Thursday, February 21, 2008

Yes, exactly.

I am reminded of something over which I was arguing with some dolt, a short time ago, when reading that bit over at Billy's place.

I really have no respect for most people I must deal with on a day-to-day basis, and I haven't for quite some time, as illustrated by the thick-headed follower in that last link.

The crux of that sentiment directly stems from some of the idiocy I must routinely endure in a professional sense, what with attempting to comply with certain building codes, some of which are onerous to the point of stupidity.

The important part of the argument here is that, simply because it is the law, doesn't mean that it's moral.

Does anyone else understand this?

I know that I can name about half a dozen people, most of whom I don't know in any traditional sense of word, but whose writings have illustrated this point;

"What the common man longs for in this world, before and above all his other longings, is the simplest and most ignominious sort of peace: the peace of a trusty in a well-managed penitentiary. He is willing to sacrifice everything else to it. He puts it above his dignity and he puts it above his pride. Above all, he puts it above his liberty. The fact, perhaps, explains his veneration for policemen, in all the forms they take--his belief that there is a mysterious sanctity in law, however absurd it may be in fact." (My emphasis)

As far as I'm concerned, passing a law to control something is about the most arcane and abstract way at attempting to deal with any issue, whether it's a real, or more likely, imagined problem.

Really, this is something to think about. Hard.

Labels: , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home