besides, if they are released, you'd have to constantly keep them
under surveillance to ensure they don't do it again...
Crime prevention can only go so far before it becomes a crime against
humanity in itself. Lower the number of crimes?
There are many people who visit websites catering to the sick minds
and viewing some of them is a crime in some states and countries. Some
of these crimes could be prevented easily - ba banning the internet
completely. There would be those that get their thrills elsewhere, but
there are also those that only engage in these activities due to the
anonymity of the net. The latter one's crimes would be prevented.
Honestly, I don't think anyone on afp would advocate a 'ban the net'
law. ;-)
Live long and prosper
Michael "The Roach" Janszen
The Official Michelena Riosa Testosterone Brigade
Producer of the Only Michelena Riosa Table Water
Spammer trap - when replying by e-mail, drop the last letter
of the address...
Shooty
Margaret Tarbet wrote:
>
> um, decisions like _which_, Derek?? I can't
> recall what Paul wrote, except that i think he was
> following my post about the virtual murder of Rev.
> Williams.
>
> I hope i'm misunderstanding you (oy do i hope!)
> because there _is_ no "good of the many" apart
> from that which is assembled, piece by piece,
> from the good for each individual. As soon as
> we start thinking that somehow there's an atomic
> good-of-the-many, existing apart and sui generis,
> the next sound we hear is Kristallnacht.
>
>
The best examples of the 'Good of the Many' are such places as
China, North Korea, Russia under Stalin etc.
Paul S Winalski
Derek Lavin wrote:
!> I am not proposing a sinister Greater Genetic Glory state, like the
!> Nazis had. I do not mean we can kill people for a greater glory which
!> no-one understands. I am simply saying that, if people will get hurt
!> which ever way we legislate, it is ideal to choose the scenario in
!> which as few people as possible are hurt. Or do you disagree?
It all depends on the degree to which those few are hurt.
British society and those derived from it have always held that there
are certain rights and privileges that citizens enjoy and that are
considered such basic human freedoms that they are exempt from the
"for the greater good" rule. For example, the presumption that one
is innocent of a crime until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
In some societies (e.g., France), it's the other way around--once
accused, the burden of proof is on the defendant to demonstrate his
innocence. People get hurt either way--in one case, crimes go
unpunished and criminals remain free; in the other case, innocent
citizens are punished for crimes they didn't commit. I think there's
also no question that the guilty-until-proven-innocent method
results in fewer people being hurt. But our society values
individual freedom enough that it is willing to let crimes go
unpunished rather than risk punishing an innocent citizen.
The protection against unreasonable searches and seizures of
property is another of these fundamental human rights. As is
also the concept that one can pay one's debt to society and
become a full citizen again, with full rights, after serving
one's sentence for a felony crime.
--PSW
Jan H. Haul
There was quite a public debate recently in Germany as well if bugging
of private homes (*with* a warrant) should be allowed, as the German
constitution explicitly states "The residence may not be intruded. The
details are regulated by federal law".
In a society where there is no area of privacy guaranteed by the law,
the trust in the system by its subjects is to be expected rather on
the low end, as society obviously does not trust its citizens.
So, the climate of low-key fear created would not exactly benefit the
basically law abiding citizen, but rather encourage all kinds of covert
activity, thereby helping organised crime rather than suppressing it.
The only way to beat organised crime requires people that are not afraid,
and an overly oppressive state does not exactly breed civil courage.
When I lived in the UK for some time in '94, I was astonished how the
people - according to the telly - accepted cameras in shopping area
streets, and welcomed them for sake of security. Somehow, the (perceived)
outpost of personal freedom in Europe had changed.
Jan
Richard Kettlewell
Derek Lavin <sl...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Do you really think that the good of the many does not apply? Is it
>not pure common sense that suggests that it is always preferable to
>have as many people happy at once? Or do you disagree?
Of course I do. If making people happy involves pogroms against the
least favourite minority of the day - which, historically, it often
has - then it is not preferable to have as many people happy at once.
I think there's more to `right' than maximizing gratification.
>Do you believe that there is an elite clique of people somewhere who
>are more important than everyone else, and whose happiness is more
>important than the happiness other peoples'?
No.
--
Richard Kettlewell http://www.elmail.co.uk/staff/richard/
May the Carrier be with you.
Robin Adams
Paul S Winalski (wina...@zko.dec.com) wrote:
: For example, the presumption that one
: is innocent of a crime until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
: In some societies (e.g., France), it's the other way around--once
: accused, the burden of proof is on the defendant to demonstrate his
: innocence. People get hurt either way--in one case, crimes go
: unpunished and criminals remain free; in the other case, innocent
: citizens are punished for crimes they didn't commit.
In the second case, both tragedies occur. When a wrongful conviction is
made, not only does an innocent person get punished, but also the case
becomes closed, and so the guilty one goes free.
Ralf
bobbi
Jan H. Haul <pi...@dip232-3.hamburg.netsurf.de> wrote in article
>
> When I lived in the UK for some time in '94, I was astonished how the
> people - according to the telly - accepted cameras in shopping area
> streets, and welcomed them for sake of security. Somehow, the (perceived)
> outpost of personal freedom in Europe had changed.
>
> Jan
>
>
The cameras you mention are accepted because of the amount of crime on the
streets of Britain, they are a deterrant and a witness. IF YOU HAVE NOTHING
TO HIDE, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR !!
As for personal freedom, we have the freedom to do what we like. We can
walk the streets when we like. We can murder whoever we like. The police
can arrest us whenever they like. We can hang ourselves from prison bars
using our trousers whenever we like. See, absolute freedom to do what we
like when we like.
Derek Lavin
In message <5cbur0$spb$1...@sfere.greenend.org.uk>
Richard Kettlewell <ric...@greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Of course I do. If making people happy involves pogroms against the
> least favourite minority of the day - which, historically, it often
> has - then it is not preferable to have as many people happy at once.
> I think there's more to `right' than maximizing gratification.
I've been through this in another posting. The Good Of The Many does
not allow anyone to act criminally.
Victoria Martin
On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Shooty wrote:
> >
> The best examples of the 'Good of the Many' are such places as
> China, North Korea, Russia under Stalin etc.
I would question how far those regimes did actually have the Good of the
Many in mind.
Victoria
Terry Pratchett
In article <32E68C...@zko.dec.com>, Paul S Winalski
<wina...@zko.dec.com> writes
>Derek Lavin wrote:
>>
>> I think, though, when making decisions like these, we have to ignore
>> individual cases and take a Vulcan "good of the many..." stance on the matter.
>
>protect the rights of individuals, or that individuals
>exist to serve society. The traditional view of English
>common law and legal systems derived from it is the former.
>The potential for the state to abuse its privileges of
>search and seizure is considered high enough, and
>individual privacy important enough, that
>constraints are put on search and seizure by the
>law enforcement authorities, even if that means that
>sometimes crimes go unsolved and criminals unpunished.
