A few things that piss me off
So after my regular morning ritual of reading the news and checking some other websites, I have been reminded of a few things that I really don't like much.
1) Americans that spell the country of Colombia as "Columbia".
2) Newspapers that misquote or deliberately misrepresent a politician in order to make a headline sound more sensational.
3) Politicians that are too stupid and disrespectful to have the jobs that they do.
4) Censorship that goes too far.
5) Workplace managers having the authority to monitor staff's emails and internet usage, and to be able to dismiss staff for what they deem as inappropriate, even when no laws have been broken.
And, one additional thing that doesn't piss me off as such, but does get me thinking, is this, and is related to the issue of personal liberty and civic responsibility:
A guy in Western Australia wants a few days to himself, away from the world and his regular life. So he decides to go walking. Having been reported as missing by someone else, the police and State Emergency Services begin a coslty and resource-intensive search for him. A few days later a family friend recognises him in a shopping mall and notifies police, whereby our protagonist is then told there was a huge search for him. He apologises for all the fuss.
There are now some people saying that this guy should pay for the cost of the search if he is able to.
This is what gets me thinking. The guy broke no laws, never asked for the search to happen, and was simply choosing to be master of his own actions. So should he be responsible for the resources used up in the subsequent search?
This reminds me of something I was thinking about last week. In today's explored world, people generally can't choose to be stateless. The vast majority of people are born a citizen of somewhere, and while this does afford you the use of certain government services, it also forces you to meet obligations to that government (taxes, adhering to laws etc) or face consequences of liberty. And the only way to choose to end this is to go become a citizen of another sovereign nation which comes with its own set of rights and responsibilities (and some people don't even get that choice). Nowhere is it possible to officially "drop off the system", sustain yourself on your own bit of land, and give up all responsibilities and adherence to any government (and of course giving up the benefits that come from being a citizen of that government's nation too). All land on earth has a claim already laid to it that is recognised by the international community. Of course, there are some groups of people around the world (various independence movements) that are fighting for this very same self-autonomy and their claim to a bit of land right now, but even then the only way they can get it is by figthing force, which is beyond the means of an individual and may be beyond their morals too.
There are indeed limits to personal liberty.
1) Americans that spell the country of Colombia as "Columbia".
2) Newspapers that misquote or deliberately misrepresent a politician in order to make a headline sound more sensational.
3) Politicians that are too stupid and disrespectful to have the jobs that they do.
4) Censorship that goes too far.
5) Workplace managers having the authority to monitor staff's emails and internet usage, and to be able to dismiss staff for what they deem as inappropriate, even when no laws have been broken.
And, one additional thing that doesn't piss me off as such, but does get me thinking, is this, and is related to the issue of personal liberty and civic responsibility:
A guy in Western Australia wants a few days to himself, away from the world and his regular life. So he decides to go walking. Having been reported as missing by someone else, the police and State Emergency Services begin a coslty and resource-intensive search for him. A few days later a family friend recognises him in a shopping mall and notifies police, whereby our protagonist is then told there was a huge search for him. He apologises for all the fuss.
There are now some people saying that this guy should pay for the cost of the search if he is able to.
This is what gets me thinking. The guy broke no laws, never asked for the search to happen, and was simply choosing to be master of his own actions. So should he be responsible for the resources used up in the subsequent search?
This reminds me of something I was thinking about last week. In today's explored world, people generally can't choose to be stateless. The vast majority of people are born a citizen of somewhere, and while this does afford you the use of certain government services, it also forces you to meet obligations to that government (taxes, adhering to laws etc) or face consequences of liberty. And the only way to choose to end this is to go become a citizen of another sovereign nation which comes with its own set of rights and responsibilities (and some people don't even get that choice). Nowhere is it possible to officially "drop off the system", sustain yourself on your own bit of land, and give up all responsibilities and adherence to any government (and of course giving up the benefits that come from being a citizen of that government's nation too). All land on earth has a claim already laid to it that is recognised by the international community. Of course, there are some groups of people around the world (various independence movements) that are fighting for this very same self-autonomy and their claim to a bit of land right now, but even then the only way they can get it is by figthing force, which is beyond the means of an individual and may be beyond their morals too.
There are indeed limits to personal liberty.
4 Comments:
What about someone who buys a plot of land somewhere fairly remote but also fertile, say in the middle of Tasmania, and lives out the rest of their days as a subsistence farmer? They could trade with their neighbours for goods they can't produce themselves, and because they have no income and don't purchase goods or services, they pay no tax. They might get hit with council or water fees or whatever, but if they have a water tank and pick an area that's sufficiently remote, they should be okay. Surely that's an option?
Yeah for sure there are ways that you can come closer to full self-determination in a practical sense, but there are still limits, and in a principle sense you are still subject to laws you never asked to sign up for.
As two examples from recent memory, there were those guys from Pitcairn Island, a remote outpost of 47 people and pretty much self-sustaining island in all practical senses, and is almost as far away from Britain as you can get geographically speaking. Yet it was discovered that a local custom that these guys did, which was endorsed by more or less everyone on the island (although personally I am disgusted by that custom) was contrary to British law, and since the place was technically still a British colony, they had to be charged and prosecuted, and were found guilty, even though the removal of these men from the workforce on the tiny island caused a lot of damage.
The second example was that aboriginal guy who recently got sentenced by a Northern Territory judge for a remarkably similar offence, also in accordance with local tribal custom and also against Northern Territory law, a legal system that these aboriginies never asked to be signed up to. (Although it could be argued that these aboriginies will happily take the benefits from being citizens of Australia in the northern territory, and therefore they should realise that in exchange for that they need to adhere to the laws. Also in this case, the man got a remarkably light sentence from the judge because of the different cultures thing.)
In your example Roslyn of the farmer in Tasmania, they are still subject to an outside code of laws should an intruder come on to their land and start stealing something. The farmer may not want the protection of the police, yet he could still lose his liberty and go to jail himself should he decide to take the law into his own hands with the intruder.
I guess I am looking at this more from a theoretical point of view than a practical point of view. And at the other extreme of what we have now, an entire world of anarchy probably wouldn't be a great place to live in either. Maybe the answer is it should be easier for individuals or small groups to set up their own tiny soveriegn nations. That would solve it I think.
...and it is not only americans, you have indians, canadians, french, all kind of people mispelling the name, maybe for germans can be acceptable as they have KOLUMBIEN for Colombia, but in most cases it is simply ignorance. Maybe is time to review those geography lessons??
1) Americans that spell the country of Colombia as "Columbia".
Dan, it's funny you write this. I just received an email from a customer who spelt 'Columbia' (the university) as 'Colombia' :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home