home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: pnw.general
- Path: sparky!uunet!tessi!eaglet!rick
- From: rick@eaglet.rain.com (Rick Lindsley)
- Subject: Re: Wanted: Post election comments on Prop. 9
- Message-ID: <1992Nov15.230206.1025@eaglet.rain.com>
- Organization: Quagmire Annex
- References: <1992Nov13.213438.17996@pcx.ncd.com> <1802@rwing.UUCP> <1992Nov15.020914.6915@scic.intel.com> <1803@rwing.UUCP>
- Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:02:06 GMT
- Lines: 27
-
- pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
-
- But this wasn't the point I was addressing, and I think you know it.
- On that point, you seem to support making certain acts illegal if done
- to person A, but not if done to person B. I support making the given
- acts UNIFORMLY illegal, or not illegal. Not writing laws to benefit
- certain people exclusively. I hope you see the difference, without
- conjuring up some sort of red herring.
-
- But isn't that the basis of all laws -- certain acts are illegal with
- person A, and not with person B? It's illegal to sell alcohol to
- someone who is 17, but not someone who is 27. Similarly it might be
- illegal (varies by state!) to have sex with a 17 year old, but not with
- a 27 year old. Would you advocate a "uniform" alcohol law, or age of
- consent? Either you can or can't sell alcohol, or you can or can't have
- sex.
-
- And for a ridiculous strawman, it's illegal to take somebody's car on a
- joy ride .. unless of course they said you could. All these
- exceptions!! Can't we agree on a uniform application of the law? :)
-
- I don't think uniform is what you really want. All laws divide people
- into two classes, the haves and the havenots. All you want is to draw
- the line in a different place than the people arguing with you. In
- other words, your definition of uniform differs with theirs.
-
- Rick
-