>
>The name for a "good of the many..." social system is
>totalitarianism.
True. Unfortunately we are now being educated that democracy means
majority rule (even if that majority may technically be a minority whose
wishes are manipulated and interpreted by a few). But it must mean the
protection under law of all minorities.
--
Terry Pratchett
Victoria Martin
On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Derek Lavin wrote:
> In message <32e77b19...@news.tiac.net>
> tar...@swaa.com (Margaret Tarbet) writes:
>
> > I disagree completely, utterly. There's a characteristic called
> > "quality of life" that comes into it, and not in any simple way.
>
> Would you liked to me to re-word that? "If it makes more people happy".
>
> Obviously it's not just about life and death. But the basic principal
> is the same - the good of the many is always better than the good of
> the few. It is always ideal to have the most people possible... *happy*.
>
Oho, do we have an admirer of the Lily Weatherwax school of government here?
Victoria
Warren Jones
Gary Webber (Ga...@widow.ftech.co.uky) wrote:
>I posset that, although under todays British Justice a "Fishing
>Raid" would be illegal, surely it would be reasonable to expect in the
>future that, say after a felon leaves prison, for a length of time
>afterwards, he/she could expect sudden raids....because after all, if
>they are really reformed they would have nothing to hide, and common
>sense would tell them that they have to EARN the right to higher
>"Rights". Maybe, just maybe, if a fellon knew that he WAS going to lose
>certain of his/her rights after a prison sentence it may be a slight
>deterrant? I really don't know.
>At the moment this seems fairly fair.....am I missing something? SHOULD
>convicted fellons maintain rights they have denied others? Discuss!!
I think that the first thing the British justice system should get
around to is actually /convicting/ the criminals arrested. For example,
my house was burgled a couple of years ago. My next door neighbour
identified the guy in an id parade of the criminal's choosing, the
police found items which had been stolen buried in his garden, and the
number plates and model of his car were the same as the car he drove
away from the burglary. And then he was released due to lack of
evidence. Crazy.
--
Warren Jones - war...@theshades.demon.co.uk
http://www.theshades.demon.co.uk | Member of LuHu
The Official Michelena Riosa Testosterone Brigade
High Priest of Zen, God of Atheists
A little violence never hurt anyone.
Richard Kettlewell
You still get wrongful convictions even with `guilty until proven
innocent', remember... I wouldn't pretend to have any idea whether
you get significantly fewer, though.
Rocky Frisco
Derek Lavin wrote:
> I am not proposing a sinister Greater Genetic Glory state, like the
> Nazis had. I do not mean we can kill people for a greater glory which
> no-one understands. I am simply saying that, if people will get hurt
> which ever way we legislate, it is ideal to choose the scenario in
> which as few people as possible are hurt. Or do you disagree?
Derek, there *is no* many. "Many" is a concept. There are only
individuals.
Individuals experience; individuals live and die and desire and strive.
"The good of the many" is an idea, created by a pretense that by using a
verbal convention to group people in a category, some sort of consensus
or rounding-off can be accomplished, by which wrongs can be made to
appear right since they have theoretically been committed by everybody.
You say you are a Communist; this idea of the "good of the many" is
typical of Communism and has been used to attempt to rationalize all
manner of terrible atrocities for a very long time. It was one thing to
propose this nensense back when it was new, but the philosophy is
bankrupt and universally known for having produced some of the worst
cases of violent repression, wholesale murder and tyranny of the
century. Reconsider your statement.
This is a bottle of botulism with a pretty label.
Rocky Frisco
Derek Lavin wrote:
> Obviously it's not just about life and death. But the basic principal
> is the same - the good of the many is always better than the good of
> the few. It is always ideal to have the most people possible... *happy*.
I would much rather have the most people be free and empowered to
express themselves. Frankly I see very little of lasting worth that has
been created or maintained by *happy* people. Happiness is a wonderful
condiment, especially when it's experienced as an honest result of
worthy endeavor, but it's not the main course and when it becomes the
goal, rather than the reward, it enslaves and corrupts its devotees.
Rocky Frisco
Derek Lavin wrote:
> Do you really think that the good of the many does not apply? Is it
> not pure common sense that suggests that it is always preferable to
> have as many people happy at once? Or do you disagree? Do you believe
> that there is an elite clique of people somewhere who are more
> important than everyone else, and whose happiness is more important
> than the happiness other peoples'?
What is important is that people not brutalize and coerce each other.
The will of the individual is sacred and not to be infringed except as
necessary to protect this same right in others. The individual right to
do ones own will, if it harms or discommodes nobody else, is not to be
denied because of somebody's idea of what will make the most people
happy. I think you honestly don't realize what you're suggesting. I
respectfully request that you carefully consider it. Your plan ends up
with people being made into soap and fertilizer.
Tom De Mulder
Derek Lavin wrote:
(propably because of Quantum)
>organised crime - say, drugs. Now, say we introduce this bugging
>system, and, every year, 1 person dies because of cock-ups - *BUT*!
>they manage to reduce the annual death due to organised crime to just
>one person. A lot of people would complain about the one that dies
>due to the cock-ups - but, surely, less people die this way... So
>which would you go for?
What would you say if that one person to die was you, or someone you really
care for? It's easy to think up theories like this, but never forget to put
yourself in that position first, and see if you still like it.
Or, to refer to another thread going on here: there are too many cars,
except mine. :-]
+____ *
. \ / . Tom De Mulder
\/ .
* +
... My car's name is Twoflower.
Dave O'Brien
While strolling along the information footpath on Thu, 23 Jan
1997 23:09:07 GMT, i noticed mri...@visgen.com (Michelena Riosa)
say:
>On 23 Jan 1997 11:00:44 GMT, p...@ltsun6.star.le.ac.uk (Peter
>Bleackley) wrote:
>
>>Good morning campers! Hi-de-hi!
>>Ho-de-ho!
>>Oh, come on now, you can do better than that. HI-DE-HI!
>>HO-DE-HO!
>
>
'Fraid not. Completely different hi-de-hi's here. Now if Ruth
Madoc had said:
"Good Morning Campers. Hi-de-hi-de-hi-de-hi!"
"Ho-de-ho-de-ho-de-ho!"
"doo bap skip bap doodly bap skip bap doodly bap skip bap
boi!"[1]
then the archetypal British holiday camp would have been a much
more happenin' place.
On the other hand the lines:
"We're twenty-five miles from Cromer, we've got a morris minor
with half a tank of petrol, four pounds, two shillings and
sixpence, it's dark and we're wearing national health
spectacles."
"Jolly good, let's be off then, shell we"
don't quite have the same ring to them
dave
[1] or something like that. You try transcribing it from memory.
Dave O'Brien, ("Hee Bert, er zit 'n banaan in je oor.")
Provisional Michelena Riosa Testosterone Brigade
Undercover field agent in Charge of the Irish Answer
and of being very far away (but not small)
Derek Lavin
In message <32eb59a0...@news.demon.co.uk>
d...@diaspoir.demon.co.uk (Dave O'Brien) writes:
> 'Fraid not. Completely different hi-de-hi's here. Now if Ruth
> Madoc had said:
> "Good Morning Campers. Hi-de-hi-de-hi-de-hi!"
> "Ho-de-ho-de-ho-de-ho!"
> "doo bap skip bap doodly bap skip bap doodly bap skip bap
> boi!"[1]
There-a-once-a-was-a-girl-a-called-a-Minnie-the-mooch-ah...
She-a-was-a-low-down-a-hoochie-cooch-ah!
Am I think of the right song here, that everyone is confusing with
the Hi-De-Hi anthem?
By the way, I thought that the sitcom was appalling. Hate it, hate
it, hate it. Give me Rising Damp any day...
Richard Kettlewell
>>Of course I do. If making people happy involves pogroms against the
>>least favourite minority of the day - which, historically, it often
>>has - then it is not preferable to have as many people happy at
>>once. I think there's more to `right' than maximizing
>>gratification.
>
>I've been through this in another posting. The Good Of The Many does
>not allow anyone to act criminally.
That depends what the definition of `criminal' is, doesn't it? In
particular, state-sponsored pogroms of the kind I refer to above tend
not to be classified as criminal.
But it's not really that that I'm getting at. It's the attitude which
holds society to be more important than the individual - you can dress
it up as `improving life for the majority of individuals' if you like,
but that's what it is.
It's very simplistic - e.g. does a slight increase in 99% of the
population's quality of life justify a large decrease in that of the
remaining 1%? If you're going to talk in those terms, you have to
quantify the concept of `quality of life' (or happiness or whatever
you want to argue in terms of). I don't believe that's possible,
though I'd be very interested to be proved wrong.
I'd still find taking such a utilitarian approach to people extremely
distasteful, even so.
(I'm trying _really hard_ not to accidentally invoke Godwin's Law
here...)
Margaret Tarbet
On Sun, 26 Jan 1997 11:55:37 +0000,
Terry Pratchett <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>You can't make people happy by law.
I completely agree. "Happiness" cannot be created by fiat,
but good or bad existential conditions can be.
Of all the behaviors possible to governments, some are virtually
guaranteed to increase net misery, and others net happiness, not
by fiat but because they have tissue results. Who among us would
care to go live in Myanmar today, or to have been a jew in 1943
Warsaw? Whatever our personal characteristics, life under those
circumstances is/was not good tho often short. Even though many
people manage(d) to feel happy, few would argue that their
existential condition was/is in any way desireable.
>All law and government can and should hope to do create the
>classic 'level playing field'.
Are we talking at crossed purposes here? If the "level playing
field" is one of delicate balance, where any advantage won by one
player automatically conveys further advantages in a cascading
way, should the government stand back and allow the inevitable
catastrophic imbalance to occur? Or does the government's
responsibility extend to re-leveling whenever it goes out of
balance? I would argue the latter, if on no other than logical
grounds, since the situation is guaranteed to be unstable
otherwise and the government itself will "die" if things spiral
out of control...as has happened in, e.g., the Lebanon.
>The trouble is that the means of achieving these ends would be
>decided by governments. Ultimately, they'd achieve them by
>pointing guns at you.
Ultimately, they point guns at us anyway, and are doing it now.
What shall we do?
=margaret
Margaret Tarbet
Spot on, Tom.
The trouble with most wonderful schemes, whether for
increasing personal wealth by pushing grannie off on
an ice floe or for increasing personal safety by authorising
the secret police is that the people in favor are always
quite sure it'll always be somebody else at the sharp end
of the stick. Their imaginations never have the elasticity to
picture how they will feel when the jackboots are thumping
up _their_ stairs at 3 in the morning.
Terry Pratchett
In article <32e7d888...@news.tiac.net>, Margaret Tarbet
<tar...@swaa.com> writes
>No, Derek, that's not true except in the most simplistic way.
>Rocky's response is very much to the point. If our goal is to
>actually make the largest number of people happy, then the
>first thing to do is change the laws allowing massive
>would be a _helluva_ lot more to the point than adding bugging
>laws which --i hardly need point out-- would almost never be used
>against the rich and powerful few.
You can't make people happy by law. If you said to a bunch of average
people two hundred years ago "Would you be happy in a world where
medical care is widely available, houses are clean, the world's music
and sights and foods can be brought into your home at small cost,
travelling even 100 miles is easy, childbirth is generally not fatal to
mother or child, you don't have to die of dental abcesses and you don't
have to do what the squire tells you" they'd think you were talking
about the New Jerusalem and say 'yes'.
Well, in the modern democracies, with all their agreed imperfections,
most people live in such a world. Are we happy? No *happier*, I
suspect, than a lot of the people 200 years ago. All law and government
can and should hope to do create the classic 'level playing field'.
>Get rid of the laws that benefit the rich at the expense of the
>poor, make profit-sharing universal and mandatory, get rid
>of unfair discrimination based on race, sex, age, skin color,
>religion, affectional orientation and so forth, and create
>conditions that mandate the use of modern technologies to
>reduce daily travel with its toll in road accidents, pollution,
>and reduced time with family, and get rid of the laws that
>criminalise self-destructive behavior. _That_ will actually
>and obviously increase net social happiness and wellbeing.
>
The trouble is that the means of achieving these ends would be decided
by governments. Ultimately, they'd achieve them by pointing guns at
you.
Terry Pratchett
Derek Lavin
In message <32ea4c82...@news.ping.be>
to...@dma.be (Tom De Mulder) writes:
> What would you say if that one person to die was you, or someone you really
> care for? It's easy to think up theories like this, but never forget to put
> yourself in that position first, and see if you still like it.
I think the whole point of having politicians to decide matters such
as these is that they don't really care about anyone. That way, they
can make an unbiased decision.
Of course if that one person who died was a close friend I would
think differently, but that's simple human witness. I try to take a
step back and look down when I'm formulating opinions on matters such as these.
What if the however-many people who were killed by organised crime
were members of my family? You can do this either way,
> Or, to refer to another thread going on here: there are too many cars,
> except mine. :-]
<grin>
> +____ *
> . \ / . Tom De Mulder
> \/ .
> * +
Can I ask, what is this? Is it a picture of the cover to a Steven
Donaldson "UNBELIEVER" book?
Derek Lavin
In message <5ceajc$rci$1...@sfere.greenend.org.uk>
Richard Kettlewell <ric...@greenend.org.uk> writes:
> That depends what the definition of `criminal' is, doesn't it? In
> particular, state-sponsored pogroms of the kind I refer to above tend
> not to be classified as criminal.
No, but they are. Regardless of what the pogrommers say or think.
> But it's not really that that I'm getting at. It's the attitude which
> holds society to be more important than the individual - you can dress
> it up as `improving life for the majority of individuals' if you like,
> but that's what it is.
No, society isn't more important than the individual, and that isn't
what I am suggesting. I am simply saying that a *LOT* of individuals
are more important than a *FEW* individuals.
> It's very simplistic - e.g. does a slight increase in 99% of the
> population's quality of life justify a large decrease in that of the
> remaining 1%? If you're going to talk in those terms, you have to
> quantify the concept of `quality of life' (or happiness or whatever
> you want to argue in terms of). I don't believe that's possible,
> though I'd be very interested to be proved wrong.
It breaks down at a point where the levels of change in quality of
life are different. No, I do not think a minority should suffer a lot
so that the rest of the populace can increase their quality of life a bit.
> I'd still find taking such a utilitarian approach to people extremely
> distasteful, even so.
It's called Democracy - that's why we vote. To see which route will
make the most people happy. And usually, it works.
> (I'm trying _really hard_ not to accidentally invoke Godwin's Law
> here...)
Is that anything like Sod's Law?
Derek Lavin
In message <32EB25...@earthlink.net>
Rocky Frisco <rocky...@earthlink.net> writes:
> What is important is that people not brutalize and coerce each other.
> The will of the individual is sacred and not to be infringed except as
> necessary to protect this same right in others. The individual right to
> do ones own will, if it harms or discommodes nobody else, is not to be
> denied because of somebody's idea of what will make the most people
> happy.
I agree totally with this. I believe that, yes, the will of the
individual is important. However, I believe that, when we are passing
a law, we should pass it in a way which hurts the least people. That
is the way society works today, and that is why we vote - to see what
the majority of people want.
Darrell Ottery
>In message <5c5qpf$272$5...@sfere.greenend.org.uk>
> Richard Kettlewell <ric...@greenend.org.uk> writes:
>> Derek Lavin <sl...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >I think, though, when making decisions like these, we have to ignore
>> >individual cases and take a Vulcan "good of the many..." stance on
>> >the matter.
>
>> the few.
>
>Accept that I mean what I say and deal with that, rather than what
>you think I mean.
>
>Do you really think that the good of the many does not apply? Is it
>have as many people happy at once?
Yes, but realistically it'll never happen. As a species we're too damned
self-centred to ever give a damn about anyone else.
>Or do you disagree?
I'd like to agree with you. As a theory it's fine. In a real situation
it'll never work. Unless you often hang around with martyrs? And they
seem to be kind of out of season right now.
>Do you believe
>that there is an elite clique of people somewhere who are more
>important than everyone else, and whose happiness is more important
>than the happiness other peoples'?
Yeah. They're called 'politicians'. And they seem to agree with that,
despite supposedly being 'for the good of the many'.
--
Darrell [INTJ] - Dar...@lspace.org - http://www.toreador.demon.co.uk/
Hello, Mr Faceless Creature of Evil. Will you be my friend?
Margaret Tarbet
I can certainly sign up for a lot of this, even if not all. I'm
positively of the view that it's a poor social system in which a
few are rich beyond count while others lack the basic necessities
of life. In the US, currently, the richest 1% of the population
owns and controls as much of the national wealth as the
least-wealthy 91% combined. That, to me, is the sign of serious
social pathology.
I suspect the success or failure of communalist philosophies is
due exactly to whether there is genuine community or only
nominal. I note that, where no "tissue issues" are involved,
few people grudge others full equality (the SCA for a
not-quite-trivial example). People don't compete for resources
except when the only other choice is death, or they've been set
up to think so. And people don't, contrary to puritan-
capitalist thinking, fall into sloth and idleness without the
whip. If money weren't an issue, Pterry would still write books
because he _is_ creative; it's not something he just does for
money. He might or might not write fewer of them[1], but i'd
make book [npi] that he'd still write as long as we'd still read
and enjoy. The enjoyment of others is a powerful motivator. In
other contexts, folk regularly volunteer their time even when
they needn't, because they recognise that some part of the world
will be a better place because of it, and for the secondary gains
of social approval and prestige.
We saw the rise of Communism because it hadn't yet dawned on
people that it was all going to be old exploitative wine with new
egalitarian labels on the bottles. As soon as folk saw that
"some are more equal than others", they mostly quit trying and we
saw a sixty-year collapse. But we also have the examples of
Chile and Cuba, where the US government saw to it that a
freely-elected communist was killed and is doing all that it can
to see that a communist society supported by its citizens is
squeezed to extinction. The US government is scared _green_
lest it be demonstrated that lassaiz-faire capitalism with its
gross inequalities is not the only viable social form. They can
hear the tumbrels in the distance. Other capitalist and
totalitarian governments are generally no better (tho the
Nederlands yin might be).
But let's not screw up and lose sight of the fact that only
_individuals_ matter. As Pterry probably didn't quite have Death
say[2] in RM: one stalk, one sweep. Whenever we say "the many",
that's just a way to relieve the pain of thinking. And it makes
us lose sight of "the person" without whom it all devolves into
something only the Auditors would care about.
</soapbox>
=margaret
On Sun, 26 Jan 1997 13:09:13 GMT,
Derek Lavin <sl...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>I believe that all men are equal. I believe that factories and
>companies should be owned by the government and not run
>in order to make a profit. I do not believe in capitalism. I
>believe that everyone should strive to help each other and not
>be as selfish as they are today. I believe in the abolition of
>class. I believe that people should not be constantly out to
>help themselves and should be striving towards aiding other
>people. I believe the poor should be provided for and the rich
>should aid the rest of society.
-------.
[1] I suspect his output would stay the same...his personality
positively _fizzes_ sometimes, if the books are any indication.
[2] I can't find my copy to fix up the quote.
Derek Lavin
In message <73cXjDAL...@unseen.demon.co.uk>
Terry Pratchett <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> writes:
> True. Unfortunately we are now being educated that democracy means
> majority rule (even if that majority may technically be a minority whose
> wishes are manipulated and interpreted by a few). But it must mean the
> protection under law of all minorities.
I have never suggested that the majority should have the power to
hurt - or be criminal towards - the minority. Simply that, in a
situation where *SOMEONE* is going to be hurt, it's best to arrange
it so as few people are hurt as possible. This is the whole concept
of democracy - and this is why we go with what the majority want.
This doesn't mean I propose a society in which minority beliefs are persecuted.
Derek Lavin
In message <32EB2D...@earthlink.net>
Rocky Frisco <rocky...@earthlink.net> writes:
> Derek Lavin wrote:
> > I am not proposing a sinister Greater Genetic Glory state, like the
> > Nazis had. I do not mean we can kill people for a greater glory which
> > no-one understands. I am simply saying that, if people will get hurt
> > which ever way we legislate, it is ideal to choose the scenario in
> > which as few people as possible are hurt. Or do you disagree?
