🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov6.172823.1015@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>Those who would oppose registration because it would make it easier to
>enforce laws should direct their attention to the laws, not the
>registration. Otherwise they are advocating making law violation
>easier.  The proper place to oppose "improper" laws is in the
>law-making process, and subsequently in the courts, not in the
>"registration" arena, unless registration itself is, say,
>unconstitutional.
----
	The problem with your scenario is improper laws and improper 
inforcement.  Example was George Bush's Gag Rule.  While it was
declared unconstitutional, while it was in effect, it was causing
measurable risk to those violating the law.  If we had devices in
every medical consultation room and had the technology to monitor
every conversation, alot of people would be in jail now that might
not be otherwise.  Admittedly being in jail for a few months might
only be a minor inconvenience to you as a necessity for upholding
the law, but consider the next case:
	In the 1600's in salem, they had something called a 'witch hunt'.  Again,
it was not legal and was wrong, but its victims were dead.  Under the
current regime, there is a great amount of anti-drug hysteria (reminiscent
of the 1600's witch hunts in many ways).  The penalties can include
forfeiture of your life as you now know it.  They can take away your
house, your car -- cause you to lose your job, etc. -- all without 
a criminal prosecution.  Who is to say that in the future, with
more complete monitoring, they might not assume your guilt based on
conversations you have with others, etc.  This is *ignoring* the
rightness or wrongness of drug possession/use.  They don't have to prove
that -- just claim your belongings are drug tainted.  Of course morally,
the problem is worse if you disagree with such laws.

>Those who argue against registration on grounds that it might make it
>easier for the government to enforce laws are on very shaky moral
>and ethical grounds, in my view.
---
	Suppose they had laws supporting black slavery.  Suppose they had
laws saying Jews should be rounded up and killed?  Are you telling me
that you would support and obey those laws until they are 'officially
changed'?  

	In regard to your view of others being on shaky moral and ethical
grounds -- this may be true -- anyone who takes personal responsibility
for their own actions always is.  But to advocate that the government is
the final arbitreur of right/wrong is showing a LACK of personal
morals and ethics.


>David Sternlight


-wat-
--
 --- "If women really earned fifty-nine cents to the dollar for the same
 work as men, what business could compete effectively by hiring men at
 any level?"    -- Dr. Warren Farrell