Gilmore on the "computer health certificate" plan

Posted Oct 10, 2010 1:24 UTC (Sun) by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
In reply to: Gilmore on the "computer health certificate" plan by drag
Parent article: Gilmore on the "computer health certificate" plan

> Laws should only exist in society when they serve to protect the liberty of the members of the society and to resolve potential interpersonal conflicts before they get out of hand.
> That is the freedom to do what you want ends when you begin to inflict violence and harm onto other people or violate their property.
> That's all there really is to it and there should not be done much beyond that.

In almost every society on Earth laws go well beyond that. Even in the US. That's because the vast majority of people want to actually live together, not just next to each other. This is admittedly annoying for the few who would preferred to be left alone (and not pay any taxes, among others).

Gilmore on the "computer health certificate" plan

Posted Oct 10, 2010 4:18 UTC (Sun) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (3 responses)

I said the way things should be. Not the way they are. :)

Most governments end up trying to engage in social engineering to try to manipulate everybody else into outcomes that the 'elites' tend to favor for whatever reason. The natural trend always ends up with larger and more pervasive government with more and more complex rules as time goes buy. Eventually you end up with a melt down and then the cycle restarts. People, historically, don't tend to do much until they start getting hungry (as in lack of food) and otherwise will tolerate almost anything. So it usually has to get really bad before any significant change in direction of politics sets it.

It's also a unfortunate reality that most of live in a place were it's vastly easier to get new laws passed then it is to correct old mistakes. Human nature, I suppose.

Gilmore on the "computer health certificate" plan

Posted Oct 10, 2010 11:17 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (2 responses)

The thing is, your 'should' disagrees with that of most of the rest of the world. Classical liberals disagree with you. In the US, the libertarians never exceed a few percent of the vote, and outside the US they don't even exist as a political platform.

Whatever global politics 'should' be, I don't think it should be something that almost nobody wants.

And this is *way* off-topic for LWN.

Gilmore on the "computer health certificate" plan

Posted Oct 10, 2010 21:55 UTC (Sun) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (1 responses)

Whether or not everybody agrees with me is, frankly, irrelevant. (Not to mention your wrong on multiple levels.)

If I followed your logic I would be a moron to be anything other then a happy Windows user.

Gilmore on the "computer health certificate" plan

Posted Oct 12, 2010 9:54 UTC (Tue) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]

> Whether or not everybody agrees with me is, frankly, irrelevant.

For better or for worse, "majority" is a concept central to democracy. By design, any extremely minor opinion is irrelevant to democracies. For better or for worse.

> If I followed your logic I would be a moron to be anything other then a happy Windows user.

To be thorough do not forget to also make a car analogy. It is typically useful to explain politics.