Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site calgary.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!alberta!calgary!radford
From: radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: defining racism
Message-ID: <47@calgary.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 17-Jan-86 02:31:41 EST
Article-I.D.: calgary.47
Posted: Fri Jan 17 02:31:41 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Jan-86 12:14:14 EST
References: <336@l5.UUCP> <28200531@inmet.UUCP> <302@gargoyle.UUCP>
Organization: University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta
Lines: 22

> ... Dave Hudson found that if he could apply the label
> "compulsion" to seatbelt laws, people wouldn't like them as much as
> if the laws were labeled "encouragement" [to wear belts].  But
> evidently "compulsion" does not mean that people will be forced at
> gunpoint to buckle up; it means that if you are unlucky enough to be
> caught unbuckled by the police, you will be given a warning or
> required to pay a fine of $10 to $50, and if you don't pay the fine
> you may suffer some consequences the worst of which is going to jail
> for a short while.  But this thought process can be short-circuited
> by describing the seatbelt law as "compulsion". 
> -- 
> Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes

And what happens if you don't acquiesce in the state imprisoning you? The
state will kill you if necessary. Seat-belt laws ARE examples of 
"compulsion" by any reasonable definition, as are all laws. The power
of governments rests on the ability to confiscate property, imprison,
and kill, by virtue of a preponderance of physical force. Do-gooders who
advocate laws "for people's own good" don't like to think of it this way,
but they are really saying "Buckle-up or I'll kill you".

      Radford Neal