> Derek, there *is no* many. "Many" is a concept. There are only
> individuals.
> Individuals experience; individuals live and die and desire and strive.
Many is a *LOT* of individuals. A lot of individuals living and dying
and desiring and striving.
> You say you are a Communist; this idea of the "good of the many" is
> typical of Communism and has been used to attempt to rationalize all
> manner of terrible atrocities for a very long time. It was one thing to
> propose this nensense back when it was new, but the philosophy is
> bankrupt and universally known for having produced some of the worst
> cases of violent repression, wholesale murder and tyranny of the
> century.
The worse cases of persecution and genecide I have ever seen were in
the name of religion, and more oaths to kill, murder and tortue have
been made by the name of a god than not. But that makes a belief in
God no more evil than Stalin makes Communism.
I believe that all men are equal. I believe that factories and
companies should be owned by the government and not run in order to
make a profit. I do not believe in capitalism. I believe that
everyone should strive to help each other and not be as selfish as
they are today. I believe in the abolition of class. I believe that
people should not be constantly out to help themselves and should be
striving towards aiding other people. I believe the poor should be
provided for and the rich should aid the rest of society. Where is
the evil in that? Where is the condoning on murder and atrocity in that?
I am a communist. That does not mean I condone what others have done
under the name of Communism in the past.
> Reconsider your statement.
I have done, and I have been doing since I was very young indeed.
Trust me, it is a considered statement.
Margaret Tarbet
In the last 10 years or so i've become increasingly convinced,
and scared, that Orwell may only have missed the mark by 20 years
with "1984"[1]. The UK has surveillance cameras in public
places, the US has airport-style security barriers at entrances
to federal buildings[2] , and Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington
DC is now barricaded as tho the White House were the home of
some tin-pot dictator in the tropics. What the hell are we
allowing to be created? And to whose benefit?
=margaret
On Sat, 25 Jan 1997 21:20:11 +0000,
Terry Pratchett <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>True. Unfortunately we are now being educated that
>democracy means majority rule (even if that majority may
>technically be a minority whose wishes are manipulated and
>interpreted by a few). But it must mean the protection under
>law of all minorities.
------------
[1] Herb Grosch [yes, the Grosch's Law one--we're both members
of the Women In Science and Engineering list] also firmly
believes that if we don't wake up, re-take control, and begin a
determined and rapid leveling of the playing field, by 2005 we'll
be in a deeper hole than we can climb back out of without
bloodshed.
[2] I was stunned the first time i encountered them--nominally a
response to Oklahoma City, but obviously not something that would
have prevented it! Who's kidding whom?
Michelena Riosa
On Sun, 26 Jan 1997 15:16:00 GMT, Derek Lavin <sl...@zetnet.co.uk>
wrote:
>There-a-once-a-was-a-girl-a-called-a-Minnie-the-mooch-ah...
>She-a-was-a-low-down-a-hoochie-cooch-ah!
>
>Am I think of the right song here, that everyone is confusing with
>the Hi-De-Hi anthem?
Everyone being me, and I think I was the only one who missed it, but
you are correct, Cab Calloway was one of the greats.
Anyone know who his tailor was...
Michelena who thought her dad would have looked great in a zoot suit.
mri...@visgen.com
"Give me library or give me death!"
Michelena Riosa
On Sun, 26 Jan 1997 13:46:53 GMT, d...@diaspoir.demon.co.uk (Dave
O'Brien) wrote:
>While strolling along the information footpath on Thu, 23 Jan
>1997 23:09:07 GMT, i noticed mri...@visgen.com (Michelena Riosa)
>say:
>>On 23 Jan 1997 11:00:44 GMT, p...@ltsun6.star.le.ac.uk (Peter
>>Bleackley) wrote:
>>>Good morning campers! Hi-de-hi!
>>>Ho-de-ho!
>>>Oh, come on now, you can do better than that. HI-DE-HI!
>>>HO-DE-HO!
>>Errr, do I get a ppint if I mention the nbame "Cab Calloway" here????
>'Fraid not. Completely different hi-de-hi's here. Now if Ruth
>Madoc had said:
Completely differend hi-de-hi's....*boggle* there's more than ONE????
>"Good Morning Campers. Hi-de-hi-de-hi-de-hi!"
>"Ho-de-ho-de-ho-de-ho!"
>"doo bap skip bap doodly bap skip bap doodly bap skip bap
>boi!"[1]
>then the archetypal British holiday camp would have been a much
>more happenin' place.
Personal fave "scoodelly-wooo, scoodelly-wooo
scoodellywoodellywodelly-woooooo"
Maybe that should be the new afpproved[2] swear word, heavens know, we
would all think twice before using it.
Michelena the Moocher....[1]
[1] Too tired to be a hootchie-cootcher.
[2] Is is only me, or does the whole idea of afpproving things such as
post-structure and word use seem a little worrysome? I think I'd
rather have a flame, than a manual.
Martyn Clapham
In article <32E83E...@zko.dec.com>, Paul S Winalski
<wina...@zko.dec.com> writes
>Derek Lavin wrote:
>>
>> I simply mean we must aim to make the most people happy.
>
>The question is where one draws the line between the common weal
>and the rights of individuals. For example, if the state were
>to confiscate all of Bill Gates's wealth and redistribute equal
>shares of it to all citizens of the USA, that would undoubtedly
>result in far more happier people than sadder people. But
>our society grants individuals the right to hold property
>and to accumulate wealth.
>
The above would be true for about 6 months, then the conmen, thieves and
such whould start to end up with more.
Also I think it's built-in to _every_ animal to try ensure it and it's
mate(s)/offspring survive by getting as much of anything available as
possible. Money would have to be completely replaced by barter or a
ridgidly enforced work unit system for equal shares for all to work.
>To take a very extreme case, most people in Germany in the
>30s and early 40s had been persuaded by their government
>that they would be happier if their Jewish, Slav, and
>Romani neighbors quietly disappeared.
>
>--PSW
MartynC
--
http://www.mclapham.demon.co.uk Mobile 0860 914817 AFPurity 61%
Member of LUHU and Michelena Riosa Testosterone Brigade
Minion in charge of asset sharing.
Dick Eney
In article <5ceajc$rci$1...@sfere.greenend.org.uk>,
Richard Kettlewell <ric...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
<chomp>
>It's very simplistic - e.g. does a slight increase in 99% of the
>population's quality of life justify a large decrease in that of the
>remaining 1%? If you're going to talk in those terms, you have to
>quantify the concept of `quality of life' (or happiness or whatever
>you want to argue in terms of). I don't believe that's possible,
>though I'd be very interested to be proved wrong.
>
>distasteful, even so.
Ursula K. LeGuin wrote "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" about exactly
this scenario. Briefly: in Omelas, everyone is (magically) perfectly
happy and healthy, but at the cost of having one child kept in misery and
isolation from birth; that child has never known anything else. IIRC most
of the people don't even know about the child, but some do. Of those who
do, every year a few leave Omelas to parts unknown. They don't say what
they are seeking.
That's it. A very thought-provoking story.
=Tamar (sharing account dick...@access.digex.net)
Richard Kettlewell
Derek Lavin <sl...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>I think the whole point of having politicians to decide matters such
>as these is that they don't really care about anyone. That way, they
>can make an unbiased decision.
Umm, what planet are you living on again? We've already know that our
politicians are prepared to see innocent men go to prison to cover up
their own wrongdoing (arms to Iraq..) Not that I was massively
convinced of their collective trustworthiness before that...
(I'm sure there are plenty of honest politicians, too; but it's rather
hard to distinguish them from the rotten ones.)
Brian Cook
Margaret Tarbet wrote:
>
> In the last 10 years or so i've become increasingly convinced,
> and scared, that Orwell may only have missed the mark by 20 years
> with "1984"[1]. The UK has surveillance cameras in public
> places, the US has airport-style security barriers at entrances
> to federal buildings[2] , and Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington
> DC is now barricaded as tho the White House were the home of
> some tin-pot dictator in the tropics. What the hell are we
> allowing to be created? And to whose benefit?
> =margaret
>
I wouldn't call Pennsylvania Avenue "blockaded"[1]. It is closed to
street traffic, but normal citizens can loiter around, smoking and
hurling obscenities at Bill just like old times.
Besides, if this country wasn't just about wholly free of
suppression, how the bloody hell could have that last presidential
election occured? By God, there was a lot of vitriol! In a really cool
incident, Clinton was running down a beach whilst a student somewhere
called him various extremely unflattering things along the lines of "You
have singlehandedly destroyed civilization, you damned bastard".
Of course, Clinton waved happily to her and mentioned that "I'm sure I
can count on your vote," because he couldn't hear a word she was
saying. But, anyway, the point is that wouldn't be tolerated in 1984
or anything remotely approaching it. Besides, "Brave New World" is a
much likelier dystopia, IMHO.
-Brian Cook
[1] Doesn't do a lot of good to blockade it if I can buy it for $300.
Damn that Perot; he's got Boardwalk!
Michelena Riosa
>You can't make people happy by law. If you said to a bunch of average
>people two hundred years ago "Would you be happy in a world where
>medical care is widely available, houses are clean, the world's music
>and sights and foods can be brought into your home at small cost,
>travelling even 100 miles is easy, childbirth is generally not fatal to
>mother or child, you don't have to die of dental abcesses and you don't
>have to do what the squire tells you" they'd think you were talking
>about the New Jerusalem and say 'yes'.
>
>Well, in the modern democracies, with all their agreed imperfections,
>most people live in such a world. Are we happy? No *happier*, I
>suspect, than a lot of the people 200 years ago. All law and government
>can and should hope to do create the classic 'level playing field'.
Oh jeez, If Terry says so....I guess it *must* be true...The irony is,
I really am thankful about souch things. I have even though about the
abcess issue, having seen a dental pathologist analyse mummified
remains on my free educational t.v.
The world still sucks in many places and in many ways, but anybody who
is unhappy about the personal conveniences inheirant in the
industrialized world is either lying or painfully nostalgic.
Despite petty...yes, PETTY political arguments we have come a long way
in creating a utopia for most...the key question is "now what"
increase the quality of the utopia...or increase the scope...
>>>Get rid of the laws that benefit the rich at the expense of the
>>poor, make profit-sharing universal and mandatory, get rid
>>of unfair discrimination based on race, sex, age, skin color,
>>religion, affectional orientation and so forth, and create
>>conditions that mandate the use of modern technologies to
>>reduce daily travel with its toll in road accidents, pollution,
>>and reduced time with family, and get rid of the laws that
>>criminalise self-destructive behavior. _That_ will actually
>>and obviously increase net social happiness and wellbeing.
>>
>The trouble is that the means of achieving these ends would be decided
>by governments. Ultimately, they'd achieve them by pointing guns at
>you.
Frankly I'd be happy if we could just get good water to everybody, and
find a cure for tuberculosis, which still kills more people than AIDS,
but is "old Hat" as far as diseases-of-the-month go.
But the water is a definate possibility....
Michelena ( You expected me to have an answer....HAH)
mri...@visgen.com
"Be wary of geeks bearing .gifs.."
Jos 'Merlin' Dingjan
Michelena Riosa wrote:
> Despite petty...yes, PETTY political arguments we have come a long way
> in creating a utopia for most...the key question is "now what"
> increase the quality of the utopia...or increase the scope...
Define "Utopia for most"? Utopia is fundamentally unreachable (people
will allways stay unhappy quite a lot, because being happy wears thin
quite fast), and I don't really believe that "most" people are that good
off. I think it would be a good thing to start creating decent
situations for people to live in, 'cause most people don't have that
yet! And as I said, "decent" is the best you can hope for, 'cause utopia
would require the people to be happy, and people *just aren't
continually happy*
TTFN, Jos
--
<- I deny all rumours about Latvia and me, I never met her! ->
<- Help stop the Wandering Footnotes, mention HEDGEHOGS and ->
<- CUSTARD somewhere in your post, and maybe it'll stop 'em ->
Derek Lavin
In message <5cgd5n$2ei$2...@sfere.greenend.org.uk>
Richard Kettlewell <ric...@greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Umm, what planet are you living on again? We've already know that our
> politicians are prepared to see innocent men go to prison to cover up
> their own wrongdoing (arms to Iraq..) Not that I was massively
> convinced of their collective trustworthiness before that...
That's the *POINT* of having politicans. I didn't say the point had
been effected correctly.
Leo Breebaart
> > "Those who would give up an essential liberty
> > for the sake of a temporary security deserve
> > to lose both".
Rather appropriate to my point of view re: the spam mangling thread... :-)
--
Leo Breebaart (l...@lspace.org)
Wolfgang Schelongowski
>To take a very extreme case, most people in Germany in the
>30s and early 40s had been persuaded by their government
>that they would be happier if their Jewish, Slav, and
>Romani neighbors quietly disappeared.
Wrong. There was no necessity to ask them after early 1933. They
got told what they had to believe. If they had differing
opinions they soon found out that they'd better keep them to
themselves - *OR*ELSE*.
Obviously you have no idea how a totalitarian state `works'.
--
Wolfgang Schelongowski Check _all_ headers for sending email.
Teifi, Teifi, Sakradie, do geht er dahin!
-- EAV, Alpenrap
Tom De Mulder
Derek Lavin wrote:
(propably because of Quantum)
>> What would you say if that one person to die was you, or someone you really
>> care for? It's easy to think up theories like this, but never forget to put
>> yourself in that position first, and see if you still like it.
>I think the whole point of having politicians to decide matters such
>as these is that they don't really care about anyone. That way, they
>can make an unbiased decision.
Now if only we had politicians like that. The only ones _I_ know of are
only interested in their backing groups, and their wallets. An often in the
wallets of the backing groups. :-)
And if ever a politician makes a radical decision, it's because he/she
hopes to gain votes with it. <sigh> <fx: tries to cheer up>
I'm not getting you down, am I? ;-)
>What if the however-many people who were killed by organised crime
>were members of my family? You can do this either way,
There's a difference. Criminals don't pretend to be the hand of justice. I
refer to somewhere in the beginning of M@A (IIRC), where Vimes has similar
thoughts...
>> +____ *
>> . \ / . Tom De Mulder
>> \/ .
>> * +
>Can I ask, what is this? Is it a picture of the cover to a Steven
>Donaldson "UNBELIEVER" book?
I't an upside down triangle with a starfield behind it. That's all. ;-)
Back in the ole' days, it used to be the Amiga-logo with stars around it,
but since that computers was sacrificed to the Death of Computers a while
ago, I had to change it. :-)
+____ *
. \ / . Tom De Mulder
\/ .
* +
... Let's split up, we can do more damage that way.
Margaret Tarbet
On Sun, 26 Jan 1997 22:06:53 -0500,
Brian Cook <breakdan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>... But, anyway, the point is that wouldn't be tolerated in
And we still have 8 to go of the 20 years i mentioned. Much
changed between 1976 and (our real) 1984; much can change
again, if we don't deflect it.
>Besides, "Brave New World" is a much likelier dystopia, IMHO.
Never read it.
Helen Highwater
In article <199701232...@zetnet.co.uk>
sl...@zetnet.co.uk "Derek Lavin" writes:
> In message <32E68C...@zko.dec.com>
> Paul S Winalski <wina...@zko.dec.com> writes:
>
> > The name for a "good of the many..." social system is
> > totalitarianism.
>
> - No, it's called common sense. If you have a decision to make - one
> which will upset *SOME* people, whichever way you decide - then it
> would be bloody stupid not to take a decision which will make the
> most people happy. When I say "good of the many..." I do not mean the
> sort of society that dictates people may be killed in order to
> further a race. I simply mean we must aim to make the most people happy.
>
Common sense and majority preference are not identical. For example,
any Sun poll on the subject would not only suggest that hanging was
acceptable, but drawing and quartering too.
For a first offence.
If you want to make most people happy, you could try giving them
euphoria inducing drugs, like soma, but I don't think that's practical,
desirable or really what you had in mind,
--
Helen Highwater
"I think I may be able to metabolise alcohol".(RM)
Paul S Winalski
Margaret Tarbet wrote:
>
> The UK has surveillance cameras in public
> places, the US has airport-style security barriers at entrances
> to federal buildings[2] , and Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington
> DC is now barricaded as tho the White House were the home of
> some tin-pot dictator in the tropics.
Well, from the perspective of some folks in frozen places
such as Montana, Bill Clinton *IS* a tin-pot dictator in
the tropics. :-)
> What the hell are we
> allowing to be created? And to whose benefit?
Hear, hear. Well said.
> [1] Herb Grosch [yes, the Grosch's Law one--we're both members
> of the Women In Science and Engineering list]
Did Herb have a sex-change operation?
Herb Grosch is one of the few people with the
distinction of being fired several times from IBM, and
by both Tom Watsons. There's an unsubstantiated rumor
that T. J. Watson, Jr. re-hired Grosch just so he could
have the satisfaction of firing him again.
> [2] I was stunned the first time i encountered them--nominally a
> response to Oklahoma City, but obviously not something that would
> have prevented it! Who's kidding whom?
Actually, I think they're a response to the rash of
incidents involving disgruntled former federal employees
going back to their earstwhile workplace and letting off
several rounds of ammunition.
There were a bunch of new restrictions of civil liberty
and extensions of police power put into place in the
panic following the Long Island plane crash. Now that
it's been pretty well concluded that the crash wasn't
caused by a terrorist bomb, I think it's high time we
asked when that legistlation is to be rescinded.
--PSW
Paul S Winalski
Derek Lavin wrote:
> I believe that all men are equal.
This is what communism gets wrong.
All men are decidedly NOT equal. I will never ride a cycling
endurance race as can Indurain, and I doubt he could ever learn to
program a computer as well as I can. We are all dealt a different
hand by the forces of genetics and environment.
What I believe is that all men should be considered equal
in the application of the laws of the land.
--PSW
Paul S Winalski
Derek Lavin wrote:
> Of course if that one person who died was a close friend I would
> think differently, but that's simple human witness. I try to take a
> step back and look down when I'm formulating opinions on matters such as these.
Just what we need--laws made by someone who looks down on his
fellow man.
--PSW (no :-) on this one)
Paul S Winalski
Michelena Riosa wrote:
>
> Frankly I'd be happy if we could just get good water to everybody, and
> find a cure for tuberculosis, which still kills more people than AIDS,
> but is "old Hat" as far as diseases-of-the-month go.
We *have* a cure for tuberculosis. We have had one for decades.
If the medical profession were really to go after the number one
infectious disease killer, we'd be looking for a vaccine against
influenza, which kills more people than any other infectious
disease and which is responsible for the most deadly pandemics
of all time.
--PSW
Jos 'Merlin' Dingjan
Derek Lavin wrote:
> I have never suggested that the majority should have the power to
> hurt - or be criminal towards - the minority. Simply that, in a
> situation where *SOMEONE* is going to be hurt, it's best to arrange
> it so as few people are hurt as possible. This is the whole concept
> of democracy - and this is why we go with what the majority want.
Is it really? Do you really think it's better to hurt as few people as
possible, which may be people that have got *nothing whatsoever* to do
with what they're being hurt by, than more people, who've done it, more
or less, to themselves? I think it's far more important that we protect
the innocent than that we minimize the number of people being hurt. For
example: Two gangs, fighting it out and killing themselves in the
process, because they have weapons and the police couldn't do anything
'bout it (no searchwarrants, whatever), or a police who can do lots of
things, and thereby cause the death of an innocent person... I know what
I'd prefer! (Of these two, that is, I don't want every criminal or
would-be criminal shot, I think capital punishment is fundamentaly
wrong)
TTFN, Jos
--
<- I deny all rumours about Latvia and me, I never met her! ->
<- Help stop the Wanderi[9] Lalalalaah ention HEDGEHOGS and ->
Colette Reap
On Sat, 25 Jan 1997 18:29:10 GMT, mu...@lspace.org (Murky B) wrote:
<After Michelena thought that Hi-di-hi was a reference to
< "Cab Calloway" , Murky corrected her thusly...>
>
>Hi de Hi is a peculilarly British phenomenon..... I'll have to let
>someone else explain.
>
My cue, I think, given that I actually work for the company that
manages, amongst others, Butlins (I know, I know, it's a dirty job,
but *someone* has got to do it...).
