🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov15.230206.1025@eaglet.rain.com> rick@eaglet.rain.com (Rick Lindsley) writes:
>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

*ALL* laws?  And you follow 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.

Laws relating to alcohol are not relating to RIGHTS.  And these are also
describing a condition (being a child) that EVERYONE passes.  Being/not
being a minority such as a black is not something one grows into or out
of.  As to rights, one does not gain full rights of citizenship till
they become 21 (18 in some states).  And this covers all people, not
just a specified group.  Poor analogy you try here.  Try again.

>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? :)

Above doesn't even warrent comment.  But then, common sense has never
been a strong point of statists (or socialists)...

>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.

Nope again.  *YOU* want lines drawn setting up special classes.
I want them removed.

Big difference. 

Laws (those worth having) provide sanctions for behavior where one person
infringes on the rights of another:  You don't take for yourself someting
someone else has worked to obtain.  You don't force someone to serve
you against their will, and without compensation, etc. 

I want it even ALL ways. Not artifically 'tuned'.  But that is oh-so
incorrect politically and also out of fashion these days, isn't it.
Soooooo un-cool, as well.  That's life ...

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket"