Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site grkermit.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!larry
From: larry@grkermit.UUCP (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Tyranny of the Majority
Message-ID: <581@grkermit.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Aug-83 13:34:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: grkermit.581
Posted: Wed Aug 17 13:34:45 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Aug-83 20:11:09 EDT
References: <854@utcsstat.UUCP>, <358@hou5f.UUCP> <880@utcsstat.UUCP>, <578@grkermit.UUCP> <1750@allegra.UUCP>
Organization: GenRad Inc., Concord, MA
Lines: 45

From Alan Driscoll:
"To say that something should be banned because it's against societal
norm's, or because it's offensive to most people, is the one of the
worst arguments against anything I've ever heard.  It really worries
me that this argument sounds reasonable to you.

Wake up!  Majorities have a long history of being wrong, typically at
the expense of innocent people."

I think you are confusing two issues, namely, "What should I as an
idividual support in terms of legislation?", and "What things does the
society have the right to legislate about?"

Certainly an INDIVIDUAL should not accept what is the societal norm
just because it is that, but the discussion was about what things the
government should have the right to do, in the general case.  All I was
saying was that IN GENERAL, the government has the right to regulate
what is done in public places.  

I really think you misunderstood me, and I agree with most of what you
said, but I have a hard time dealing with the following dilemna:

I think the government has the right to prevent people from randomly
firing guns in public places, even though they were to fire it straight
up and if it was filled with blanks.  I hope you would agree.  Now the
question is, what general principle does the govt. invoke to do this?
It's really not a public safety issue, since nobody's getting hurt by a
gun filled with blanks.  I think the only answer is that a vast
majority of the people find in intolerable.  But then the question
arises, what if instead of firing a gun, it was people of different
races holding hands, I can't think of anything that differentiates the
two, except MY personal opinion.  Both are based on personal annoyance
by the activity in question.  

HOWEVER, the problem with the gun is physiological, most of the people
are frightened by the loud noise, the cannot be unlearned.  The
question of mixed races is a societal one, and can be changed.

My views on this subject are not as hard and fast as they appear, and I
would appreciate any comments on the above flame.

-- 
Larry Kolodney 
{linus decvax}!genrad!grkermit!larry
(ARPA)  rms.g.lkk@mit-ai