"Do Something!" No, I think it is better to wait


Avoiding state coercion
In my entry Revisiting Profiling a few days ago, I argued that the state can't be enabled to go after people for not complying with all the cultural rules. So it shouldn't surprise you that I strongly disagree with this OpinionJournal.com article.

After 9/11 the consensus that we had to do something sank quickly in the swamps of partisanship; wiretapping and incarcerating terrorists became mainly a debate game for politicians and newspaper writers. If there is a sliver of silver lining in the Virginia Tech aftermath, it is that there seems to be a willingness to look hard at the status quo--no matter what assumptions pre-existed about rights, privacy, stigma, coercion, security or whether we can blame it on Karl Rove. On Tuesday, for example, the Chronicle of Higher Education published a piece by a professor titled, "Why It's OK to Rat on Other Students." Here, as with the message screaming off the pages of the Safe School report, the exhortation is to do something, no matter what the intimidations of the law or received wisdom.

What this means is that some college presidents, and their lawyers, rather than rolling over before those confidentiality laws, should tell some aggrieved student who is refusing to take the medication prescribed for his psychosis: So sue! Let a judge decide whether 32 deaths warrant a reconsideration of these restrictions.

As well, there is no hope unless a light goes off in the collective socket of our elected politicians, which illumines just how much their oh-so-needed laws siphon time and energy out of the daily lives of institutional leaders who a long time ago had the common sense and personal authority to chuck out a Cho Seung-Hui.

Right now Christopher Hitchens has published a book (excerpted at Slate) proclaiming that ALL religion is dangerous. Of course his assumptions religious faith don't necessarily apply to all faiths, they don't even every version of the Big Three, but it doesn't stop him from making pronouncements. Another author, Daniel C. Dennett,goes even farther to denounce faith and religious practice. I get the distinct feeling that if either of these gentlemen had their way, professing faith would be proof of insanity.

Do we let them decide?

If I choose to eat the foods that Chicago and New York have recently outlawed, am I insane?

Should I be reported?

Of course, we have decades of evidence to show us just how effective citizen reporting can be.

We could talk about the War on Drugs.

Or the War on Child Abuse.

Or the War on Child Support.

Or the War on Illegal Immigration.

Let's not forget the grandaddy of them all, the War on Income waged by the IRS through it's unwilling proxies, your bank and credit card companies.

We can't afford to let the state "investigate" dissenting thought. And we certainly can't afford to give the state coercive power over thought.

Where will it stop?

Potentially, disagreeing with the Administration of the future could mean that you are forcibly medicated. And it won't if "your guys" win, because the next time the "bad guys" could get in.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Thu - April 26, 2007 at 05:27 AM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved