In a previous discussion with the disruptive-deist Ginx (ahem), he and an article I linked too (which I still think he didn't read), both brought up in debate a relevant point about laws of coercion. Specifically how there are many laws that are in fact rarely if ever enforced; thus leading to the conclusion any questioning of its wisdom and authority is or should be muted.
I remain skeptical of this claim.
That laws that threaten citizens with fines and jail time if they don't comply with them, aren't enforced doesn't mean we should accept them no matter the perceived or literal value of the cause. In the case of the mandatory long-form census (the root of the debate) very few people are fined and still less thrown in prison.
While this should undoubtedly be kept in mind in building a measured argument against it, my question is why have it all? If our state is so enlightened and is in firm belief of their work, why must it collect what it must under the threat of coercion? Does it not trust its own citizens?
Why would a citizen be willing to be exposed to being arbitrarily singled out by a possibly vindictive or whimsical government out to make an example of someone? For we know it can happen, right?
The mere fact the government is willing, to create such a law as "deterrent" for people thinking in not complying with its designs, is a valid reason to question its motives and decisions to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.