Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ut-sally.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!raghu
From: raghu@ut-sally.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan)
Newsgroups: net.nlang.india
Subject: Re: Government and individual choice
Message-ID: <3870@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Dec-85 03:36:26 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.3870
Posted: Tue Dec 24 03:36:26 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Dec-85 03:33:50 EST
References: <3817@ut-sally.UUCP> <826@sfmag.UUCP>
Reply-To: raghu@sally.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan)
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 36
Keywords: individual vs. society

In article <826@sfmag.UUCP> rajeev@sfmag.UUCP (S.Rajeev) writes:
 
 -------------------------------
>ut-sally!raghu writes:
 
>>  Is it good for the state to have power in matters that represent individual 
>> choice? .....
>> .... there is a presupposition that the state knows what
>> is 'good' and that makes me uncomfortable ....
------------------------------------
 
>comments quoted above. I think he errs in assuming that the state
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>is, of necessity, stupid/evil/'bad' (I know these are fashionable
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>libertarian notions, but that doesn't make them true!) There are
>several facts I'd like to point out:
>

I don't really assume that the state is, of necessity or otherwise, evil/
stupid/'bad' (despite the tempting fashionability of these libertarian
notions!). All I wish to point out is that any regulation is with respect
to a set of supposedly 'good' behaviour or values. My reservations are
due to the fact that there may be no such characterization that holds
across the board, and in any event, it is undesirable to give any group
or entity (the state, for example) - no matter how well-intentioned - the 
right to enforce its views on what is 'good'. 

Rajeev goes on to point out (as did Subba Rao of Maryland, in an earlier
posting) that it is often necessary to have a common order imposed by
some (hopefully enlightened and 'disinterested') authority. I agree. I
mean, to do otherwise would be to repudiate every law! (But wait a minute -
that means no lawyers, right? The idea does have attractions ... :-))

The bottom line is, I think, that any law is a price we pay for some
societal necessity. It is a price that should be examined very carefully.