In the 1980s, there was a British sitcom called Hi-di-hi (set, I think
in the late 1950s/early 1960s), which was based firmly on the
real-life Butlins holiday camps. In the sitcom the company was called
Maplin. In real life, Butlins camps, always at the seaside, provided
cheap accomodation and on-site entertainment for the whole family (and
they still do). A 'feature' of being at one of these camps was being
woken up each morning by loud announcements over the tannoy system,
exhorting you to get up, have breakfast and rush to sign up for the
knobbly knees contest or the glamourous granny contest (Butlins
*still* run the latter...). The tannoy announcements were OTT
cheerful, in order, I suppose, to make sure everyone was in the
*holiday mood* and one of the ways used to whip people up into the
correct spirit was to have a call/response catchphrase ('Crackerjack,
anyone?)
As I mentioned above, Butlins are still at it - it was their 60th
anniversary last year. They now have 5 'Worlds' - they don't call them
camps any more. The biggest is at Minehead, in Somerset. The town of
Minehead has about 7500 residents. The Butlins 'World', which I
believe is on the outskirts of the town, has a population of approx
11000 when full. As you can imagine, the residents of Minehead just
*lurve* having a Butlins World on their doorstep :-)
Enough explanation?
Colette@work
Richard Kettlewell
Michelena Riosa <mri...@visgen.com> wrote:
>Oh jeez, If Terry says so....I guess it *must* be true...
Oh, tosh l-)
>Terry Pratchett <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[Someone wrote:]
>>>Get rid of the laws that benefit the rich at the expense of the
>>>poor, make profit-sharing universal and mandatory, get rid of
>>>unfair discrimination based on race, sex, age, skin color,
>>>religion, affectional orientation and so forth, and create
>>>conditions that mandate the use of modern technologies to reduce
>>>daily travel with its toll in road accidents, pollution, and
>>>reduced time with family, and get rid of the laws that criminalise
>>>self-destructive behavior. _That_ will actually and obviously
>>>increase net social happiness and wellbeing.
>>
>>The trouble is that the means of achieving these ends would be
>>decided by governments. Ultimately, they'd achieve them by pointing
>>guns at you.
I have to disagree. Certainly the "quick fix" approach is simply to
legislate against "bad" things, and then attempt to enforce that
legislation, but a government which takes a longer view - and once in
a while we *do* find a politician who can see further than the next
election - has more options than that. I still believe in
Education...
Many of the things mentioned above have improved over the last 100
years, without noticable gun-pointing - not universally, granted, but
unlike Red Dwarf I think on the whole they're better than they used to
be.
Derek Lavin
In message <32eea435...@newshost.visgen.com>
mri...@visgen.com (Michelena Riosa) writes:
> Everyone being me, and I think I was the only one who missed it, but
> you are correct, Cab Calloway was one of the greats.
I've only ever heard the version in "THE BLUES BROTHERS". It made me... *HAPPY*
--
"...The individual is irrelevent. Pleasure is irrelevant. The spirit
is irrelevant. You will be assimilated..." -- The Borg
Brian Cook
> Why not just kill everybody? Think of all the criminals who won't get
> born. Sure, it'd be a little unpleasant right now, but in the long
> run, any other crime-fighting plan is just too cowardly to be effective.
> We could totally <irradiate> organised *and* disorganised crime all at
> once!
While I believe the word set off above is a typo, it brings an
interesting image to mind. "Since you're guilty of said crimes, you
have to go live in Chernobyl for twelve months and then just wait for
the cancer. Ha HA!"
-Brian "Don't Call Me Dilbert" Cook
Marina
Wolfgang Schelongowski wrote:
>
> In <32E83E...@zko.dec.com> Paul S Winalski <wina...@zko.dec.com> writes:
>
> >To take a very extreme case, most people in Germany in the
> >30s and early 40s had been persuaded by their government
> >that they would be happier if their Jewish, Slav, and
> >Romani neighbors quietly disappeared.
>
> Wrong. There was no necessity to ask them after early 1933. They
> got told what they had to believe. If they had differing
> opinions they soon found out that they'd better keep them to
> themselves - *OR*ELSE*.
>
Would they want to go back to paying (literally) baskets of money for
bread, or live well, believing that the minor sacrifice of a few million
Jewish lives brought them prosperity? The Germans may be good people,
but they're not *that* good - they'd prefer food for their own children.
In fact, this is basically what did happen in '33.
> Obviously you have no idea how a totalitarian state `works'.
Well, I know how a totalitarian state works, because I was born in one,
and many of my relatives and friends of the family had head-on conflicts
with it. But the people of the USSR never claimed to be "persuaded" that
Leninnism was "good for them". They hated it, but tryed to duck and
weather the storm. Many died in concentration and labour camps.
I think both views presented here are over simplified - after all, if
Paul was right, the Jews in Germany would have also thought it's better
for them do dissapear, yesno? They would have all packed up quietly and
taken theyr (very large, in some cases) assets to America or Israel or
something. And if Wolfgang was right, there would be alot more civil
rebellion against the Third Reich government than even the most lenient
of historians grant.
I think such extreme cases should not be our barometer for human rights
issues. They tend to lead to rather sinister conclusions and don't make
a very good sort of example.
Marina
--
===================================================
Marina Strinkovsky Macom Networking Ltd.
mar...@macom.co.il http://www.macom.co.il
===================================================
Men should be like Kleenex- soft, strong and disposable.
- Clue
Marina
Margaret Tarbet wrote:
>
<snip snip>
>
> [2] I was stunned the first time i encountered them--nominally a
> response to Oklahoma City, but obviously not something that would
> have prevented it! Who's kidding whom?
Er, sorry, but I'm not so sure about "not preventing" bit.
About a year ago there was a suicide terrorist attack outside a major
mall and shopping center in the heart of down town Tel Aviv (Israel). It
is widely believed that the terrorist wanted to get inside the building,
but a guard (just plain civilian guy on the pay roll) wanted to check
his bag, so he blew himself up in the street instead.
A few people were killed that day and many tens of them injured. Just
*try* to *imagine* what would have happened if he were inside the
building. Israelis, who are a grouchy bunch usually, were instantly
reconsiled to the idea of having their personal belongings peered into
at every doorway.
Margaret Tarbet
On Tue, 28 Jan 1997 11:50:22 +0000,
Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>So where does that leave us women, then?
Dang! Y'beat me to it.
Derek Lavin
In message <32ED65...@zko.dec.com>
Paul S Winalski <wina...@zko.dec.com> writes:
> All men are decidedly NOT equal. I will never ride a cycling
> endurance race as can Indurain, and I doubt he could ever learn to
> program a computer as well as I can. We are all dealt a different
> hand by the forces of genetics and environment.
All men *ARE* equal. Just different.
A fiver note is equal to five pound coins - doesn't make them
physically the same.
Equality is about worth. And I believe a moronic, half-witted runt is
worth exactly the same as me.