Statism/Theocracy What's the difference--LDS

[snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>]

Attila said:
> In <v03007808ae7af10d0afb@[207.167.93.63]>, on 10/04/96 
>    at 09:03 AM, "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> said:
>         Frankly, we do not wish curfews, and there never were curfews 
>     before the immense immigration into the area, mostly from So. CA,

>         However, these people, Mormons (some good, some inactive) and

          (inactive=bad?)

>         well, that prompted the curfew, but they found it also 
>     maintained the semblance of peacful family oriented community
>     among the lost and alienated families --so it is apparently here
>     to stay.  other than the fact we are telling tparents who do not 
>     wish to manage their children they must keep them home or take them
>     somewhere, what does the law do? 

<snip>

> .Telling people when they
> .can be on public streets and when they cannot is no different than telling
> .them what they can read and what they cannot.
>         that was my initial reaction -you wouldn't tell me that!  but 
>     consider the right of society to legislate and  regulate in the 
>     common good, despite both my and your abhorence of law in an of
>     itself.  
     
GAK is for the "common good", after all, it is only the people who are
doing wrong that will be hurt by having their data scanned by the Government,
it is just maintaining decency standards.  
> 
>         it is an effective means of forcing parents who do not seem to 
>     care, or parents who wish to shift their responsibilities to social
>     workers who are not available, they have a responsibility.  what
>     happens to the violators --few are arrested, they are asked to go
>     home. there is no great wild-west roundup of teenaged cattle! any
>     who resist or commit minor vandalism are taken to the center --but,

     For most of my life I have had insomnia, and when I was in my early
to mid teens, I used to wait until my parents had gone to sleep, and 
go out and wander the neighborhood, Mostly alone, sometimes until 2 or
3 in the morning (during the summer, not when I had to be at school).

     Why _shouldn't_ I be allowed to do this? In my case, it was against 
my parents wishes, but I still harmed nothing, commited no crime (there 
was no curfew where I lived). My father almost caught me (he knew I did it
from time to time, but figured as long as I wasn't causing trouble, he 
wouldn't be able to stop me). Just because other children cause trouble, why
should _mine_ be restricted? Just because it gives the APPERANCE OF MORALITY?

     I'll say that again, THE APREARANCE OF MORALITY. Forcing someone to 
follow a given set of rules doesn't make that person moral, it makes them 
a slave. Morality only comes in when there is choice. 

     Also, the waters are calm on the surface, but what about underneath? 
What is going on behind closed doors? Here in the outerworld, we have 
fornication on the streets, but we know who is doing it, we _know_ who the 
problems are. Do you?   

>         unlike every other city I have seen, they do not mix the 
>     'miscreants' with the juvenile delinquents, repeat offenders, and 
>     the teenagers who are obviously on their way to the dead end.

     Almost all teenagers are on their way to a dead end. It is called 
"Adulthood", which if you look at it a certain way looks a lot like 
A Dolt Hood. 

     I don't necessarily think it is a bad idea to mix kids (mid to late 
teens) picked up for "real" crimes in with "real"  criminals, but then
I don't think that staying out late should be a crime. 

     Fear can be a powerful motivator.  

>         what is the penalty?  call their parents for a ride home.  they
>     are not fingerprinted and mugged, etc.  very few are required to
>     even see a social worker.  consistent repeat offenders eventually
>     enter the system --as they should.

     Really, I should be in "the system" because I like wandering around at
night? 
  
     Real libertarian of you. 

> .I still urge Attila to rethink his enthusiastic support of state-enforced
> .curfews, or state-imposed bans on alcohol (not that I recall him supporting
> .this particular law), etc.
>         actually, the curfew laws are local laws, and I reluctantly
>     decided to support curfew laws for minors after looking at the
>     means and results --it does provide an early point of intercepting
>     behavioral patterns with the *parent* being the judge and warder,
>     and hopefully give those parents a wakeup call they need to guide
>     their children as they are fast approaching adulthood where they
>     are fully accountable.

     Mr. May's usage of "state" means "governing body" rather than "state of
the union". But you knew that. There are many other "interception" points 
that can be utilized to identify children whose parents are not providing 
them with the state approved ideological underpinings, Let's take a look 
at some shall we? 

     Your children do well in school correct? Straight A's in most classes? 
it is obvious that you are driving your children too hard, teaching them tp
be overacheivers. You shouldn't push them so hard, they should stay at the 
level of their classmates. 

     Ok, that was hyperbole. Seriously tho', if you talk to many "social 
workers" <pardon me--*spit*> they can give you certain behavior patterns that
indicate a child is being abused in the home. They could (and I am sure some 
would like to) go so far as to include certain types of religious and political
indoctrination as abuse. 

     If the state (city/county) mandates it, and it gives the apperance of 
"stopping crime", or simply provides a smooth surface, is it worth it? 

         alcohol is available at any large grocery store; it has not been
>     banned to any extent since prohibition, but not necessarily avail-
>     able in rural areas.  

    Not in your area, and maybe not my LDS's, but try Pell City Alabama.
Same mentality, different name on the church house door. 

>         I do not think you can prohibit anything from adults --drugs,

     Can, or should? Let _me_ run the DEA, and give me a good budget, and 
I will stop it. Yeah, people will die, but they are dying anyway. 

>         certainly we are justified in ranting against any abridgement of 
>     our right to freely (and privately) communicate, freedom of 
>     *peaceful* assembly, a truly free press --certainly not the New 
>     World Order blinded press printing the official line dictated by
>     political/economic Boss Tweeds of what is effectively an oligarchy 
>     --they do not possess common principles sufficient to even be
>     called 'national socialists' (fascists). 

     Yet you argue for the abridgement of freedoms based on age. Does the 
state know better than a parent when a minor is old enough to be out after
midnight?

>         or, there is a government like Washington where they are trying
>     to, and may anyway, implement President Hillary's "It takes a 
>     Global Village" so the state can dictate everything and raise a new
>     generation of robots in the mold of their revisionist history which
>     we are now suffering by attrition....   

     Which really only pisses most people off because it is a different
revisionist history than they want taught. 

>         If Bubba and the President are reelected with a Democratic 
>     Congress, we will not recognize our once almost free country in

     Or, he will push too far, too fast, and it will snap back in his face.

     Remember, Klinton can't do it without congressional approval. 


Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com