🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Wggm6.4051$S25.60786@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas  <spamfilter@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote:
>[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]
>
>In <Zt%l6.65747$_D.12140610@typhoon.we.rr.com>, "Keith Paxton"
><neodoesntw@ntspamknac.com> wrote:
>
>On the contrary -- compliance with seat belt laws, for example, was
>substantial prior to enforcement.  (It's better with enforcement, but is
>still not universal.)  Laws help to establish minimum standards of
>social conduct.

Sorry, but you just hit a personal hot button with this comment.
What gives anyone the right to tell me what I can and can't do
within my own car that doesn't cause direct harm to anyone else?
I do wear seat belts and I do believe that they significantly
decrease the risk of injury or death in automobile accidents, but
I still believe strongly that no one should be compelling me to
wear seat belts.  I suppose that the public health argument could
be made (higher rates of injury => higher costs for medicaid, etc.
if people get in accidents and then can't afford doctors' fees),
but the connection is pretty tenuous.

In any case, there's a distinct difference between port-scanning
and any sort of life-threatening activity, so this whole discussion
is getting totally irrelevant.

I would never argue that port-scanning someone else's hosts without
permission is a 'polite' or 'friendly' thing to do, but I would
still say that there's not a huge justification for laws against
something like this which is not destructive in and of itself,
but which 'might' lead to destructive or otherwise criminal activity,
especially since there is no serious threat to life or property as
the result of a portscan.