Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!decvax!cca!mirror!misc!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Seat belt law justification
Message-ID: <117200177@inmet>
Date: Sun, 28-Sep-86 18:10:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.117200177
Posted: Sun Sep 28 18:10:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 08:08:21 EDT
References: <492@dshovax.UUCP>
Lines: 28
Nf-ID: #R:dshovax.UUCP:-49200:inmet:117200177:000:1154
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!nrh    Sep 28 18:10:00 1986


Just one sour note to add to Don Kinzer's posting about the erosion
of rights in the name of "society's benefit".

When people propose certain sorts of laws and it is shown that the
justification they advance would lead to lots of BAD
laws if consistently applied, they poo-poo the idea.

The "poo-poo" has a way of boomeranging:
we're seeing this now with the anti-porn types, arguing that 
since society requires people not to drive drunk, it should 
require them not to look at porn: either one may lead to 
bodily harm and therefore...

I remember reading about a speech given in Congress during the debate
on whether to have an Income Tax.  Somebody argued that it was a bad
idea, because taxes might get as high as (he stopped to try to imagine this!)
FIVE PERCENT!!!

Of course, he was poo-poo'ed.

And then there was the bunch that argued that the Social Security Number
wouldn't be known except to the Taxing authorities, (and, of course,
the employers, and, of course, the banks, and now, of course, 
dentists in New Jersey, who, under a new law, would be required to
print the SS# on to dental bridges).

The principle is important, folks...